Posted on 01/21/2015 11:34:40 AM PST by bkopto
Thanks, Civ. Do believe I overlooked that first thread.
R2z
Speaking of Gospel, as in music, two of the most popular crossover hits using Gospel arrangements would be 1. Love Me Like A Rock, by Paul Simon, and 2. Somebody To Love, by Queen. Both recordings, very well written and produced.
It depends how you define being the oldest. A Hebrew version of Matthew was supposedly written around 50 AD, which would make it the oldest. Nearly all of Mark is nearly identical to portions of Matthew. There are two suppositions: First, that Mark is simply an abridgment of Matthew. Or, that nearly the entirety of Mark was added to Matthew. The fact that textual analysis shows that the portions of Matthew that are nearly identical to Mark seem to have been written in Greek, while the unique portions of Matthew seem to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek. (Or so many scholars say; I’m no expert in either language.) This would seem to support the supposition that an early version of Matthew was supplemented or even largely replaced by nearly the entirety of Mark. Contrarily, Luke seems to have known Mark AND Matthew before he even began writing; he parallels heavily with both Mark and independently from Matthew, but where Mark’s and Matthew’s wording is often identical, Luke uses his own wording.
But why would the early church have replaced so much of what Matthew (one of the 12) wrote with what Mark (NOT one of the 12)? Perhaps when both Mark and Matthew told the same story, Matthew in Hebrew and Mark in Greek, the “publishers” of Matthew figured they should go with Mark’s Greek rather than translate Matthew from Hebrew or Greek. This makes even more sense if “Mark” was indeed written by John Mark, companion of Paul and later secretary of Peter, as the thought may have been that “Mark” represented Peter’s version of events.
They don't say what part of Mark's Gospel was found. Maybe it will be chapter 17.
They don't say what part of Mark's Gospel was found. Maybe it will be chapter 17.
That pretty much dovetails with my understanding. Thank you.
Is it known or just presumed that Luke’s Gospel is what was preached by Paul? Did Dr. Luke learn from Paul or was it the other way around...or both?
I remember reading of something similar about 48 years ago. An team of archaeologists disinterred a mummy with a design piece of papyrus glued together over it’s chest. As they took off the pieces layer by layer, they found an unknown ancient Greek play which intrigued them about a brother and sister who had been separated when young. Years later they met, fell in love and were preparing to get married.
The rest of the article said the archaeologists were treating it like an ongoing soap opera in which they were in suspense as to how it would end! WE never found how it ended.
So much of pop music uses gospel arrangements.
WELL SHUCKS! Beat me to it!
It’s a UPI wire story, not a Breitbart piece.
Don't ping the Catholics.
The Secret Gospel. The only copy was found a few decades ago in a Monastery library, written on the fly leaf of a book published in the 1600s. The writing was in a 1700s style penmanship, but in 2nd century Greek.
The book has since disappeared.
I have never heard of Morton Smith and the Gospel of Mark, nor have I heard of the unreliability of the Gospel of Mark. Can you elaborate?
That’s not why they’re called the Synoptic Gospels. They’re called the Synoptic Gospels because they contain linear summary histories of Christ’s life, as opposed to the Gospel of John, which is more of a topical presentation.
Get back when they find an ORIGINAL copy of ACTS 29, or even the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.
No thank you.
It’s not historically wrong because it’s LDS. Geez.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.