PDA

View Full Version : How do we know that Mark was written first?



GreekAsianPanda
Jun 5th 2010, 02:26 PM
Most people think that Mark was written first. Why is that?

Is it because people assume that Christian theology must have evolved and, since it's the simplest of the Gospels, therefore Mark must be the earliest? Or is there a different reason?

Thanks =)

notuptome
Jun 5th 2010, 04:08 PM
I think Matthew was written first not Mark.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Frances
Jun 5th 2010, 04:50 PM
I don't know why some folk think Mark was written first, and I don't think it matters one iota.

We have 4 Gospels written by 3 eye-witnesses and one, Luke, who starts off by saying he has made a thorough investigation. I have seen it suggested that Luke may have written it as part of Paul's defence when he was on trial in Rome, and therefore could be substantiated by eye-witnesses.

mcgyver
Jun 5th 2010, 05:06 PM
Most people think that Mark was written first. Why is that?

Is it because people assume that Christian theology must have evolved and, since it's the simplest of the Gospels, therefore Mark must be the earliest? Or is there a different reason?

Thanks =)

Realistically we don't...that was something that was accepted for a couple of hundred years, but with the advances in Biblical Archaeology and the discovery of different fragments of manuscripts dating earlier and earlier, that whole line of reasoning (Mark being the earliest gospel) is being re-thought.

notuptome
Jun 5th 2010, 05:11 PM
I don't know why some folk think Mark was written first, and I don't think it matters one iota.

We have 4 Gospels written by 3 eye-witnesses and one, Luke, who starts off by saying he has made a thorough investigation. I have seen it suggested that Luke may have written it as part of Paul's defence when he was on trial in Rome, and therefore could be substantiated by eye-witnesses.
Well if we didn't argue about it we would need to use the time to tell the lost of Christ and their need to come to Him to be saved.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

GreekAsianPanda
Jun 5th 2010, 05:50 PM
The reason why I think it matters is because of the people we believe wrote the Gospels. There are two eyewitnesses and two who are not. Supposing Mark, a non-eyewitness (according to Papias), wrote first, it would be rather suspicious that the author of the Gospel of Matthew would use so much of the same information as contained in the Gospel of Mark, since Matthew is supposed to be an eyewitness.

I personally think that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Aramaic or Hebrew, then Mark wrote his, then Matthew or someone else reconstructed a Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew in a different order for teaching purposes, which we use as his Gospel today. I need to look into it more, but that's what I hold to for now. Assuming evolution in theology is not a good reason to say that Mark is the earliest, in my opinion, if it's the only reason.

Nomad
Jun 5th 2010, 06:05 PM
Most people think that Mark was written first. Why is that?

Is it because people assume that Christian theology must have evolved and, since it's the simplest of the Gospels, therefore Mark must be the earliest? Or is there a different reason?

Thanks =)

I'm sure there are some who reason that way, but the weight of the historical evidence suggests that Mark was actually written not too many years after the resurrection which puts it before the other Gospels. This is the majority view, but there are those who dispute it.



Beginning with the latter half of the period in question—hence, 50–65—, it has already been shown that Peter and Mark were together in Rome about the year 63. That would therefore seem to be an ideal date for the composition of Mark’s Gospel. Nevertheless, the date is not without difficulty. As has been shown in N.T.C. on The Gospel according to Matthew—see the section on The Synoptic Problem—Mark was probably written before Matthew, and Matthew before Luke. Luke’s Gospel, in turn, was followed by Acts. The question may well be asked whether, on the basis of this chronology, some of this literary activity is not thus pushed too far forward, perhaps into the terrible period of the Jewish War against the Romans, accompanied by bitter strife between the various Jewish factions. Neither Luke nor Acts indicates that anything of the kind was actually occurring when these books were written.

The late fifties have been suggested. Our historical summary of important events in the lives of Peter and of Mark has shown that from the side of Scripture there is no objection to supposing that sometime between the years 52 and 59 Peter and Mark were together in Rome (exception, as has also been indicated, the year 58, when Peter was clearly not in that city).

Of late, however, the attention is being riveted upon the possibility that in our attempt to fix the date of Mark’s Gospel we must look away from 50–65 and settle on 35–50, even better 40–50. Considerations that would seem to favor this view are the following:

First, according to the statement of Eusebius, quoted above, it was during the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41–54) that “the Providence of the universe guided to Rome … the great and mighty Peter” whose “follower” Mark, at the request of “the hearers of Peter” composed a record of Peter’s teaching, this record being The Gospel according to Mark.

Secondly, the subscriptions of many of the later uncials (manuscripts with large and separate letters) and cursives (running-hand manuscripts) inform us that the Gospel according to Mark was written in the tenth or twelfth year after Christ’s ascension, hence sometime between the years 39 and 42.

Thirdly, the small papyrus scrap found in cave #7 near Qumran, and deciphered by the Spanish priest Father O’Callighan as being part of Mark 6:52, 53, belonged to material to which upon discovery the date approximately a.d. 50 had been ascribed. This scrap would therefore seem to point back to a considerably earlier (than 50) date for the actual composition of that Gospel. Therefore a date somewhere in the beginning of the reign of Emperior Claudius might not be far from the truth. Besides, it has been shown that Peter and Mark may well have spent some time together in Rome at that time.

The discovery and identification of the papyrus scrap containing the keystone Marcan passage has created great interest among New Testament scholars. The comments range all the way from “nothing has changed” to “the mathematical probabilities that Dr. O’Callighan is right are astronomical.” I would especially recommend the reading of the excellent articles by William White, Jr., “O’Callighan’s Identifications: Confirmation and Its Consequences” WTJ, 35 (Fall 1972), pp. 15–20, and “Notes on the Papyrus Fragments from Cave 7 at Qumran” WTJ, 35 (Winter 1973), pp. 221–226.

Conclusion: When was Mark 1:1–16:8 written? Answer: sometime between a.d. 40 and 65, with the balance of evidence now favoring the earlier part of this period. It is too early to speak more definitely.

Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 10), S. 14

inn
Jun 5th 2010, 06:37 PM
I don't think we can know for sure. Why do you think it matters?

Nomad
Jun 5th 2010, 08:12 PM
I don't think we can know for sure. Why do you think it matters?

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

It matters because our Faith is grounded in real history, not cunningly devised fables. For that reason alone dating the gospels is very important. If it can be demonstrated that the gospels were written early then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. This would surely distinguish them from later so called gnostic gospels that are no gospel at all.

Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for fables to enter into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them.

In addition to this, those who were alive at the time of the events could have contradicted the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. It's a matter of authenticity. Do we need exact dates? Do we need to know with absolute certainty who wrote first? No. But ignoring the evidence that's available simply isn't an option.

BroRog
Jun 5th 2010, 11:31 PM
When I was growing up, my parents and teachers told me that when they were growing up, each student was required to memorize vast amounts of text, including but not limited to The Gettysburg Address, The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, entire Shakespeare Plays, etc. Scholars seem to think that Mark copied from Matthew or Matthew copied from Mark or Mark and Matthew copied from 'Q'. But I would bet that Mark, Matthew, and many others had memorized the stories and accounts and wrote the gospels based on what they remembered. While this might seem like an unreliable way to do things, I think we tend to underestimate human mental ability. If I am right, then there is no way to know exactly which gospel came first, but neither does it matter. Just as I don't need to be an eye-witness of the battle of Gettysburg in order to memorize and faithfully dictate the Gettysburg Address, those who wrote the gospels didn't necessarily need to be eye-witnesses of the events in order to have the truth available and at hand.

slightlypuzzled
Jun 5th 2010, 11:50 PM
It is hard to establish the order of 'publication', you will see so many different schemes. You can just about choose among the three Synoptics and build a case. But, it just might be that is not really important.
What is important is that there is so much agreement between the approach of the three 'Synoptics' (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that lays the ground for the actions of Jesus in showing his glory and power among the people of Israel. John gives us a set fo 'signs' to ponder which became the major framework for what Jesus taught. In the OT tradition we have 'two or three witnesses...' in two ways. We have three witnesses to the works, parables and teaching of Christ. Then John becomes a second type of witness to flesh our the 'signs' and the teaching ministry of Christ in a different way, we have a greater reliance on the words of Christ, and a teaching that points more to what became the teaching of the church as regards salvation and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
All of this is seen in distinction to the 'other gospels' who were spurious and gnostic in nature. The 'four' gives us a full picture of 'all that Jesus did and said while He completed His ministry to Israel and to the world...'.

chad
Jun 5th 2010, 11:59 PM
Here is something I am reading from a book...

Explicit evidence comes from Irenaeus writing before the end of the 2nd cent. :he declares that mathew not only preached to the Hebrew (ie Aramaic) speaking public but also produced for them a gospel written in thier own tongue (adv. Haer 3:1, quoted by Eusebius, HE 5,8,2).

A possible date of this book is before 62 AD.





I personally think that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Aramaic or Hebrew, then Mark wrote his, then Matthew or someone else reconstructed a Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew in a different order for teaching purposes, which we use as his Gospel today. I need to look into it more, but that's what I hold to for now. Assuming evolution in theology is not a good reason to say that Mark is the earliest, in my opinion, if it's the only reason.

slightlypuzzled
Jun 6th 2010, 01:43 AM
It is a fact that John A. T. Robinson, more of a liberal than anything, did push for publications dates of all three synoptics before the fall of Jerusalem, which would place them much earlier than any 'liberal' dating would allow for.

I believe it is Eusebius who quotes Clement of Rome as saying that it was Mark who wrote down Peter's witness to the acts of Jesus. It is possible that this is the same clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3.

Radagast
Jun 6th 2010, 02:46 AM
The reason why I think it matters is because of the people we believe wrote the Gospels. There are two eyewitnesses and two who are not. Supposing Mark, a non-eyewitness (according to Papias), wrote first, it would be rather suspicious that the author of the Gospel of Matthew would use so much of the same information as contained in the Gospel of Mark, since Matthew is supposed to be an eyewitness.

The main reason for suggesting Markan priority is that Matthew and Luke both seem to quote from Mark. According to tradition though, Mark is based on eyewitness testimony from Peter.


I personally think that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Aramaic or Hebrew, then Mark wrote his, then Matthew or someone else reconstructed a Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew in a different order for teaching purposes, which we use as his Gospel today. I need to look into it more, but that's what I hold to for now. Assuming evolution in theology is not a good reason to say that Mark is the earliest, in my opinion, if it's the only reason.

Such an Aramaic proto-Matthew (or a Greek translation of it) is sometimes identified with the hypothetical document Q, which the present Matthew and Luke seem to have copied from, i.e.:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Synoptic_problem_two_source_colored.png/200px-Synoptic_problem_two_source_colored.png

markedward
Jun 6th 2010, 03:07 AM
It is a fact that John A. T. Robinson, more of a liberal than anything, did push for publications dates of all three synoptics before the fall of Jerusalem, which would place them much earlier than any 'liberal' dating would allow for.Yep; he argues that all of the New Testament books were written pre-70 AD, something with which I agree for many of the same reasons. (I came to my conclusions prior to reading his book.)

He places the four gospels as following:

Matthew: 40-60 AD
Mark: 45-60 AD
Luke: 57-60 AD
John: 40-60 AD (with chapters 1 and 21 being added probably a few years later, around 65 AD, by the same writer)
Acts: 57-62 AD

Toymom
Jun 6th 2010, 03:49 PM
As the diagram shows, Matthew and Luke both quote Mark, - one reason that it is believed that Mark was written first. As far as chronological order - the Bible is not put together in Chronological order. There are some Chronological Bibles and chronological Bible reading plans and they are very interesting.

jimmyc1983
Nov 30th 2012, 05:02 AM
I wish to state now I am not a Christian but interested in the subject of religion. As Christians I hope you prove to yourselves and others that you are both non-secular and forgiving, whilst never afraid and more so proud of talking about your beliefs. I never at all wish to mock or anger anyone, just gather more information from as many sources as possible on this and all subjects, by simply asking questions on things I do not understand.
I just wish to ask on this subject a very important question. Why do some people believe this question is irrelevant?
Surely, all the facts are always important when you wish to believe or make a decision in something? No matter what religion you are, or are not, surely you should always try and accumulate as many truths and facts as possible on any and every given subjects in life, to enhance your knowledge of all things at all times?

Nick
Nov 30th 2012, 05:26 AM
Most people think that Mark was written first. Why is that?

Is it because people assume that Christian theology must have evolved and, since it's the simplest of the Gospels, therefore Mark must be the earliest? Or is there a different reason?

Thanks =)

Most don't assume Mark came first. Matthew came first because he owned paper and ink. Think about it. The other Apostles were fishermen. Matthew was a tax collector which meant that he was a record keeper and an accountant.

markedward
Nov 30th 2012, 06:57 AM
Most don't assume Mark came first.
That depends on who you mean by 'most'.

Most Christians in ancient days thought of Matthew as being first, with Mark specifically being a cut down version of Matthew. The general opinion of 'Protestant / evangelical / fundamentalists' nowadays seems to be that neither Matthew nor Mark relied on the other, but that each wrote the exact same stuff down somehow (God forcibly making them write it the way they did, them relying on a common oral tradition, whatever).

But most people (that is, people from a diversity of backgrounds, including Christians), and especially most scholars (Christian or not) do think that Mark was indeed written first, and that Matthew and Luke each incorporated Mark (along with other sources) into their larger works.


Think about it. The other Apostles were fishermen. Matthew was a tax collector which meant that he was a record keeper and an accountant.
Let's assume the traditional authors (Levi Matthew, John Mark, and Doctor Luke) are the right ones. So Matthew is a tax collector, but this says nothing about when he wrote his book. 'The gospel of Mark' was written by John Mark at the behest of Peter; we know Peter could read (being a fisherman doesn't make him illiterate), and he could presumably write, and we can say the same for John Mark. All they need is to buy paper and ink, and get to writing. Luke was, well, a doctor; very well educated. He probably had paper and ink on hand as well, but it is nearly unanimous that he wrote his book last of these three. His education and immediate access to paper and ink had nothing to do with when he wrote his book.

Nick
Nov 30th 2012, 06:59 AM
The reason for Matthew's priority is simple: the testimony of the ancient witnesses describe Matthew's Gospel as first and as written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

XYZ
Nov 30th 2012, 11:12 AM
Most people think that Mark was written first. Why is that?

Is it because people assume that Christian theology must have evolved and, since it's the simplest of the Gospels, therefore Mark must be the earliest? Or is there a different reason?

Thanks =)

There is a different reason.

Satan lost the bigest battle. If he had not killed the son of God, he would have won, for it was only through the death of Christ we were ransomed by his blood.

so, Satan looked at the church and had to make a plan by which he could still claim many or even some of the souls God was offering to save. He began by looking at how best to draw away the saints who were taught truth, and could not see a way. then he thought "I will begin with the babes in Christ, because they do not have to be untaught so much. He convinced the teachers of the time to begin teaching new converts beginning with the life of Christ, followed by the historical document called "Acts of the Apostles," and finish with the eclectic epistles, and finalloy John's "Apokolypse (Revelation).

So, the teachers moved the manuscripts around so as to begin with the life of Christ. but Satan refined that plan by putting Mathew first, because it is in Mathew that the authority of the pope was later established, then Mark was placed becasue Satan could claim others copied it, rather than writing by inspiration of the Holy spirit. Luke followed in Satan's order because Luke admits he garnered his understanding from other inspired writers, but establises that he wrote "in order" those things which the eye-witnesses related to him. Then John was offered because it was in John's gospel, or at least a misapplication of John's gospel, that the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus began to be taught. And finally, the logos of God coming to earth incarnated as the son of God, Jesus the Christ of God. Satan had won. Trinitarianism was developed, the pope was raised above his fellows contrary to scripture, and God looked down to see what the church was doing, and judged it for a thousand years of dark ages to show his displeasure.

One would think that the age of enlightenment would follow the gospel of light, but instead, when the church established trinity doctrine as "orthodoxy" in 451, and in 452 turned the discipline over to the state for execution and control of heresy against the pronouncements of the church, The dark ages began, and in 1452 the first bibles were fresh off the printing press for the firs ttime, and given into the hands of the common man,l taking "orthodoxy" out of the hands of the clergy and given into the hands of the people. Now, Satan is trying desparately to regain control by developing thousands of derivations in the church, called "denominations" that develope over controversies raised by scholars and egoes. the simplicity of the gospel has disappeared in the ensuing turmoil.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2012, 11:25 AM
The reason for Matthew's priority is simple: the testimony of the ancient witnesses describe Matthew's Gospel as first and as written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

One hears this from time to time, but there's no evidence of it. That's fine, the NT was written in Greek (a universal language, much as English is today) so as to reach the broadest possible audience.

RabbiKnife
Nov 30th 2012, 02:17 PM
Someone actually believes that SATAN was involved in the formation of the NT canon.

Now that, my friends, is a new one on me.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2012, 02:21 PM
That wacky satan guy, he is everywhere. Especially when people are looking for him.

RabbiKnife
Nov 30th 2012, 02:23 PM
It's the horns. Always look for the horns.

Wait. You're a Jew. Don't you have horns?

I'm with you. When looking at any religious text, I find that many people only find what they are seeking...


And by the way, Gut Shabbes and Shabbot Shalom.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2012, 02:29 PM
And by the way, Gut Shabbes and Shabbot Shalom.

:hug: Thank you my friend.

XYZ
Nov 30th 2012, 05:16 PM
Someone actually believes that SATAN was involved in the formation of the NT canon.

Now that, my friends, is a new one on me.

The canon has nothing to do with the chronology of arrangement. Look it up in the histories.

Nick
Nov 30th 2012, 11:47 PM
One hears this from time to time, but there's no evidence of it. That's fine, the NT was written in Greek (a universal language, much as English is today) so as to reach the broadest possible audience.

One hears this from time to time? That recent belief that Matthew is not the first Gospel arose because people first began to doubt the resurrection of Christ and His divinity. As such, the Christian message would have to have been falsified. It was assumed that the shortest and plainest Gospel would have been the earliest. Thus, liberal scholars crowded around the Gospel of Mark as the "earliest" since it does not contain much of Christ's teaching and it's resurrection account is the simplest. Then, they postulated that an unknown source of sayings (the so-called "Q") was used to "fill in" the teachings of Christ. This is entirely ad hoc and has no historical basis. Moreover, Q scholars debate and divide over the issues.

The historic testimony is against this Markan theory. The saints and Fathers teach that Matthew came first - and this simply makes sense.

watchinginawe
Dec 1st 2012, 12:40 AM
I wish to state now I am not a Christian but interested in the subject of religion. As Christians I hope you prove to yourselves and others that you are both non-secular and forgiving, whilst never afraid and more so proud of talking about your beliefs. I never at all wish to mock or anger anyone, just gather more information from as many sources as possible on this and all subjects, by simply asking questions on things I do not understand.
I just wish to ask on this subject a very important question. Why do some people believe this question is irrelevant?
Surely, all the facts are always important when you wish to believe or make a decision in something? No matter what religion you are, or are not, surely you should always try and accumulate as many truths and facts as possible on any and every given subjects in life, to enhance your knowledge of all things at all times?

Welcome to Bibleforums jimmy!

The study of the subject may not be irrelevant or unrewarding, but the truth of who wrote first is probably irrelevant; at least to the Christian. One reason is that ascertaining the absolute truth of the matter appears beyond the available facts. Therefore we are left with "theories" to the synoptic problem which are interesting to pursue but cannot be proven with any reliable certainty. Also, there is nothing important in the Christian Faith that hinges upon which Gospel was penned first, or even by who.

Where does your interest fall on the subject jimmy?

Blessings!

markedward
Dec 1st 2012, 02:36 AM
One hears this from time to time? That recent belief that Matthew is not the first Gospel arose because people first began to doubt the resurrection of Christ and His divinity. As such, the Christian message would have to have been falsified.
Not at all. Critical analysis of the Bible does have roots in the enlightenment era, but that in no way necessitates the premise of a flaw Christian message.


It was assumed that the shortest and plainest Gospel would have been the earliest.
It wasn't assumed, it is only a hypothesis based on the actual textual evidence, rather than late external evidence.


Thus, liberal scholars crowded around the Gospel of Mark as the "earliest"
It is not only 'liberal' scholars who think Mark was written first; many 'conservative' scholars do as well.


since it does not contain much of Christ's teaching
This is not their (scholars) reasoning (and the statement is not accurate anyway); you're not representing them fairly.


Then, they postulated that an unknown source of sayings (the so-called "Q") was used to "fill in" the teachings of Christ. This is entirely ad hoc and has no historical basis. Moreover, Q scholars debate and divide over the issues.
Matthew and Luke got their additional information from somewhere, whether oral or written tradition. Luke even admits as much in the opening of his book. That's all Q is. And yes, scholars openly acknowledge that Q is hypothetical and has no tangible evidence other than the common information found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Regardless, Q being hypothetical in no way affects the common opinion among scholars that Mark was earliest of the Synoptic Gospel books; alternative theories exist that still place Mark first even without a Q source.


The historic testimony is against this Markan theory. The saints and Fathers teach that Matthew came first - and this simply makes sense.
This testimony only came about nearly seventy years after Matthew was written. A testimony that late is not binding evidence over the internal textual evidence.

jesusislord
Dec 1st 2012, 03:18 AM
You truly know nothing unless you believe and GOD tells you.
So nothing can be true or false in anything.
Even what one sees is a lie in that case because you were taught the definition and name of what you see.
Not knowing if it really is what it is.

MARK 12:29-31

XYZ
Dec 1st 2012, 03:19 PM
The saints and Fathers teach that Matthew came first - and this simply makes sense.

Actually they teache that james was written in 45 a.d.
Galatians in 48 a.d.
I Thessalonians 50 a.d.
II Thessalonians 51 a.d.
Mathew 52 a.d.
I Corinthians Fall of 54 a.d.
II Corinthians Spring of 55 a.d.
Romans 56 a.d.
Luke's Gospel 58 a.d.
Colossians 60 a.d.
Ephesians 60 a.d.
Philemon 60 a.d.
Philippians 61 a.d.
Acts 61 a.d.
I Timothy 64/65 a.d.
Titus 64/65 a.d.
I Peter 64/65 a.d.
II Peter 66/67 a.d.
II Timothy 67/68 a.d.
Apokalypse of John 69 a.d.
Hebrews 69/70 a.d.
Mark 70 a.d.
Jude 70 a.d.
I John 85-90 a.d.
II John 85-90 a.d.
III John 85-90 a.d.
John's Gospel 96 a.d.

This is mostly in agreement with Both Philip Schaff's Chronology, and the Catholic Encyclopoedia history of the early church.

My own research shows only slight difference in minor areas of disagreement.

The reason it is importnat is simple: God spent so mcuh time telling people to do things in order.

God always insisted in his people following instruction in correct order -
"And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. 13 For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order."[I Chr 15:12-13]

"And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD"[I Chron 23:31]

"And they burn unto the LORD every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense: the shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening: for we keep the charge of the LORD our God; but ye have forsaken him."[II Chr 13:11]

Even the new covenant is covered by the old -
"Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me." [Psa 119:133]

Why then did Luke take pains to tell us "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"[Luke 1:1-3]

Why did Peter think it necessary?
"But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them..." [Acts 11:4]

Why was it important for Paul?
"Let all things be done decently and in order." [I Cor 14:40]

Even the resurrection has its own order -
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."[I Cor 15:23]

maintaining "order" was part and basic in the early church
"For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ." [Col 2:5]

Paul wrote to titus
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:"[titus 1:5]

Everything about God's kingdom demand "order" and proper arrangement, including the reading of the books, in the order the Holy Spirit inspired them to be written.

"..even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which [u]they that are unlearned and unstable wrest(turn or twist awry), as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."[II Pet 3:15-17]

Is anyone aware of any verse that says to take God's words out of order?

What say ye?

Nick
Dec 1st 2012, 08:55 PM
Well, if we were to include all the books and letters of the NT, not just the Gospels, then Galatians is largely thought to be the earliest book of the NT (written around 48-49 A.D.). Some believe Thessalonians was the first. Lots of opinions. It would make sense that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels since many scholars believe the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D.