Was Mark the First Gospel
Ever Written?
by Nic Samojluk
A "Spectrum" blog authored by Gary Chartier, entitled "The Meaning of Jesus" Posted on June 2nd, 2008, generated some comments, dealing with the correct way of interpreting the life and teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament Gospels. A comment posted by one of the bloggers prompted me to post a few comments of my own. It raised the question possed by modern scholars who seem to be determined to doubt the authenticidy of the Gospel writings. Most modern theologians argue that Mark was the first Gospel ever written. Of course, this is negated by the testimony of the Fathers of the Christian Church. I could not resist the temptation of setting the record straight. I believe that the weight of the evidence points to Matthew as the author of the first Gospel ever written, and directed at the first Jewish Christians. From the above named exchange of comments posted by the bloggers, I did select some and posted them on this forum for your benefit. To read this exchange of comments in its original "Spectrum" settings, click on the following Internet link: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2008/06/02/book_club_discussion_the_meaning_jesusall_welcome_join#comment-9011
*********
I would second that Bonnie,"Following his example of acceptance, forgiveness and love can bring peace to our lives now in the midst of chaos."But to do that I need to know who the real Jesus is. More than just an "example" I need a "personal" savior. My experience with the "historical Questers" is that they find an "unsupernatural, naturalistic" Jesus described by fallible "uninspired writers" that I personally really don't need and a Jesus that is foreign to The Jesus of scripture I know.Non the less,Thanks Gary for your very well written review.pat
"But to do that I need to know who the real Jesus is. More than just an "example" I need a "personal" savior."Pat, where and how do you expect to find this "real" Jesus? There is only the reports of the Gospel writers, none of who saw or talked with Jesus, and the earlier writers also had no "personal" relationship with Jesus.There is also no secular historical writer who ever saw or talked with Jesus.We are left with reports of reports and many of them were contrived, especially Matthew and Luke, who attempted to show that because of a magical confluence of events (none ever mentioned in any other place) that Jesus was the "promised" Messiah. They misused OT texts, wrote of an eclipse, a darkness, the curtain in the temple torn, none of which were ever documented by contemporary writers. These were written with a very strong agenda: Matthew, especially was written to confirm to the Jews that their long-awaited Messiah had come.So, good luck in finding a historical and "real" Jesus. If you accept the belief that God is love, when you look in the eyes of your firstborn, or a baby, you will find love. You will find love wherever you look for it; you will find Jesus in the face of the poor, the abused, the impoverished, the war-stricken and more. Look in the right places and you will find him.
I am sorry Elaine but I don't find a Savior in my first born,the face of the poor, the abused, the impoverished, the war-stricken and more. I do find those needing mercy and help however and "faint images" even though fallen of our Creator.And, I reject your "contrived" uninspired concepts of the scripture. So back to square one. There is no need to argue "in my book" because if the Bible I have is "contrived and incorrect" I do not want modern man's understanding of him. I don't need "their Jesus".I am much more likely to reject the ability, objectivity and accuracy of the "Questers" to be able to uncover "the truth" of Jesus 2000 yrs.after the fact.Regards,pat
Without the belief in the resurrection, Christianity is of only of value to mimic. The whole OT sacrificial system pointed to the need for Christ to die. His virgin birth was predicted, and is also important to Christianity and its value. To the "new Atheists", what is gained by not offering an alternative to Christ's atonement, just this life is all we have and can pass on to the next generation. Some of these "new Atheists" set up their own logic and science as what we should look to. What is gained? Paul's message of salvation and his own death in presenting Jesus is pretty powerful for those that want to do away with the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection . Thomas Jefferson tried to write his own Bible without the miracles to "humanize" Jesus. History will speak for itself, but I would say he was unsuccessful in stripping the NT of what he could not believe. The Gospel is too important to tinker with as some wish to do. The "new Atheists" offer nothing in its place. Until they do, we should be very fearful of lightly throwing "the baby out with the bathwater". Are their enigmas, paradoxs and conundrums in the Bible? Yes! Should we jump to disbelief because of them? I think not until someone has offered a better alternative, and promise of life after death.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson on 04 June 2008 at 9:53 "Pat, where and how do you expect to find this "real" Jesus? There is only the reports of the Gospel writers, none of who saw or talked with Jesus, and the earlier writers also had no "personal" relationship with Jesus. ... We are left with reports of reports and many of them were contrived,... "Elaine: I don't know what else you or the others have written about this issue, since I just started reading the content of this blog. Nevertheless, I must confess that I have a hard time believeing what you have just stated. Didn't Peter and John "saw or talked with Jesus'? Don't we have their testimonies about Jesus? Did not they testify about a risen Savior? And not only testify, but their belief was so strong, that all of Jesus' apostles preferred to die as martyrs rather than deny his resurrection. Are most people willing to die for their beliefs? Would you give your life for your beliefs, especially if you have some doubts about them. Millions of Christian martyrs would rather die than deny the resurrection!
Of the many martyrs who died because of their belief, how many saw or spoke with Jesus? There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the authors of Matthew, Mark and John, and the estimated dates of the writings would make it highly unlikely that they ever knew Jesus personally. There is consensus that Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and Paul wrote most, but not all of the epistles attributed to him.It was common in ancient times, to attach a well-known name to many writings to give it more authenticity. Peter and John may have seen and talked with Jesus, although we cannot be certain.
Paul, of course, never did, and he is foremost proponent of Christianity and it was revealed to him through Jesus Christ. The first to see Jesus after the Resurrection were women, and they did not write about it.Some question the ability of the disciples who were illiterate fishermen to write in such polished Greek. None of this should change the essential message of the NT which we have derived from someone who never saw him: Paul.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson on 01 July 2008 at 9:40:"Of the many martyrs who died because of their belief, how many saw or spoke with Jesus?"My Answer: All of Jesus' original disciples were martyrs. I hope you will agree with me that all of them did know the Lord face to face. "There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the authors of Matthew, Mark and John, and the estimated dates of the writings would make it highly unlikely that they ever knew Jesus personally.'My Answer: As far as my recollections goes, the church Fathers did believe that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, was the actual author of the Gospel bearing his name. The same is true about John. It is believed by scholars that Mark was a close friend of Peter, and thus well acquainted with the facts connected with the life of Jesus. Luke is believed to be a physician who accompanied Paul in his travels. He states in his Gospel that he researched the incidents connected with the life of Jesus very carefully. My question to you: Do historians need to have witnessed the events they report in their writings? Is it fair to impose a much higher standard on the Gospel writers than the one required from reputable historians? "There is consensus that Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and Paul wrote most, but not all of the epistles attributed to him."My Response: Paul wrote Romans between 56 and 58 AD. This was only a quarter of a century after Jesus' death. He was close enough to the date Jesus was crucified. The theory that Mark was the first Gospel written is not substantiated by the testimony of the church Fathers. There is enough evidence suggesting that Matthew was the first Gospel ever written, and it was directed at the Jewish Christians. According to the testimony of Origen, if my memory serves me right, a copy of his Gospel, written in Aramaic, was included in the library of Alexandria. If you need documentation, I think I can dig this out!"Some question the ability of the disciples who were illiterate fishermen to write in such polished Greek."My Answer: We have a man in Loma Linda who is probably the greatest SDA authority in biblical matters. His name is Bernard Taylor. I asked him about this, and his answer was that the Gospels were not written in polished classic Greek, but rather in the language of the common people. Dr. Taylor is one of the official translators of the newest English version of the Septuagint.
It all depends on whose history you agreee with.Yes, the church fathers believed many things that were later disproved. Also, there are no original autographs and more than 5,000 manuscripts with many variances. We cannot say for certain who the writers were, and all the scholars I have consulted are almost unanimous in agreeing that Mark's was the first gospel, from which Matthew and Luke derived much of their stories. Of interest is that the earliest NT writer, Paul, never seemed the least interested (had he not heard?) of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth; a story that both Matthew and Luke told with several contradictory versions. The martyrs who died for their faith are largely reported from secular sources. We do not, however, have any secular report of Jesus being seen or heard, only 2nd of 3rd hand reports.
Did Jesus' parents take him to Egypt after his birth? Did Herod order the killing of all male babies? We have no secular historian who even mentions these massive murders, which seems quite unlikely if it truly affected as many as the Bible writers reported. There are far too many unanswered questions: answers that are so different as to be no answers but raising more questions.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson on 02 July 2008 at 1:46:"It all depends on whose history you agreee with."My Answer: I prefer to trust the testimony of the early Christian writers, because they were much closer to the events. I tend to discount the opinions of agnostics and those determined to discredit the authenticity of biblical writers. Here is the testimony of some of the authorities I prefer to trust:"The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek.St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria.However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm "
*********
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language." Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent." Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels. Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13). http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html
*********
As to the time of its composition, there is little in the Gospel itself to indicate. It was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24), and some time after the events it records. The probability is that it was written between the years A.D. 60 and 65.http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/matthewgospelaccording.html Of course, you everybody is free to trust their chosen authorities!
Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
