Bible Study The Gospels ?

[twinc]

are the gospels in the order of precedence as we now have it/them with Matthew as the first gospel - twinc

 

[brother Paul]

Yes and that is the testimony of the church from the beginning...Matthew was first (and in Hebrew later translated into Greek). Mark was next while Peter was in Rome (Peters memiors thus non-chronological). Then Luke who had these previous two but was writing a historical account (even interviewed people) and finally John's.

 

[twinc]

Yes and that is the testimony of the church from the beginning...Matthew was first (and in Hebrew later translated into Greek). Mark was next while Peter was in Rome (Peters memiors thus non-chronological). Then Luke who had these previous two but was writing a historical account (even interviewed people) and finally John's.

you may be interested to know that the first gospel reached Britain[uk] and was in circulation within three years of the resurrection - Mark is the third gospel - via google see w[URL='http://www.churchinhistory.org']ww.churchinhistory.org [/URL]the Clementine gospel tradition and the authors of the gospel - twinc

 

[Jethro Bodine]

you may be interested to know that the first gospel reached Britain[uk] and was in circulation within three years of the resurrection...

That is interesting.

 

[reba]

Doesn't matter to me their sequence...

 

[brother Paul]

you may be interested to know that the first gospel reached Britain[uk] and was in circulation within three years of the resurrection - Mark is the third gospel - via google see www.churchinhistory.org the Clementine gospel tradition and the authors of the gospel - twinc

Hi Twinc, the Lord bless...first I did not gain my opinion from either Jerome or Augustine but from reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Eusibius History of the Church (written just before the Council of Nicea). Believe me I do note the Clementine possibility and actually I do not really care much whether Luke or Mark were written first (and then there is the tradition of the incomplete Mark and the completed Mark after he got to Alexandria, which thinks it possible Luke wrote His between the two editions, but we will never know). So because by the time of Eusibius the Bishops and scholars had reached the agreement that the view I shared was accepted rather universally (through the Bishops in succession in their relative local churches) that is the side I have cast my chips with. But your article was interesting though IMO had a spin and it lacked specific references for the layman to follow, but thanks...

In His love

brother Paul