Mark 1

6. Mark Was Likely Written Before Luke

Furthermore, modern scholarship has generally assumed that the Gospel of Mark was written before Luke. If this is the case, then we are somewhere in the fifties of the first century when this book was composed. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred approximately in the year A.D. 33, these two gospels were written during the time when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive. These eyewitnesses could either verify or falsify the information contained in the gospels.

7. Matthew Was Always Believed to Have Been Written First

We now go a step further by considering Matthew’s gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41. If the ancient testimony is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ written during the eyewitness period.

8. John Was an Eyewitness to the Events

The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been the last of the four gospels composed. John testified that he was an eyewitness to the events that he recorded. He said:



The New Living Translation puts it this way:



John also wrote:


It is clear that John claimed to have been there when the events in the life of Jesus transpired.

There Is Internal Evidence of an Early Date for John

There is also internal evidence that John himself wrote before A.D. 70. We read the following description of Jerusalem in the fifth chapter of John:


John describes the sheep gate as still standing at the time he wrote. He could not have made this statement after A.D. 70—there was no sheep gate. The sheep gate was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, along with the rest of the city of Jerusalem. This could very well be an indication that John wrote his gospel before the city of Jerusalem was destroyed.

Conclusion: There Is Evidence for an Early Date for the Four Gospels

When all the historical and textual evidence is amassed, it becomes clear that the four gospels were composed at a very early date either by eyewitnesses, or those who recorded eyewitness testimony. Therefore, we have every reason to trust what they wrote.

My personal opinion is that John was written earlier...his "Revelation" prophecy was written while Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans. Either shortly before or after he wrote his Gospel.

Peter had been dead for a while when Mark wrote his gospel...but Mark actually was an eyewitness. Something about a disciple running naked through the streets of Jerusalem. That would be Mark.
The Apostles created a tradition of disparaging themselves when penning the stories.

Matthew was Levi....meaning that he was raised as a Levite. He had access to advanced reading, writing and mathematics...which clearly comes out in his writing style. (Which also contains some Romanesque idioms of speech and hyperbole)
Now his profession as a tax collector had to chafe his sensibilities in some fashion. But economics is usually a huge driving force...
But when he met Jesus...economics got set aside.

One last thing about Matthew...

It has been widely discussed that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek by Matthew himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is that a lost gospel, written in the Hebrew language or the Aramaic language, predated the four canonical gospels. It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that Matthew the Apostle composed such a gospel. Papias appeared to say that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel (sometimes called the Authentic Matthew) was subsequently translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Jerome took this information one step further and claimed that all known Jewish-Christian gospels really where one and the same and that this gospel was the authentic Matthew. As a consequence he assigned all known quotations from Jewish-Christian gospels to this “gospels of the hebrews” but modern studies have shown this to be untenable.[1] Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favor with scholars as a whole.

Basis of the Hebrew gospel hypothesis: Papias and the early church fathers
The idea that some or all of the gospels were originally written in a language other than Greek begins with Papias of Hierapolis, c. 125–150 CE.[2] In a passage with several ambiguous phrases, he wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia – sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi — perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen — or "translated") them as best he could."[3] Some have claimed that by "Hebrew" Papias would have meant Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East beside koine Greek.[4] A 2014 survey of contemporary texts asserts that "Hebraïdi" meant Hebrew and never Aramaic.[5] Nevertheless, Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[2] Against this, Blomberg writes that "Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources,"[6] although Josephus was an exceptionally unusual person in his knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other the preserved Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[3] Nevertheless, on the basis of this and other information Jerome (c. 327–420) claimed that all the Jewish Christian communities shared a single gospel, identical with the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew; he also claimed to have personally found this gospel in use among some communities in Syria.[1]

Jerome's testimony is regarded with skepticism by modern scholars. Jerome claims to have seen a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the quotations he assigns to it, but it can be demonstrated that some of them could never have existed in a Semitic language. His claim to have produced all the translations himself is also suspect, as many are found in earlier scholars such as Origen and Eusebius. Jerome appears to have assigned these quotations to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but it appears more likely that there were at least two and probably three ancient Jewish-Christian gospels, only one of them in a Semitic language.[1]

https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

Question:

Is there any truth to the claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek? A Fundamentalist I know, who insists Matthew wrote originally in Greek, argues that there's no evidence in favor of the idea that his Gospel was written first in Aramaic, because there's no extant Aramaic original.
Answer:

This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew’s Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).
This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They’re all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can’t conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek. Yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.


Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it’s wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that



Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).


Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

https://appleeye.org/2014/01/04/the-gospel-of-matthew-was-first-written-in-hebrew/

The Gospel of Matthew Was First Written in Hebrew
January 4, 2014 by Matthew Ervin 15 Comments
Though no copies are extant, there is good historical evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew. Around 130 A.D., Church father Papias (a former student of the Apostle John) explained:
So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 3:39)
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. Around 170 A.D., Irenaeus confirms and elaborates upon Papias’ report:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies, 3:1)
Not only did Irenaeus teach that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in the Hebrew dialect, he also provided the order in which all four of the Gospels were written. Note that the order is in harmony with how the Gospels are arranged in the Canon and not in line with modern liberal theories.
Origen Adamantius was a highly influential theologian who produced many works covering several areas of Christian thought, including textual criticism. Around the middle of the third century, Origen wrote:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 6:25)
Origen affirmed both the canonical order of the Gospels and that Matthew’s was first written in Hebrew. He says that he came to learn this through tradition. In combination with the other material provided it seems that this tradition was one that was consistently taught from the time of the Apostles.
During the early fourth century, preeminent church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius, Church History, 3:24)
Matthew first made disciples out of his fellow Hebrews. He later fulfilled the Great Commission by serving other races. According to Eusebius, before Matthew left his own people he wrote his Gospel in their native language. This was done out of necessity because an actual witness to the ministry of Jesus would no longer be with them. This makes sense given that Matthew has the greatest Jewish emphasis among the Gospels.
The historical evidence and the tradition of the Church strongly indicate that Matthew’s Gospel was indeed first written in Hebrew. This being the case, the question as to where the Greek version came from arises. The Greek copies of Matthew’s Gospel do not bear the marks of being a translation and were therefore written separately. Matthew was responsible enough to leave the first group of people he witnessed to a copy of his Gospel in their own language. It only follows that he did the same with a subsequent group (or groups) who read Greek.
Some desire to ignore or question the scholarship of the men quoted here out of a fear that a Hebrew copy of Matthew would undermine the reliability of Scripture. This fear is unfounded, for the Greek copy of Matthew was still written by an apostle. And it is the Greek rendition which God chose to preserve through the ages. While the once existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel changes nothing in regards to the Canon, it is nevertheless a fascinating thing to ponder.

https://www.baslibrary.org/bible-review/2/4/3

Bible Review 2:4, Winter 1986
Was The Gospel of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?
New evidence indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was an original Hebrew composition. Indeed, it is now possible to recover much of this original Hebrew composition from an extant manuscript. But before explaining how this can be done, let me set the stage with a little background. Until now, the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—have come down to us only in Greek. The Gospels we use today—in English or in other languages—are translations from old Greek manuscripts. By contrast, what Christians call the Old Testament—the Hebrew Bible—was written in Hebrew, with a few short sections in a sister language called Aramaic.

Were the canonical Gospels originally written in Greek? Over the centuries, scholars have argued various positions. Some indeed have suggested that one or more of the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. Others have argued that one or more of the Gospels were written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Still others have contended that the Gospels were written in Greek, but that their authors used collections of Aramaic or Hebrew sayings or traditions then extant but now lost. But no original Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Gospels have ever been recovered.

- As there are no original Hebrew or Aramic manuscripts of the Gospels, is there any interest to know that one or more Gospels were originally written in Hebrew or not?

- If it was the case, then it would be possible to compare what would be written in Hbrew and in Greek!

- But it's not the case so!

- When people speak different languages they know that each language has its own particularities!

- If you have a look at an interlinear translation in hebrew or in Greek, you will see the difference between the two languages!

- Hebrew started start to be spoken a long time ago so the way of thinking is totally different from modern ways of thinking!

- Greek is similar, there is no great difference!

See how quickly the "scholars" all go into conjecture and opinion?
Instead of just taking it all on faith...they want to put their own spin on things and claim someone is lying somewhere. Which I personally find annoying as all get out. I tend to lean on internal evidence and the accounts of the writing early church fathers. Now where the early church fathers were all over the place theologically speaking and fought with each other viciously....I tend to believe that they were all doing their best at all times.

- Yes, I prefer to do like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who used to examine carefully the Scriptures daily to check what Paul was telling them!

- But concerning what happened after Jesus’ death is another story!

- It went in all directions and the religious leaders were eager to defend their own interests and pay more attention to man’s tradition!

- Remember the “super apostles” Paul speaks about!

- And Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire and they mixed everything!

- It became an exotic mixture which had nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching!

- The religious leaders were busy going nowhere except serving their own interests!

- Is that the lambs among the wolves or the wolves among the lambs?

Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 8: He now calls the crowd to him with his disciples and says to them: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and keep following me. For whoever loses his life for my sake and for the sake of the good news will save it. Really, what good will it do a man to gain the whole world and to lose his life?

- Yes, the religious leaders want to gain the whole world and lose their lives!

- It is not possible to get both!

- it is not possible to serve two masters at the same time!

- We need to make a choice!

- But you can’t let the religious leaders decide for yourselves!

- You must do it yourselves!

Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 9: Jesus asks his disciples:
“What were you arguing about on the road?”
They keep silent, for on the road they have been arguing among themselves about who is greater. So he sits down and calls the twelve and says to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.”

- Religious leaders, political leaders and commercial leaders want to be greater!

- They are only looking for power!

- But power leads to destruction!

- Each empire went up and down!

- And the world is going down!

- But the worst is that it is going down faster and faster!

- But religious leaders, political leaders and commercial leaders are not going to last, they just think about the present, they don’t care about the future!

- They just need illusion, they don’t care about reality!

Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 10: And Pharisees approach, intent on testing him, and they ask whether it is lawful for a man to divorce a wife. He answers them: “What did Moses command you?” They say: “Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her.” But Jesus says to them: “Out of regard for your hardheartedness, he wrote this commandment for you. However, from the beginning of creation, “he made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and the two will be one flesh,” so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

- Once again man’s tradition vs God’s word!

- You can’t choose both!

- You must choose one!

- It’s a simple one!

- Man tries to find ways not to choose!

- It doesn’t work!

- There is only one way!

- Man is always trying to follow his own way!

- He will only get lost!

- The Israelites chose the wrong one and they got lost!

- Humanity will always choose the same wrong way and get lost!

Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 10: People now begin bringing him YOUNG CHILDREN for him to touch them, but the disciples reprimand them. At seeing this, Jesus is INDIGNANT and says to them: “Let the YOUNG CHILDREN come to me; do not try to stop them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such ones. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a YOUNG CHILD will by no means enter into it.”

- These words are incredible!

- Because this world is turning young children into ZOMBIES!

- Yes, this superficial world is taking away CURIOSITY from young children!

- They just want to watch TV and play video games!

- They don’t want to know anymore!

- So think about today’s adults!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Get away from this old world of Chaos and prepare for the New World!

- don’t do like the Israelites who stayed in the old world and died!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 10: Jesus looks at him and feels love for him and says, “One thing is missing about you: Go, sell what things you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come be my follower.” But he grows sad at the answer and goes away grieved, for he has many possessions.

- Yes, the religious leaders look for their personal interests !

- Yes, they have always loved money and materialistic pleasures !

- Yes, definitely different from Jesus !

- Yes, far away from a good shepherd who whole-heartedly cares for his sheep !

- Yes, bad luck for the sheep !

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get away from this old world of Chaos and prepare for the New World!
- don’t do like the Israelites who stayed in the old world and died!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus vs the religious leaders

Mark 10: After looking around, Jesus says to his disciples: “How difficult it will be for those with money to enter into the Kingdom of God!”

- The religious leaders like money!

- They want to defend their personal interests!

- They are not interested in God’s interests!

- They are not interested in people’s interests!

- They need people to control them and to get power!

- People don’t need them!