Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

Mark is more reliable.¹ Even if you were to completely discredit Mark², something is more than nothing. You cannot reasonably compare the accuracy of one document that exists with one that is only speculated to exist. Anybody that tries to tell you differently is selling something³. Answering your stated question is really that simple. In the world of ...


8

There is no conclusive internal evidence but there are plenty of pointers that lend themselves to the conclusion that Peter is in some way the source, for example this blog post lists some examples: Peter is the first and last named disciple in Mark (1:16; 16:7). Peter is mentioned more than any other disciple in Mark. Peter appears in some of the ...


7

Here is the various internal evidence that I am aware of, as well as evidence that indicates a "persecuted audience" which fits the idea of this being written after Peter's death at the hands of Nero. Evidence That could Indicate Peter as an Original Source It is possible to see connections in the simple, quick and unpolished nature of this gospel and in ...


5

In my (limited) understanding, the key arguments put forward for the order Mark > Luke > Matthew (i.e., for "Matthean posteriority") are: the literary observation that Matthew appears to collect, collate, and develop traditions found in Luke (e.g., what appears in Matt 5-7 in the "Sermon on the Mount" is found at various points, and in a more "primitive" ...


4

The Tetragrammaton, or "YHWH" which is often pronounced "Yahweh" or "Jehovah", is the proper name of the God of the Bible. The word "Elohim" or any variation thereof ("El", "Eloh", "Elah".. etc) is a title which means simply "God" or more precisely, "Mighty Ones" (in the case of "Elohim", or in the singular for all the others) and not a proper name. Just as ...


4

The existence of Q was first inferred by 19th century German theologians from a statement made by the 2nd century bishop Papias of Hierapolis. Papias is quoted in Eusebius' History of the Church as saying, "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." (History of the Church, 3.39.16). The Germans pointed ...


3

You have asked about the order being Mark > Luke > Matthew. My answer below addresses the order of Luke being written before even Mark. This arrangement is called Lukan Priority. It is very much a minority opinion. As you know, the prevailing theory in New Testament studies is Markan Priority. It has the most support among scholars. A minority position ...


3

The Idea in Brief After his conversion and through the ministrations of Barnabas, Paul (then Saul) had met "the apostles" in Jerusalem (to include Cephas for fifteen days) who had provided him first-hand accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later, Paul traveled on his missionary journeys with Barnabas, John Mark and Luke, who also had access to ...


3

Apparently the Theory is not from Analysis of Pre-Extant Texts If C. Marvin Pate is correct in his Romans commentary statements (no page numbers shown in that Google Book link, but it is under the section where he discusses those verses in the commentary), then the two main reasons this becomes a question at all for this passage has nothing to do with any ...


2

Lots of scholars look for alternatives to the traditional Mark-Q priority, but in my view without success. Dennis R. MacDonald wrote a well-researched thesis in Two Shipwrecked Gospels that Luke knew not only Mark, but also Matthew. That would have caused an even bigger stir among critical scholars than his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, but ...


2

Is it at all possible that these two books were written completely independent of one another by the individual prompting of the Holy Spirit? From a Christian perspective, the Holy Spirit is indeed the true Author of God's word and merely works through men by divine inspiration (as affirmed by Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21). Given this, is it not quite feasible ...


1

The significance of the various uses of the names Yahweh and Elohim can be better understood when we realise that often when the author uses the name Yahweh, the focus is on Judah, and whenever he uses the name Elohim, the focus tends to be on the northern kingdom of Israel. When the author uses the name Yahweh, he is speaking of an anthropomorphic God with ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible