Keithg29, brick22, BensGal, Lady Byzantine, Eli Akim, Kirk, Jerzy, Rusyn53, Lou, evergreen, old orthodox, PresJuliana, Heracleides, Addai, Jablinka
3134 Registered Users |
|
11 registered
(Stephen Barrow, Byzantine TX, Amadeus, ByzBob, Ung-Certez, Magyar, theophilus, Stephanos I, Memo Rodriguez, Terry Bohannon, 1 invisible)
and 237 anonymous users online.
|
|
The Byzantine Forum also hosts these private forums:
The Deacon’s Door (for deacons and deacon
candidates and their wives), the Orthodox Christian
Studies Forum (for currently enrolled students only of the distance education programs
offered by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America) and
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Clergy Forum
(for clergy, religious, and clergy wives of that Church). Contact an administrator for
access.
|
|
3134 Members
20 Forums
21730 Topics
283963 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#235061 - 05/16/07 05:30 PM
Re: How we got the Bible
[Re: Elijahmaria]
|
Athanasius The L
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Registered: 06/29/06
Posts: 721
Loc: Houston, TX
|
I submit that it really doesn't matter all that much whether Matthew or Mark was written first (there are even a few scholars who argue that John was the first Gospel written). There are all sorts of really good arguments (in the scholarly sense) for asserting that Mark was written first, and personally, that is my own view. However, there is no way to prove that Mark was written first. The typical view is that Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark, and had access to other sources (Q-that which is common to Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, and some even suggest M-that which is only in Matthew, and L-that which is only in Luke). Of course, these Q, M, and L sources are not extant-if they ever even existed, which there are good arguments against their existence. A view that is far less common, but is out there, is that Mark worked from Matthew and shortened it-for whatever reasons he had. In any case, the Church has included four Gospels in the canon of Holy Scripture. All are authoritative-regardless of the order in which they were written. My own personal opinion is that they were written in this order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. However, at the end of the day, each is Holy Scripture. I value none of the four over the other three. Furthermore, when we stand in final judgment before God, I do not believe that He will ask us for our particular solutions to the so-called "Synoptic Problem."
Ryan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#235091 - 05/16/07 08:55 PM
Re: How we got the Bible
[Re: Dr. Eric]
|
EdHash
Member
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 693
Loc: USA
|
Ryan,
I want to make clear a point that you already brought up.
Q is like the "Missing Link." It is often talked about, but no one can provide the essential proof that it ever existed.
Dr. Eric. Bravo! it probably never existed. Spong (there i go again) claims (or suggests) that Matthew took material from Paul's earlier writings for his five teaching blocks and added it to Mark's skeletal Gospel. The Q source was actually Matthew's additions. But this is all theory. No one knows, but i thought it is a cool alternative to source criticism because it uses Christian worship (and its needs) as the brewing kettle for the origins of New Testament Gospels. Except for John. by the time the Christ-believers were excommunicated from the synagogues the Torah and Jewish feasts were no longer the 'model' for structuring Scripture. in fact, "Christ"ians (so later called) remodeled their Scripture service in a number of ways. Whereas the Jews read the Torah first then followed by the lections from the Prophets, the Christians read the lesser important lections (from Acts and Paul and others) first then the Gospel. Anything to be different. By the time the Church accepted all four canonical Gospels, and since the Jewish liturgical year and feasts were no longer the template for lections order, all four could be read continuously ever day of the week! this is some of my thinking. But do we really know? I don't think so.
Eddie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#235092 - 05/16/07 08:56 PM
Re: How we got the Bible
[Re: Elijahmaria]
|
EdHash
Member
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 693
Loc: USA
|
they are correct in their history of the compilation of the NT. take it from someone with a Master's in this area.
thanx for sharing.
Much Love,
Jonn Professional theologians may have come to the conclusion that you were taught in your degree process but the Catholic Church has not revised her understanding that the Gospel of Matthew is historically the first. Mary
many of the Catholic theologians i met believe Mark was written first. I think Augustine claimed that Matthew was written first. I guess there is room in the Church for various opinions.
Eddie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#235093 - 05/16/07 09:02 PM
Re: How we got the Bible
[Re: Elijahmaria]
|
EdHash
Member
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 693
Loc: USA
|
This argument over sequence surely does matter in terms of support for the Catholic teaching of Scripture and the teachings from Tradition.
There is an agenda served in the arguments over sequence and it is not a Catholic, nor is it an Orthodox, agenda.
Mary
Mary,
Byzcaths and Orthodox may have Bibles that have he following order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) but their liturgical lections begin on Pascha with John! This order IS a Catholic and Orthodox tradition. Bibles as printed texts came later after the Church had multitudes of lectionaries. My byzcath friends tell me that they don't actually read from a Bible (text) but instead read from a lectionary which has lections in order of the liturgical calendar. Do you know of any Catholic or Orthodox church that reads its lections from a Bible instead of a lectionary? The authentic tradition of Catholics and orthodox (and of the early church) was the reading of lectionaries. With that being said, what was the agenda of putting Matthew first in the Bible when single-text Scriptures became available? Until then there was no order to speak of except for what was done in Christian worship.
Eddie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#235101 - 05/16/07 09:17 PM
Re: How we got the Bible
[Re: Dr. Eric]
|
EdHash
Member
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 693
Loc: USA
|
I don't see the difference where the Scripture comes from.
At Assumption UGCC the Epistle is chanted from the RSV-CE.
And...
The Church year starts in September in the Eastern Churches.
The Scripture is from 1 Tim and Luke.
Dr. Eric. you bring up another related issue; the one about the beginning of the church year. I know the Byzcaths and orthodox begin their new year on September 1 but is that really the new liturgical year or just the new Byzantine civil year?
The Jews had/have the same problem. When they returned from Babylon, the New year changed too.
From your worship the Scripture cycle begins on Pascha with John 1:1ff, not September 1. So Byzantines Do have the same problem as the Jews - having TWO new years.
The importance of byzcath's observance of Pascha and the fact that the cycle of readings begin with John demonstrates more where they are putting their money (so to speak).
Does September 1 make a big splash in the lectionary cycle as does Pascha? what do you think?
Eddie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Father Deacon Ed, theophan
|
