The Gospels

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855714' date='May 2 2009, 05:20 PM']I voted for [i]Mark[/i], but as far as I am concerned which Gospel was written first is not all that important.[/quote]
Ditto. And may I add, "who cares?"

[Hassan]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1855838' date='May 2 2009, 06:48 PM']Ditto. And may I add, "who cares?"[/quote]


Prolly Mark for one

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1855822' date='May 2 2009, 07:37 PM']Rome has not spoken infalliably about this, as you should know, mostly because it isn't that important.[/quote]

You're right that Rome hasn't spoken infallibly about which evangelist wrote first, but she has spoken authoritatively about the matter, and, according to the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i]:

"All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops." (CIC 754)

Edited May 3, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855824' date='May 2 2009, 07:39 PM']A man's salvation is not dependent upon knowing which Gospel was written first.

It is important not to confuse pious customs with dogmatic faith.[/quote]

There are many things that the Church has not defined dogmatically, but this does this mean that that faithful are free to reject those teachings.

[tinytherese]

Now I'm far from being a biblical scholar, but I can see how looking into the time frame for when a gospel may have been written during would be significant. I've always been told that St. Mark's was written first, but then again if it was St. Matthew afterall my faith life will not be shaken.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1856077' date='May 2 2009, 10:12 PM']You're right that Rome hasn't spoken infallibly about which evangelist wrote first, but she has spoken authoritatively about the matter, and, according to the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i]:

"All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops." (CIC 754)[/quote]

I only have one further thing to say, because it is obvious that you are incapable of listening to any true discourse on the subject. You are entitled to be as scrupulous and rigid as you would like to, but people who read this forum may not have adequate theological background to understand that the document from the Pontifical Biblical Commision from 100 years ago is not the "gospel" on this subject. Pope Pius XII opened Catholic biblical scholarship to real scholarship, that was extended even further by Vatican II. Most Catholic theologians now hold with Marcan priority, but recognize that we will probably never know for sure, and it doesn't really matter, except to get people talking about and thinking about when, where, and for whom, the New Testament writings were written.

I have no idea why you even care about this topic to the point of throwing Canon Law at people who don't agree with you. Why would you want to slam things into people's faces? Real, learned theologians like Raymond Brown for example, don't agree with you. I suspect that if they heard someone like you saying that they were violating Canon Law by doing true, approved scholarship, they would laugh.

[Resurrexi]

I'm not a biblical scholar. I just know what the Magisterium has said on the subject, but I don't think I'm going to be wrong by going with what the Magisterium has said. I've read Divino Afflante and Dei Verbum and don't see how they contradict or make void what the Biblical Commission has said.

Peace to you.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1856133' date='May 2 2009, 11:54 PM']Real, learned theologians like Raymond Brown for example, don't agree with you.[/quote]

Raymond Brown was publicly criticized by the Archbishop of Baltimore...

Edited May 3, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1856186' date='May 2 2009, 11:32 PM']Raymond Brown was publicly criticized by the Archbishop of Baltimore...[/quote]

Yet he was named to the Pontifical Biblical Commission by Pope Paul VI and re-appointed by John Paul II. You just dislike him because he teaches against interpreting the bible literally as the Evangelicals do.

[Resurrexi]

Or maybe it's because I don't read ecclesiastical documents from the last 50 years in a vacuum.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1855782' date='May 2 2009, 07:42 PM']The Pope said that "all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission." No Pope or [b]Ecumenical Council[/b] ( ) has repealed these decisions, nor has the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. As I said earlier, If the Church has now decided that one is free to hold that St. Mark was written first, then one is certainly free to do so, but, as far as I am aware, the Church has not said anything of the sort.[/quote]

So, what has the Biblical Pontifical Commission decided? I don't see an apparent connection between what one believes to be the chronological order of the Gospels (and other books of Scripture) and our faith and morals. I may choose to believe John was written first, but the primary objection to that wouldn't be based on heresy but my denial of plain logic.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855714' date='May 2 2009, 10:20 PM']I voted for [i]Mark[/i], but as far as I am concerned which Gospel was written first is not all that important.[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855749' date='May 2 2009, 11:16 PM']Which Gospel was written first is not all that important, but what is important is that a person accept the inspired and canonical nature of the Church's fourfold Gospel tradition.[/quote]
Agreed

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855794' date='May 2 2009, 11:58 PM']Matthew is put first because it can be divided into five discourses that symbolically correspond to the five books of Moses. That said, none of the Church Fathers ever made the order in which the Gospels may have been written a matter of dogmatic faith.[/quote]
I did not know that. Very cool. Thanks, Apo!

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1855804' date='May 3 2009, 12:20 AM']What makes you think that they put them in chronological order? That would be the least important determining factor when discussing theology.[/quote]
St Paul's letters aren't in chronological order, either, as far as I'm aware.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1857368' date='May 4 2009, 10:20 AM']St Paul's letters aren't in chronological order, either, as far as I'm aware.[/quote]

They are ordered by length, longest to shortest. Same with the Epistles that follow.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857378' date='May 4 2009, 02:33 PM']They are ordered by length, longest to shortest. Same with the Epistles that follow.[/quote]
Thanks. I thought I'd heard something to that effect.

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857361' date='May 4 2009, 09:06 AM']So, what has the Biblical Pontifical Commission decided?[/quote]

If I remember correctly, in 1911 the Biblical Pontifical Commission said that the Gospel of Matthew was the one which was written first.