Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Marcia said:There are a few scholars who do not believe Mark was the first gospel. In fact, Mark was probably written down as Peter spoke to the Romans, using the gospels of Matthew and Luke. See Why Four Gospels? by David Alan Black.
Yes, the early church read books not put into the canon, but they did not see them as God's word. That's the difference. Just because they read them does not mean they regarded them as God's word; they did not.
Glad you will check out Geisler's book.
There would have to be a few scholars who believe that. Most historical documents referrence Mark being the earliest of the gospels written yes it was with Peter in Rome. Eusibius does include this. It seems maybe these are chicken before the egg type of argument. Did Matthew and Luke take from Mark (which is the leading thought)? I think so. And unfortunately, the whole point of determining which was authoritative was because people were holding to these other documents as being authoritative themselves. So what bound them together theologically. My assertion is oral tradition and a liturgy. The evidence points to it.