|
THE GOSPELS WHO WROTE FIRST? -- MATTHEW OR MARK? DID YOU KNOW? ALL the earliest historians recorded that it was Matthew. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA reported a tradition of the earliest presbyters as: “…the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies”. (So: Matthew – Luke – Mark - John) Clement also reports: “While Peter was publicly preaching …the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark … to write down the things Peter had said. He did so, …” This was the origin of: ‘The Gospel according to Mark.’ IRENAEUS when quoting from the Scriptures used the Matthew-Luke-Mark order. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO said Mark combined the ideas of Matthew and Luke. When JEROME adopted the order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John for his translation into Latin, he told the Pope that he had not followed a commonly used sequence. Jerome, in his history book: Of Illustrious Men used the Matthew-Luke-Mark order. Bernard Orchard OSB. (editor of the 1953 Catholic Commentary on the Scriptures, and the 1966 RSVCE version of the Bible). Used modern literary analysis to confirm that the ancient historians had been correct. SECTION 7 of DEI VERBUM states that the Apostles faithfully: “… handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what he did, …those Apostles …committed the message…to writing SECTIONS 18 and 19 states: “the Apostles preached …afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, …handed onto us in writing … the fourfold Gospel …” “the church firmly holds to the historical character of the Gospels” The Authors of The Gospels (www.churchinhistory.org) Provides comprehensive list of quotations from the ancient historians. Shows early liturgical usage of the Clementine Gospel sequence. Reviews how Markan Priority has undermined Christian teaching Notes that Pope Benedict XVI (when a Cardinal) reported that the strongest attacks on the Catechism had come from Scripture scholars. Answers the questions: Why were the glaring errors of Mark (1: 2 and 2: 26) not corrected? Why are the verses of Mark 16: 9-20 omitted in some ancient versions? Links to post-Vatican II Roman documents, which quote Scripture as reliable history.
|