The Gospels

[Slappo]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857378' date='May 4 2009, 06:33 AM']They are ordered by length, longest to shortest. Same with the Epistles that follow.[/quote]

Except for his writings to the Hebrews

[Slappo]

FYI I voted Matthew because Augustine votes Matthew

[HisChildForever]

I learned in an Introduction to the Bible course that St. Mark was written first. This also explains why it is the shortest and why it reads more like an "outline" (if that makes sense).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='StColette' post='1857479' date='May 4 2009, 12:37 PM']If I remember correctly, in 1911 the Biblical Pontifical Commission said that the Gospel of Matthew was the one which was written first.[/quote]

This is known for a fact? I figured a case could be made for Matthew or Mark being first. Luke obviously comes later because he says as much in his introduction and John is clearly more developed theologically. I'm surprised the Commission actually gives a final answer... but if that's the case, works for me.

Of course, we could agree that they were all written outside of time and be done with it.

Edited May 4, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1857497' date='May 4 2009, 12:56 PM']Except for his writings to the Hebrews

[/quote]

Possibly because it's uncertain if this one was actually comes from Paul.

[VoTeckam]

[url="http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf"]http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf[/url]

This pamphlet outlines the coucil's findings.

I was unaware that this was the Church's belief. The idea that Matthew's gospel was authored first was never presented to me in my studies (for that matter nothing besides the 2 source hypothesis was presented). Honestly, I am shoving this onto my "who cares" shelf. The synoptic gospels were tramitted orally for so many years it is kind of irrelevant which was written down first.

Edited May 4, 2009 by VoTeckam

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857598' date='May 4 2009, 01:52 PM']This is known for a fact? I figured a case could be made for Matthew or Mark being first. Luke obviously comes later because he says as much in his introduction and John is clearly more developed theologically. I'm surprised the Commission actually gives a final answer... but if that's the case, works for me.

Of course, we could agree that they were all written outside of time and be done with it. [/quote]

This is from a pamplet on the replies of the Biblical Pontifical Commission regarding the Gospels

Whether, bearing in mind the universal and constant tradition of the Church dating from the first centuries, which explicit testimonies of the Fathers, the inscriptions of the codices of the Gospels, the oldest version of the sacred books as well as their catalogues transmitted to us by the holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, Supreme Pontiffs and the Councils, and finally, the liturgical usages of the Eastern and Western Church clearly record, it may and must be affirmed with certainty that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is in truth the author of the Gospel published under his name.

Answer: In the affirmative

Order of Composition and Language -2. Whether the opinion must be considered as sufficiently supported by the testimony of tradition, which holds that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and that he wrote the first Gospel in the native dialect then in use by the Jews of Palestine, for whom this work was intended.”

Answer: in the affirmative to both parts

[url="http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf"]http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf[/url]

but... I will say that there has been a lot further research since 1911 soo...

[CatherineM]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857598' date='May 4 2009, 12:52 PM']This is known for a fact? I figured a case could be made for Matthew or Mark being first. Luke obviously comes later because he says as much in his introduction and John is clearly more developed theologically. I'm surprised the Commission actually gives a final answer... but if that's the case, works for me.

Of course, we could agree that they were all written outside of time and be done with it. [/quote]

That 1911 paper was not infallible, and was the result of Protestant theologians questioning the provenance based on new form criticism study. At the time the church was trying to grasp onto a fading belief that all the books of the bible were written by the "named" author. We now know that is often not the case. They were from Matthew or Paul's camp or discipleship so to speak. We didn't want to believe that Mark's gospel could have been written before Matthew's because Matthew was an Apostle, and Mark was simply one of Peter's or Paul's disciples (depending on how you viewed the theology).

That's why Pope Pius opened up Catholic biblical scholarship several decades later. He was able to realize that nothing in our faith is threatened by modern scholarship or new archeological evidence. Traditionalists who believe that every word in the bible is to be interpreted literally, like Evangelicals do, can't allow themselves to have the faith in our faith that Pope Pius did. Vatican II set a framework for how biblical scholarship should be done because this is obviously an area where misinterpretation can lead to trouble.

Most Catholic theologians, including most who are currently on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe in the Two-Source Hypothesis meaning that Mark was written first, rather than the Two-Gospel Hypothesis meaning that Matthew was first, because it answers most (but far from all) of the source issues of the Synoptic Problem. There will be no way to definitively prove either hypothesis until, and unless, we discover some ancient manuscript that can be carbon dated or definitively authenticated. I'm hopeful that someday the Q document, or maybe the Aramaic version of Matthew or a Proto-Mark will be discovered hidden in the desert. Until then, it gives biblical scholars something to write papers on.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='StColette' post='1857619' date='May 4 2009, 01:22 PM']This is from a pamplet on the replies of the Biblical Pontifical Commission regarding the Gospels

Whether, bearing in mind the universal and constant tradition of the Church dating from the first centuries, which explicit testimonies of the Fathers, the inscriptions of the codices of the Gospels, the oldest version of the sacred books as well as their catalogues transmitted to us by the holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, Supreme Pontiffs and the Councils, and finally, the liturgical usages of the Eastern and Western Church clearly record, it may and must be affirmed with certainty that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is in truth the author of the Gospel published under his name.

Answer: In the affirmative

Order of Composition and Language -2. Whether the opinion must be considered as sufficiently supported by the testimony of tradition, which holds that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and that he wrote the first Gospel in the native dialect then in use by the Jews of Palestine, for whom this work was intended.”

Answer: in the affirmative to both parts

[url="http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf"]http://www.pjpiisoe.org/pamphlets/270US.pdf[/url]

but... I will say that there has been a lot further research since 1911 soo...[/quote]

That's not what is being taught in our seminary.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1857624' date='May 4 2009, 12:28 PM']That's not what is being taught in our seminary.[/quote]
Nor does it need to be taught, because it is not a dogmatic truth. No one's salvation depends upon knowing which of the four Gospels was written first and which was written last.

[StColette]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1857624' date='May 4 2009, 02:28 PM']That's not what is being taught in our seminary.[/quote]

I was taught about the 1911 Commission, Q Theory, 2 Source Theory, 2 Gospel Theory, etc. all at Franciscan lol

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StColette' post='1857633' date='May 4 2009, 12:35 PM']I was taught about the 1911 Commission, Q Theory, 2 Source Theory, 2 Gospel Theory, etc. all at Franciscan lol[/quote]
Dr. Minto mentioned the decisions of the old Biblical Commission in my MA Biblical Foundations class, but he didn't seem to hold their views in high regard.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857630' date='May 4 2009, 02:32 PM']Nor does it need to be taught, because it is not a dogmatic truth. No one's salvation depends upon knowing which of the four Gospels was written first and which was written last.[/quote]

I don't believe I said that someone's salvation depends upon it. Louisville merely asked what the BPC said in 1911 so I gave him what they said lol

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857630' date='May 4 2009, 02:32 PM']Nor does it need to be taught, because it is not a dogmatic truth. No one's salvation depends upon knowing which of the four Gospels was written first and which was written last.[/quote]

This is true, but I think it's good to have a basic idea of the time frame if not the actual order they were written in. It really helps when explaining the faith to those who state "But the Gospels were written [i]so long[/i] after Jesus." This way we can say "Actually no. The first Gospel was written thirty years after Christ's Ascension." (Not sure if 'thirty years' is 100% accurate, someone can correct me there...I was just giving an example.)

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857636' date='May 4 2009, 02:36 PM']Dr. Minto mentioned the decisions of the old Biblical Commission in my MA Biblical Foundations class, but he didn't seem to hold their views in high regard.[/quote]

I didn't say that he did, I said he merely taught on it as well as the other possible theories.