On the other hand, form criticism (form Geschichte) claims that one can identify oral sources of the Gospels by means of occurrent parables, sayings, miracles, and pronouncement stories that appear in the Gospels: so-called Gattungen. Reconstructing how the accounts of Jesus' life might have existed in oral form seems to involve a good measure of speculation. That is why Paul Anderson has been particularly good at demonstrating the limitations of Bultmannian form-critical constructs. Rudolf Bultmann seems to be Anderson's primary target when he critiques form criticism; furthermore, Anderson has written an introduction for Bultmann's Johannine commentary, which offers constructive feedback on Bultmann's work.
Speaking of John's Gospel (the Fourth Gospel), Daniel B. Wallace reports that GJohn is also ninety-two percent unique. Why is John so different from the other Gospels? Why did Clement of Alexandria call GJohn the "spiritual Gospel"? Robert Mounce writes:
Because the fourth gospel is so different from the Synoptics, its authenticity is sometimes called into question. Many of the major themes and events of the first three gospels are missing in John, while at the same time it includes many significant episodes not mentioned by the others. The argument is that if the Synoptics present a clear picture of Jesus, then John's portrayal can hardly be accepted. Such criticisms overlook the varying purposes for which the four gospels were written. It was not John's purpose to supplement or correct the Synoptics. His gospel is a later, more reflective presentation of major themes in Jesus' life and ministry. If it is true, as many assert, that John's gospel grew out of his preaching ministry, its various differences from the Synoptics would not come as a surprise; they would, in fact, be expected.
Mounce, Robert H.; Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 1227-1229). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Mounce, Robert H.; Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 1224-1227). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
For more information, see https://www.georgefox.edu/journalonline/spring10/paul-anderson.html
27 comments:
Why did the GNT scholar change their view from earlier scholars, who feel that Matthew is 1st.
IMO, and this comes from memory and impressions from reading GNT literature, the traditional view is that Matthew was the 1st canonical Gospel. However, the historical-critical approach became popular from Thomas Hobbes through Barcuh Spinoza onward--Germany produced many critical scholars that utterly changed our collective view of Scripture. Hence, the use of "Geschichte" for the word "criticism," which refers to an historical approach to the Bible. In a nutshell, historical cricitism became popular and began to question traditional beliefs regarding the Bible. Now non-conservative scholars question about everything.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/07/three-three-standard-principles-of.html
I am still researching some of the points but Luke and John may be earlier than generally thought.
https://youtu.be/6WQXYgyhkOw
The points made here are hard to ignore respecting Luke.
I will listen to the video later, but you know that Carson suggests a date of ca. 85 CE for GJohn. Maybe it was written earlier since he does not mention the temple destruction in 70 CE. But we also have to contend with Luke's words (1:1-3):
"Since many have attempted to compile an account concerning the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning passed on to us, 3 it seemed best to me also—because I[a] have followed all things carefully from the beginning—to write them[b] down in orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus" (LEB)
Notley starts out with a heavily Trinitarian discourse: God revealed himself through Christ, etc. Standard fare. Looking over these points, he appears to favor "Lukan dependence" over Lukan priority." He "believes" Luke was written before Mark. Evidence please? :)
First, he admittedly gives an argumentum ex silentio. Secondly, I don't think Luke's use of limne proves that he wrote before Matthew or Mark, but I'm not making any dogmatic claims. On the Sea of Galilee, compare https://books.google.com/books?id=9ntwNm-tOogC&pg=PA37&dq=sea+of+galilee+gospel+of+luke&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHw5rnuc7ZAhUNzlMKHZHBDUg4ChDoAQhLMAY#v=onepage&q=sea%20of%20galilee%20gospel%20of%20luke&f=false
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_school_hypothesis
I agree that one cannot be dogmatic but their does seem to be an array of evidences that lead to certain assumptions.
This also looks useful:-
Mark's Gospel--Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order
By David Neville
Thought I should just turn our question on it's head.
Mark was written before Luke. Evidence please?
It has already been pointed out by others as to its very limited circulation.
I may order the second edition of the book you have linked but I think I need to get this one first:-
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-biblical-canon-lists-from-early-christianity-9780198792499?q=biblical%20canon%20lists&lang=en&cc=gb#
As recommended by Hurtado.
Are you suggesting that Luke's words (1:1-3) are referring to one of the gospels we have today?
What Motley mentions in passing is of more significance to me. John 6:1. If it is a later work aimed at "Christians" the need for a qualification seems superfluous. "Sea of Galilee" is probably fairly early,
I also find it interesting how GLuke stresses "the beginning".
I don't know which Gospel was written first, but the most popular line of evidence for Markan priority is the Q hypothesis. I also mentioned the stats in the OP that lead some to view Mark as first of the Synoptics. Additionally, when we look at their parallel accounts (Mt 5-7; Lk 6:20-26), it is difficult to understand why specific differences exist in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain. But again, I'm not taking sides in this debate.
Yes, Luke is possibly talking about Matthew or Mark. And if Luke wrote before Matthew, it's curious why Luke 11 Lord's Prayer differs so much from Matt 6:9-13. "Sea of Galilee" has been linked to the so-called Hebrew Gospel, which would possibly explain the language preferred by Matthew. We also have to consider his audience, which is probably to be differentiated from Luke's. Would not the Hebrew Gospel also be early?
On the beginning, compae Mk 1:1.
On Luke 1:1, many differing views exist, but here is what Meyer's NT states:
πολλοί] Christian writers, whose works for the most part are not preserved.[14] The apocryphal Gospels still extant are of a later date; Mark, however, is in any case meant to be included. The Gospel of Matthew too, in its present form which was then already in existence, cannot have remained unknown to Luke; and in using the word πολλοί he must have thought of it with others (see Introd. § 2), although not as an apostolic writing, because the πολλοί are distinct from the eye-witnesses, Luke 1:2.
Of course, others disagree, but some continue to accept Meyer's stance.
"The Gospel of Matthew too, in its present form which was then already in existence", does he have something to back this up?
No sure the Hebrew would be a gospel but conversations with the Pharisees may have been recorded by the scribes. We also have to consider what sources would have been utilised for the conversations with Pilate, king Herod etc.
I always thought Matthew Gospel in Greek came later and the Hebrew version was much earlier. Could he have translated a Greek version himself or did he have someone else do that for him? A Greek version coming later than Luke and Mark is not unreasonable.
One question is there any evidences from the early church fathers who came 1st? We know that the Muratorian manuscripts states 3rd the gospel of Luke, does it mean third in writing or the normal 3rd in placement in the NT?
Duncan,
Let's not overlook the main reason why I cited Meyer, namely, to show that certain scholars understand πολλοί in Luke 1:1 to mean Christian works not preserved or the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew or Mark that we currently have. I did not cite Meyer to prove that Matthew existed before Luke although I think that is a plausible view.
His comment on Luke 1:1 does not adduce evidence for Matthew's existence: Meyer probably deals with the subject elsewhere. The usual procedure for determining when a Gospel was written is the examination of internal and external evidence. None of the proposed Gospel dates are given without some rationale based on evidence of some type.
Here is Blomberg's take: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/introduction-matthew/new-testament-gospels-acts/craig-blomberg
When I referred to the Hebrew Gospel, I was referring to a particular work. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html
Philip,
Jerome (the Vulgate translator) passes on the account of a Hebrew Matthew. We don't know for sure if such a Gospel actually existed, but it might have. One problem is that Matthew's Gospel doesn't seem like a translation of an underlying Hebrew text (substrate). We just don't know at this point.
The church fathers don't settle this question although the traditional first Gospel for the church was Matthew. However, since the Reformation and the European Enlightenment, everything has been questioned. The statement from the Muratorian Canon is also less than clear.
Philip, here is something for consideration.
While there are undoubtedly Aramaisms in Matthew, R.C.H. Lenski concludes: "these few instances are scarcely sufficient to convince the thoughtful reader that Matthew's Gospel as we now have it is a translation and not an original production." (Qt. in John F. Walvoord's _Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come_. Pages 10-11.)
Edgar;
My understanding was that Origen, believed Matthew came 1st, he does say from tradition of course. But this is prior to Jerome at the start of the 3rd century. I am under the impression that Papias mentioned that Matthew came 1st as well.
A useful link in a Hebrew text. But a possibility seems overlooked in the commentary regarding the Egyptians origins of father, mother & son.
Also if Hebrew is evident to bar kokhba and beyond it does not prove much by calling it a Hebrew gospel.
Philip,
"The early church fathers are unanimous in assigning Matthew an early date" (Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the NT, page 155).
However, Carson and Moo point out that the patristic evidence is not lent much credence in contemporary biblical studies. You are correct that the fathers tend to place Matthew first but most contemporary scholars disagree. They want to give Mark priority. Historians are a skeptical lot.
Dunca,
Referring to the holy spirit as "mother," the website states, evidently derives from ruach (ruah) being feminine like hokhmah.
Also, Hebrew Gospel or Gospel Accolrding to the Hebrews was the name given the work by the ancients. That is just how people have long referred to the document.
It could be that Mark own source is earlier than Matthew after all the Apostle Peter referred to him as my son-1 Peter 5:13. Maybe Peter had written things down and Mark compiled them into his writings, of course he would have tried to verify the things Peter had written but if he was unable to, he may have omitted it. So he would have a much shorter Gospel than Matthew and Luke. As for Mark, early sources such as Papias Origen, Tertullian say he got his info from Peter. Did he just write down what Peter dictated to him. Or could he have writings of Peter as his source. All speculation on my part, and fun as well, but certainly a earlier source, than Matthew. So I am saying the source of Marks Gospel would sound earlier than Matthew Gospel.
Wisdom being a she does not make it a mother.
Duncan: Agreed, being a "she" (grammatically) does not/would not automatically make the holy spirit a mother. However, the note from the website was trying to explain why some of the fathers used "mother" for the spirit. That is a possible explanation. One of the most thorough studies on the issue, despite being heavily Trinitarian, is Yves Congar's book, I Believe in the Holy Spirit.
Philip: It is fun to think about these matters, and numerous hypotheses have been set forth. A distinguished scholar named Alfred Plummer believes Mark likely received his material from Peter although he does not think Peter was Mark's only source. Nor do other scholars think that way. See https://books.google.com/books?id=JWpbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR19&dq=did+mark+get+his+information+from+peter&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjew8bRpNTZAhWMdN8KHU71BkM4ChDoAQg5MAM#v=onepage&q=did%20mark%20get%20his%20information%20from%20peter&f=false
I think the fathers should be taken seriously, although it's problematic to read them uncritically. But the source of Mark's Gospel could have been earlier than Matthew's Gospel. I agree.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fxwTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=siriac+hermetica&source=bl&ots=nBDUuoktcU&sig=snbAHkPOXot7mT7BTIqu2gNpJB8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMqP-kp9bZAhXID8AKHd7NB2wQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Hermetic&f=false
Evidence of Egyptian thinking.
Post a Comment