Which of the Gospel accounts comes first?

okie, dokie

 

I do not condone personal attacks on you or anyone, but that does not justify your tone or the way you have talked to others. I have noticed it for several months, especially on creation/evolution threads. You are condescending and unnecessarily rude to people, Craig. It's just a fact. I would never say this publicly if it weren't true.

There's always time to change and I hope you do.

 

Watch out Craig; one of her hobbies is reading "murder mysteries".

 

No, it certainly does not.

This is your personal perspective, but I realize that there are some others who have a similar perspective. I do have a good education, and as I write I am aware that some of the people whose posts to which I am replying have very little education, and sometimes they make comments that are so absurdly ridiculous that it is difficult for me to reply to them in an open and honest manner without sounding condescending.

In the threads in which creation “science” is discussed, the ignorance expressed by some is so manifest that I find it overwhelming when they state their uninformed view in a very authoritative manner and claim that more than 99.9% of scientists are wrong and that they are right. From my perspective ANYONE who would do such a thing is an arrogant fool and I find it necessary to use much restraint in addressing their posts. Apparently, however, there are some individuals who believe that I should use more restraint.

And of course there is the very relevant issue that I have just addressed in replying to Phillip. I have seen, and am continuing to see, the immense damage done to the Christian faith by creationists that make the Christian faith appear to many to be a repugnantly ignorant faith and thereby causing them to shun rather than receive the gospel.

I have never posted on early 17th century quilting techniques employed in colonial America because I don’t have an adequate knowledge of the subject to justify my doing so. And yet there are many on this message board who know less about evolutionary biology than I do about early 17th century quilting techniques employed in colonial America and who are posting absolutely ridiculous claims about evolution.

However, it is not my desire to harm anyone, so I shall endeavor all the more to write my posts in as Christian a manner as I possibly can. And my vacation time is nearly spent anyway, and I soon shall have much less time to reply to posts dealing with creation “science.”

 

I think Mark was first and copied from by Matthew and Luke. They also have in common a lot of material that Mark lacked but nobody knows what that material exactly was before it made it into the gospels of Matthew and Luke. For shorthand convenience we call that common material "Q".

John wrote last of all, having the others in hand, and he wrote mainly to fill in details they left out, often depending on the others to put down what he left out. He saw no need, for example, to say again that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

 

Just a brief additional note,

The designation “Q” comes from the German word "Quelle," which means "Source."

 

That is so true!

 

I believe Luke was written a little earlier. Why? First, he wrote what became the Book of Acts AFTER the letter that became the gospel of Luke. And according to the context of Acts, it was written while Nero was Caesar. Nero's rule ended in AD 68. And Paul , while under arrest, arrived at Rome in spring, 62, a journey that took FIVE YEARS(He was first arrested in 58), including the delays in leaving Jerusalem and the shipwreck at Malta. He was acquitted about a year later, as Nero thought the whole affair was a farce and a waste of money. (This was about a year before Nero went batty and turned against all Christians.) Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting his "day in court". he was under loose "house arrest" then.(He wrote 2 Timothy early in 68 while he was actually in prison for being a well-known Christian; now Nero was the enemy of all Christians. He had Paul executed(likely be beheading, as he was a Roman citizen) shortly before his own exile and suicide in the summer of 68.

Based upon the fact that Paul was still under house arrest in Rome when Luke concluded Acts, we can reckon he wrote it no later than early 63.

 

Pastor to help get your topic back on track
I dont know who wrote what first but I do not think that they (as you put it) drew from one anothers account.
I think what was weitten down was probably compiled from a daily diary, that they recorded by the account as they saw them, birth accounts were probabaly given to the apostles who wrote of the by mary and Eye witnesses who saw the angels appear to the shepheards, ect, and devine inspiration from God.
whoever was first really dont matter to me but I think they are probably in chronological order
mainly because Matthew was at one time a publican and probably wrote everything down for doccumentation.

 

I am simply going to try and answer your question.
Mark is believed by many to be the first simply because all, or most, of Mark is in Matthew and Luke. This can mean that it came first and Matthew and Luke used it, or it came later and is an essentials Gopsel, meaning a condensed form of Matthew and Luke. The saying of Jesus that are found in Luke and Matthew, but not Mark, are attributed to the hypothetical Q, meaning source. Everything in Matthew that is not in Luke and Mark is the hypopthetical M, and everything in Luke that is not found in Matthew or Mark is the hypothetical L.

Some on this board simply reject any idea that the writers of the Gospels did research and used sources. For some reason I cannot understand, they think it contrary to their doctrine of inspiration. Luke 1:1-4 is evidence enough that at least one biblical writer utilized several sources. With this established, I see no problem with resonable theories as to what those sources might be, such as Q, simply a collection of the teachings of Jesus that had been passed on orally, and once put in written form, became a source for Matthew and Luke, if ever put in written form at all.
Dave

 

It might be the result of people who are not afraid to think about what they are reading, and ask logical questions as a result. I might ad that your tendency to insult and name call is revealing of a mind that cannot handle honest debate. You take a low road friend, when others here are asking legitimate questions, and apart from you, getting some good answers.

Dave

 

Thanks, Craig. I wanted to acknowledge your statement and sentiment here.