Cavaradossi, Roman Interloper, ftbond, NitaMacdonald1930, SOL, etomaria, Kostyantyn, Benny, Ivanov325, DocH, andria, Joe Smith, CanuckK8, AJG80, gzt
4464 Registered Users |
|
4464 Members
26 Forums
30142 Topics
373591 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#133290 - 03/08/05 12:02 AM
Re: The Markan priority the undisputable conclusion of Historical-Critcism
|
Member
Registered: 12/07/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: Meriden, CT
|
Originally posted by tobit: Glad to see a modern catholic commentary question the Q theory and reduce it to theory rather than fact nowhere is Q mentioned by the church fathers This is from a forum in which is discussed the aramaic versions...
Dear friends, I know there has been a lot of senseless debate on the issue of which came first, the Greek Chicken or the Aramaic Egg. Well I would like to set the record straight as far as the earliest Church record of such an issue. It is recorded that Saint Matthew Levi Bar Khalpi transcribed all of "the Master's Sayings" in their original Hebrew. And later others translated as best they could this compilation into Koine Greek so as to create their Gospel narratives.
Now later others took this to mean that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and later others translated it into Greek as best they could....but this is not what the testimony says at all. Matthew most probably was Messiah's scribe, and wrote down His lessons, parables, phrases and debates with Jewish Rabbis, Scribes, Priests, Commoners and Gentiles as they happened or afterwards at the day's end.
It may be that later when he wrote his Gospel narrative he too used his Hebrew notes and created his Gospel as we know it. We know that the Judeo Nazaraeans had a Gospel in Hebrew, called the Gospel of the Nazaraeans...could our Matthew be the Translation? Matthew's Book of Sayings was written in Jerusalem and used by others afterwards. Most likely the Greek Matthew Narrative was written and published at Caesarea. We do know that Mark wrote his Gospel Narrative based upon Saint Peter's preaching. And I suppose Peter used Matthew's Hebrew Book of the Messiah's Sayings as well. The Gospel of Mark was compiled in Rome and written in Alexandria, were it was published and circulated from.
Luke seems to have used both Matthew's Book of Sayings as well as the Hebrew Gospel, Mark's Greek Gospel and other eye witness accounts. He wrote his Gospel Narrative in Greek at Syrian Antioch, where it was published and circulated.
John wrote his Gospel Narrative in Ephesos as a filler, in order to complete the history and teachings of Jesus not recorded by Matthew or buy any other. His work was written in Koine Greek from the start. This is the united testimony of the Ancient Church from Gaul to Egypt, From Greece to Asia, from Syria to Judea. There is no other testimony other than this. So much for aramaic primacy...as there is no ancient Syrian or Mesopotamian tradition that contradicts this...that is until long after the Church of the East separated Herself from Antioch, and I do mean long afterwards...like the 17th Century.
It is from a bishop in one of the Eastern churches. Interesting. -ray
_________________________
-ray
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#133293 - 03/11/05 09:22 PM
Re: The Markan priority the undisputable conclusion of Historical-Critcism
|
Junior Member
Registered: 01/10/05
Posts: 215
Loc: Britain
|
I've not the time (nor inclination!) to read every word of the thread, but Markan Priority isn't going to be challenged based upon internal evidence.
Let's look at it from the point of view of the chap whose done that story on McDonald's: Super-size Me!
Matthew is the meatier gospel-- it's heavier-- it's more Jewish (evidence for a later date for sure!) and fancier (another point for lateness). Wouldn't the organisers of the canon be impressed by Matthew?!?! :-)
Mark on the other hand is leaner (pre-editorial earlyness?)-- full of potshots ("and immediately" - Gk. <i>euthus</i>)-- the language is spottier (evidence for an early date?). Why wouldn't the organisers be less impressed with Mark?
The second Gospel has most of the hall<b>Mark</b>s of an early date... wins hands down as far as I am concerned. He he he :-)
The Canon is about 'best foot forward.' Literarily Mark is not best foot forward. Full stop. with every blessing, wg
_________________________
a fool for Christ, like St Xenia
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#133294 - 03/12/05 03:53 AM
Re: The Markan priority the undisputable conclusion of Historical-Critcism
|
Member
Registered: 02/16/05
Posts: 809
Loc: Oxford, UK
|
I dont intend to start an argument on this subject but I will seize on two of your points. 1) The Jewishness of Matthew is more evidence for its primacy than against and 2) Mark is an excellent writer. His Greek is often odd I admit but his use of Immediately for example is incredibly well crafted. Mark is a story teller, he uses immediately to draw his listeners in and to move the pace of the story along. This creates a contrast with the post centre-section part of the gospel where immediately is used sparingly. It slows the narrative and draws the implied reader into the passion, blow by blow. Its all part of Mark's narrative Christology. Before I began reading Theology I used to think Mark was well not much, but Mark's gospel is so well crafted and conveys so much that I've come to really appreciate his genius.
PS) The organisers of the Canon had a long tradition before them when they finally got down to codification in the 4th century. The arrangement we have today is mainly due to St Jerome's adoption of Origen's arrangement. However, prior to this St Clement of Alexandria gave the order Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. This is what neo-griesbachian scholars argue for (and having read some of their work I'm inclined to agree).
_________________________
"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|