Markan priority and the synoptic gospels

by 88JM 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  88JM

  breakfast of champions - the reasons for the dates are given in the insight book - I will try and post them later if I can.

  • Dating of Matthew from the Insight book: Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.
  • Dating of Luke from the Insight book: It was evidently before writing the book of Acts that Luke completed his Gospel. (Ac 1:1, 2) Since he had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem at the end of the apostle’s third missionary journey (Ac 21:15-17), he would have been in a good position to trace accurately the things pertaining to Jesus Christ in the very land where the Son of God had carried out his activity. Following Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem and during Paul’s later imprisonment in Caesarea, Luke would have had many opportunities to interview eyewitnesses and to consult written records. So it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel may have been written at Caesarea sometime during Paul’s confinement there for about two years (c. 56-58 C.E.).—Ac 21:30-33; 23:26-35; 24:27.

  Guys, I acknowledge your discussion around Mark's gospel, but the dating of Mark seems to be one thing that the WTBTS and scholars agree on. It's the dating of the other books that is the problem - the WTBTS seems determined to place those gospels before Mark's.
• 

  glenster

  You or I see a minority stance--the GB sees an opportunity to feign
  exclusiveness. Besides the Insight books, a NWT study Bible might have the
  details.
• 

  mP

  @Soon

  Like I said, 8 is an abrupt end, so maybe the original ending from the emd of the scroll is lost. In that case, it makes little sense to talk about omissions, since we don't know what the original included

  @mP

  Perhaps, we will never know. GIven what we actually have, we must be the literal of what it says. We cant wish and want it to say something extra when the text is so brief. Its madness to pretend it says resurrection. Basically if Mark was not immpressed or motivated to write about the resurrection either they were not special back then and everybody was doing it or it never happened. How do we explain that all the supposed hundreds of thousands of xians who were impressed and believed and yet nobody wrote about it for 40 + years ?
• 

  PSacramento

  IT depends on IF you take into account the writngs of the early Church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus.

  According to Irenaeus:

  “Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

  Eusebius wrting what Papias said:

  “And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”
• 

  transhuman68

  88JM: Grab this PDF from Internet Archives and you will understand why Watchtower is wrong with these dates. They take the Bible at face value, when it is much more complex than it seems.

  http://archive.org/details/BartD.Ehrman-ForgedWritingInTheNameOfGod-WhyTheBiblesAuthors
• 

  mP

  PSacremento:

  According to Irenaeus:

  “Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

  Eusebius wrting w

  mP:

  Interestingly Iraeneus also says that Jesus died of old age and not at 30 years. WIth that in mind you cant trust anything he says. Its funny on of the grand pillars of christian doctors and history has his facts totally wrong.

  You can verify this by checking wiki or any bible scholar. Im not making this stuff up.
• 

  soontobe

  Interestingly Iraeneus also says that Jesus died of old age and not at 30 years.

  He did not mean that in a literally, chronological sense.

  Its funny on of the grand pillars of christian doctors and history has his facts totally wrong.

  No, he had his facts in agreement with the other sources on the literal age of Jesus. His point was that Jesus encompassed all the ages of human life in his span of time in this world, and that he was between the age of 30 and 50--old enough to be "of age" to act as a teacher.

  Ireneaus knew what the written Gospels said. He was one of the first to name them as being the four recognized as canonical in later times.

  The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit.

  That's from the same work you referred to: Against Heresies.
• 

  88JM

  Thanks for the PDF transhuman68 - I've been looking forward to reading some Bart Ehrman. Will be reading this later
• 

  Pistoff

  So Christians were never anything except a resurrection people.

  This is completely at odds with historical Jesus scholars and research.

  It is not until Paul begins writing in the 50's that we get the christology that has persisted to our day.
• 

  Sulla

  Pistoff, you are aware that Paul's writings are the ealiest available? So, we don't have anything prior to those letters. The general idea is that Paul is the closest we get to the original and emerging Church, the gospels (for example) being much later works written to/by established communities.

  And, in just about the first thing we have, we have Paul talking about the resurrection.