Library
|
||||
|
||||
|
Which Gospel was written First ?
New Research Confirms Early Church Fathers Were Right How the Gospels Were Written Early Church Fathers
Mark’s Gospel based on Matthew : Internal Evidence
I. Poor Greek II. Peter’s “Mistakes”
III.
Length B. Fits a One Day Preaching Seminar Time period. C. Mark is Longer in Individual Sections and this is evidence that he is adding to Matthew. D. The fact Mark’s overall length is shorter does NOT mean his Gospel came first. IV. It is very unusual for Mark not to be in agreement ( following) Matthew or else Luke. V. Very unlikely that someone could have presented a full day seminar on the Gospel message unless there had been a written text to base it on. Therefore, Mark was not first. VII. Peter and Mark by Dennis Barton
"Mark's memory" or Peter
Bad Markan Priority Arguments Refuted Temple Destruction "Development" of the Divinity of Jesus See Mark Alder’s web site and notes from a new book:
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
As to why we have two endings in Mark, may i suggest reading How the Gospels Were Written - By Dennis Barton – Free Pamplet How the Synoptic Problem Was Solved - By Dennis Barton – Free Pamplet See the Fathers on the Gospels here http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-go...quotations.htm http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-go...ick-quotes.htm http://www.christendom-awake.org/pag...n/exegesis.htm The Ratzinger Report; it deserves to be quoted in full because of its clarity and precision, penetrating, as it does, to the very roots of the problem: "The bond between the Bible and the Church has been broken... The historico-critical interpretation has certainly opened many and momentous possibilities for a better understanding of the biblical text. But, by its very nature, it can illumine it only in the historical dimension and not explain it in its present-day claim on us. Where it forgets this limit it becomes illogical and therefore also unscientific. But then one also forgets that the Bible as present and future can be understood only in vital association with the Church. The upshot is that one no longer reads it from the tradition of the Church as a point of departure, and with the Church, but, instead, one starts from the newest method that presents itself as 'scientific.' With some scholars this independence has become an outright opposition - so much so that for many the traditional faith of the Church no longer seems justified by critical exegesis but appears only as an obstacle to the authentic 'modern' understanding of Christianity. . . The separation of Church and Scripture tends to erode both from within. In fact, a church without a credible biblical foundation is only a chance historical product, one organization among others . . . But the Bible without the Church is also no longer the powerfully effective Word of God, but an assemblage of various historical sources, a collection of heterogeneous books from which one tries to draw, from the perspective of the present moment, whatever one considers useful. An exegesis in which the Bible no longer lives and is understood within the living organism of the Church becomes archeology: the dead bury their dead. in any case, the last word about the Word of God as Word of God does not in this conception belong to the legitimate pastors, the Magisterium, but to the expert, the professor with his ever-provisional results always subject to revisions."[29] Read more at http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-go...w-and-when.htm http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages...rd/annales.pdf john  |
||||
|
|
|
|
See
Church In History
|