11

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 most ...


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

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 ...


8

In my 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" form at ...


7

This post will review: The positive case (arguments that Mark was written 2nd or 3rd) The negative case (a critical assessment of arguments used to advance Markan Priority) An abductive case (is there a better answer?) Additionally, it aims to provide an extensive library of links to online and printed resources on this subject (disclaimer--some of those ...


6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


6

There is no reason to believe that Jesus used the sparrow analogy exactly one time in his ministry. As a preacher who went from town to town, he likely repeated many of his messages and had no reason to keep the examples strictly identical to one another. In Matthew, the sparrow analogy is in the context of the sending of the 12 apostles. In Luke, the ...


5

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 ...


5

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 ...


5

The almost universal consensus of critical scholars is that the two creation accounts are from two different sources. The account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Priestly Source. The second account, in Genesis 2:4b-25 is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Yahwist. Leon R. Kass ...


4

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 (...


4

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 ...


4

While Is.24-27 is still often called the ‘Isaiah apocalypse’ because of its several eschatological motifs, Joseph Blenkinsopp states plainly that much of these chapters has little in common with the apocalyptic genre. Instead he describes them as composed of "a number of loosely connected passages of uneven length, the sequence of which manifests no ...


4

Despite the translations of the ESV and other versions (e.g. KJV), the Greek Ἑβραΐς (Ebrais) in the New Testament can mean either "Aramaic" or "Hebrew". There are not separate words in Greek for the two languages. (By Jesus' time, Aramaic seems to have to supplanted Hebrew to a greater or lesser extent as the spoken language in Palestine.)* The obvious ...


3

There is no certain evidence that Q is earlier than Mark, although parts of it could be. Some scholars of the 'Q' hypothesis believe they have identified three distinct layers in Q, written over a period of time. The Didache, a community rule-manual of discipline on church order, is widely regarded as having existed, at least in its earliest form, earlier ...


3

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 ...


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

The conservative view is that the Gospel of Thomas dates from the second century. This is largely because it demonstrates the existence of Gnostic Christian beliefs and, to some, it is inconceivable that such variant beliefs could have existed so soon after the crucifixion of Jesus. On the other hand, the dominant view among critical scholars is that it is ...


3

The Abiathar Problem, why Jesus got it wrong In Mark 2:25 Jesus names Abiathar as the High Priest who gave David the show bread. I accept that this was Mark’s version of what Jesus said as it was reported to him and that the other gospel writers differ in their accounts, possibly to avoid this conundrum. In 1 Samuel 21:1 it is recorded that David came to ...


3

The only evidence whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew first is very controversial, it is the fragment of the second century author named Papias of Hierapolis. There are no extant copies of the work in question, and that fragment is only preserved in the writings of Eusebius from the fourth century. Here is what Eusebius states (in the English Translation): 16 ...


3

Premises of this response: There was no Q document (per the OP) Luke (writing to a gentile audience) used Matthew’s Gospel (written to a Jewish audience) as a source. For a more thorough discussion of the greater Jewish focus of Matthew, and why it indicates that Matthew preceded Luke, see my thoughts here. -- What Luke leaves out You have heard it said ...


3

The main argument boils down to subject matter and prophecies. In academic circles if a book prophesies about some event unambiguously then it must have been written after the event. Isaiah prophesied both about the destruction of Assyria and the babylonian captivity and the destruction of Babylon, so it must have been written after all three of these events,...


2

Matthew seems to have been written first. The two classic listings of what ended up being the New Testament both have Matthew first. The first is the same as ours, while the second begins Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke. It makes sense Matthew is listed first for a reason, which may make more sense as you study the evidences. The first 5 verses of Luke say ...


2

There is another theory giving the Gospel of Matthew a partial priority. This theory is that the Gospel of Matthew has evolved, knowing more than one redaction. One first redaction was similar to what has been called "Q" in the 19th Century. This redaction may date very early. A later redaction (or more than one later redactions) included other ...


2

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