Matthew placed first

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This item has been selected by Peter Kirby as a "Featured Smackdown". You are heartily encouraged to debate the claims made on both sides.

Contents

Pro

Joe Wallack

Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that "Mark" was the first Gospel written yet "Matthew" is always listed first in Christian Bibles. My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible implies that "Mark" and "Matthew" are the testimony of witnesses. Readers can see and the Church has always taught that there is dependence between the two. Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or juries will assume if not told otherwise. The problem this would create for Christianity with "Mark" being first is why is there no mention of the "virgin birth", any description of a transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church or post resurrection sightings or communications? The Church has always explained that because "Matthew" was written first "Mark" didn't need to cover these topics.

In order to demonstrate that Alleged Error #1 is an actual error I first need to define what I consider to be demonstration of error. The Standard I use to determine if error has been Proved is the same Standard used by the US Civil Court System and what most people would use to make decisions in everday life:

A majority of the available evidence.

I do add a qualification to this standard that even if a majority of available evidence indicates actual error I will not claim Proven error if I feel that the uncertainty due to lack of evidence in general outweighs certainty based on available evidence.

In order to prove my argument for actual error above I will outline the significant assertions from it that I need to demonstrate with evidence:

1) "Mark" was written before "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" has some dependence on "Mark".

3) "Matthew" is always presented before "Mark" in Christian Bibles.

4) The Christian Bible has an implication that "Mark" and "Matthew" are significantly based on witness testimony. Christianity has generally explicitly asserted that "Mark" and "Matthew" are significantly based on witness testimony.

5) Standard legal procedure and common sense requires that if there is dependent witness testimony, that fact should be disclosed, and the direction of dependency should be as well.

6) By placing "Mark" after "Matthew" the Christian Bible has some implication that "Matthew" was written first and that "Mark" has some dependence on "Matthew".

7) 6) violates the standards of 5) and, without related disclosure regarding 1) and 2) in the Christian Bible, creates a misleading implication for some Readers.


Now that I've identified a summary of my Significant assertions I'll provide evidence to support my assertions.

Following is my evidence for Assertion #1, "Mark" was written before "Matthew":

1) Testimony of Expert Witnesses:

It's generally accepted that non-Christian Bible scholars have a consensus that "Mark" was written first. For anyone trying to argue that according to the Experts, "Matthew" was written first, they would have to rely on Christian Bible scholarship. Raymond Brown though, possibly the best known Bible Christian Bible scholar of our genea wrote in "An Introduction To The New Testament", page 164, "If Mark was used independently by both both Matt and Luke and they were written in the 80s or early 90s, as most scholars believe, a date beyond 75 seems unlikely...Therefore, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70." This then is testimony from an Expert Witness that there is a consensus of Bible scholars that "Mark" was written first. In order to contradict the Expert testimony here one would have to provide a quote from a well known Bible scholar that there is a consensus that "Matthew" was written first. I've never seen any Bible scholar who claims "Matthew" was written first also claim that was the consensus of modern Bible scholarship.

2) Technical Book Demonstrating Markan priority:

Of course, expert witness testimony can be overcome by direct evidence. However, detailed direct evidence on this subject, supports the expert testimony above just as direct evidence normally supports Expert testimony.

Horae Synopticae, written by Hawkins in 1898 is considered to be the Classic book, first demonstrating Markan priority by summarizing the evidence that "Matthew" was dependent on "Mark". Hawkin's evidence indicating "Mark" was first include:

1) Most of "Mark's" 666 (yes, that's right, the original Gospel has 666 verses) verses are in "Matthew".

2) Unusual/rare words in "Mark" are copied in "Matthew" or "Luke".

3) The order of words in "Mark" are changed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to change the meaning.

4) "Matthew" has doublets of verses in "Mark" indicating "Mark" was the source.

5) Parallel sayings in "Matthew" and "Luke" not found in "Mark".

6) Passages limiting the power of Jesus in "Mark" edited in "Matthew" to remove limitation.

7) Passages uncomplimentary to disciples in "Mark" edited in "Matthew" to improve presentation.

Agreement between "Mark" and "Matthew" or "Luke" against the other. 

9) Unusual/incorrect grammar by "Mark" corrected/omitted by "Matthew".

10) Use of the historic present by "Mark".

11) Quotation errors by "Mark" corrected by "Matthew".

Horae Synopticae is still considered the Bible on the subject by modern Bible scholarship.

3) Online Article by Peter Kirby giving detailed argument for Markan priority:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html

Here is his summary:

"Conclusion Several different types of evidence converge on the hypothesis of Markan priority:

The Argument from Sequence of Incidents The Argument from Grammar and Aramaicisms The Argument from Harder Readings The Argument from Redaction The Argument from Theology The Argument from Content Thus, the supposition of Markan priority is a secure and well-founded one."


JW: Following is my evidence for Assertion #2, "Matthew" has some dependence on "Mark".

1) Testimony of Expert Witnesses:

It's generally accepted that non-Christian Bible scholars have a consensus that "Matthew" is dependent on "Mark". For anyone trying to argue that according to the Experts, "Matthew" is not dependent on "Mark", they would have to rely on Christian Bible scholarship. Raymond Brown though, possibly the best known Christian Bible scholar of our genea wrote in "An Introduction To The New Testament", page 164, "If Mark was used independently by both both Matt and Luke and they were written in the 80s or early 90s, as most scholars believe, a date beyond 75 seems unlikely...Therefore, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70." This then is testimony from an Expert Witness that there is a consensus of Bible scholars that "Matthew" is dependent on "Mark". In order to contradict the Expert testimony here one would have to provide a quote from a well known Bible scholar that there is a consensus that "Matthew" is not dependent on "Mark". I've never seen any Bible scholar who denies "Matthew" dependency on "Mark" also claim that was the consensus of modern Bible scholarship.

2) Comparison Of Text Of Parallel Story:

Mark 1:16 and Matthew 4:18, The Call Of The First Disciples story, will be used to provide an example of dependence and I'll note that many more examples could be provided. First, a comparison in English:

Mark 1: (KJV) 16 "Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. 19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. 20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him."

Matthew 4: (KJV) 18 "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. 22 And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him."

In comparing the parallel accounts above we can see that almost all of the verbs and nouns are the same as is the order. This goes beyond mere dependence to copying with some editorial changes. Interestingly, this copying is generally overstated in English translations as Christian translators tend to try and avoid translations indicating differences in accounts. An analysis in the underlying Greek though will still indicate copying over mere dependency:

Mark 1: (KJV) 16 "??? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ????? 17??? ??????? ? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????????? ??? ????????? 18??? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ??????????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? 19??? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ? ? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ????????? 20?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ? ??????? ??? ???? ???????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???????"

Matthew 4: (KJV) 18 "????????? ?? ? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? 19??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? 20?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ???? 21??? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? 22?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????"


JW: Following is my evidence for Assertion #3, "Matthew" is always presented before "Mark" in Christian Bibles.

1) Personal Observation:

Every Christian bible I've ever seen in print or on the Internet places "Matthew" before "Mark". I think it's unnecessary for me to provide better evidence here than personal observation as I'm sure Tron will agree that at a minimum almost all Christian Bibles place "Matthew" before "Mark".


JW: Following is my evidence for Assertion #4, "The Christian Bible has an implication that "Mark" and "Matthew" are significantly based on witness testimony

1) Lack Of Identification Of Source:

The Gospels of "Mark" and "Matthew" do not give any explicit identification of the source of the narratives. Therefore, some Readers will inevitably just assume that they are based on witness testimony.

2) Names Of The Gospels:

The Names "Mark" and "Matthew" are prominently displayed in Christian Bibles at the start and on every page of these Gospels and the use of individual names for a title gives the implication that it was these individuals who were the witnesses. Additionally, the earliest Christian Bibles are generally titled either "After Mark" or "According To Mark" giving an even stronger implication of the author being a witness.

3) Explicit claim of witness testimony by accompanying Gospels

In the accompanying Gospel of "Luke" the authors write:

Luke 1: (KJV) 1 "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, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

"Luke" refers to previous accounts by eyewitnesses so there is an implication that "Mark" and "Matthew" are two of these accounts.

In the accompanying Gospel of "John" the authors write:

John 21: (KJV) 24 "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."

Since "John" claims that it is based on eyewitnesses there is an implication that the other Gospels presented before it are too.


JW: Following is my evidence for Assertion #5, "Standard legal procedure and common sense requires that if there is dependent witness testimony, that fact should be disclosed, and the direction of dependency should be as well."

1) Standard Legal Procedure:

From US Code Title 28

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a_5_6_.html

"Rule 612. Writing Used To Refresh Memory

Except as otherwise provided in criminal proceedings by section 3500 of title 18, United States Code, if a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either--

(1) while testifying, or

(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.

(Pub. L. 93-595, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1936; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987.)

...The purpose of the rule is the same as that of the Jencks statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3500: to promote the search of credibility and memory."

Users of witness testimony therefore have a right to know if witness testimony is dependent on other witness testimony.

Our Orthodox friends here will find it interesting that Rule 613 is:

"Prior Statements of Witnesses"

Coincidence? HaShem be the Judge.

2) Common Sense :

In a situation of dependent witness testimony the existence and direction of dependence should be disclosed. Without proper disclosure users of this testimony will be required to make their own assumptions and in the absence of disclosure it is likely that some users will mistakenly assume that the first testimony presented was the first written.

Let's look at the alleged "virgin birth" for instance. With "Matthew" presented first and providing a virgin birth story and "Mark" presented second with no virgin birth the current order of Matthew and Mark helps explain away why Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth, because Matthew already had Mark didn't need to. Mark's lack of a virgin birth story would be more puzzling if Mark was presented first.


JW: Following is my evidence for Assertion #6, "By placing "Mark" after "Matthew" the Christian Bible has some implication that "Matthew" was written first and that "Mark" has some dependence on "Matthew"."

1) Common Sense :

My assertion 5) provided evidence that in a situation of dependent witness testimony the existence and direction of dependence should be disclosed. Without proper disclosure users of this testimony will be required to make their own assumptions and in the absence of disclosure it is likely that some users will mistakenly assume that the first testimony presented was the first written.

We can see this assumption in the writings of Church Fathers who commented on the subject such as Augustine, one of the most important Church Fathers of all time:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602102.htm

"CHAP. II.--ON THE ORDER OF THE EVANGELISTS, AND THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEY WROTE.

3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four,--it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ,--are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak and saw Him act; and [with a commission received] from His lips they were despatched to preach the gospel. But as respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which is to be accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two, belonging to the number of those whom the Lord chose before the passover, that obtained places,--namely, the first place and the last. For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last by John. And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred to, but who at the same time had become followers of the Christ who spoke in these others, were supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst between these twain."

Augustine concludes that "Matthew" was written first because there was a planned order to the Gospels. Augustine goes on to try and explain how this direction of dependence affected what "Mark" wrote:

"4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men. Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer.5 For in his narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from the others: by himself separately, he has little to record; in conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the rest, he has still less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and identically the same as those used by Matthew, where the agreement is either with that evangelist alone, or with him in connection with the rest."

Augustine concludes that "Mark" didn't need to cover the virgin birth because "Matthew" already had. A more reasonable conclusion with "Matthew" presented first than if "Mark" was presented first.


The Virgin Birth

Priority Of Mark Internal Evidence – More Primitive Theology – Virgin Birth

One type of internal evidence as to which Gospel was written first is the level of development in Christian theology exhibited by each Gospel. A significant difference between the theologies of "Mark" and "Matthew" is that Mark shows no awareness of the supposed "virgin birth" while Matthew describes it in some detail and presents it as an important prophecy fulfillment from the Tanakh. Evidence that the virgin birth described by Matthew was a later Christian development from the story presented by Mark is as follows:

1)There is general agreement that Christianity was initially a Jewish movement which subsequently was taken over by Gentiles. The Jewish scriptures and related commentary show no belief in virgin births. Belief in virgin births among Gentiles was common. Therefore, Mark's lack of a virgin birth would have had more appeal to an earlier, Jewish-Christian audience.

2)Christian writings of the first century outside of "Matthew" and "Luke" show no knowledge of the virgin birth. Even Paul, who is commonly thought to have written before any extant Gospel was written shows no awareness of a virgin birth. Christian writings of the second century are filled with defenses of the claimed virgin birth of "Matthew". Therefore, Christian writings outside of Matthew show that belief in Matthew's reported virgin birth was a later Christian development.

3) A primary objective of all the Gospels is to try and describe who Jesus really was. In general, the later the Christian writing, the more information there is and the stronger the assertion. In Mark Jesus' birth is not described. Jesus is commissioned at his baptism and achieves greatness through his career as well as the title, "son of God". In Matthew and Luke Jesus is born great and is described as divine to a certain extent. In John, which is generally thought to be the last of the canonical Gospels to be written, Jesus is described as great before he was born and not just divine but a god. In subsequent Christian writing Jesus is described as equal to the God. Therefore, Mark's presentation of a more human Jesus fits the earliest part of the Christian pattern of progressive projection and rating of Jesus as you go back in time.

4) When choosing which was more likely, Matthew copying from Mark or Mark copying from Matthew the absence of the virgin birth story in Mark makes it more likely that Matthew copied from Mark. If Mark relied on Matthew as the primary source for his Gospel it's unlikely he would have ignored such an important Christian assertion as the virgin birth. It's more likely that Matthew copied from Mark and added a virgin birth story to it to reflect his later theology. In general, when someone is copying from what they consider to be a primary source of information they are more likely to add a story not in their source then to omit one that is.

--JoeWallack 08:44, 17 Jan 2007 (CST)


Role of the Church

Priority Of Mark Internal Evidence – More Primitive Theology – Role of the Church

More internal evidence as to which Gospel was written first regarding the level of development in Christian theology exhibited by each Gospel is the role of the Church. A significant difference between the theologies of "Mark" and "Matthew" is that Mark shows no transition between Jesus to the subsequent Christian Church through the disciples while Matthew does. It's generally agreed that the earliest Christians were more eschatological than subsequent Christians, believing that Jesus would return relatively soon, and therefore, had no need for the institution of a Church. Evidence that the transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church through the disciples described by Matthew was a later Christian development from the story presented by Mark is as follows:

1)Mark's Jesus states that no sign will be given to his generation indicating that even the disciples did not and would not properly understand Jesus. Matthew's Jesus states that one sign would be given to his generation, the resurrection, which finally made the disciples properly understand Jesus.

2)The purpose of the disciples in "Mark" is to illustrate that no one of Jesus' time, including the disciples, properly understood Jesus. In Mark this point is driven home in general by the negative portrayal of the disciples as a group and specifically by the portrayal of Peter, the head disciple, who explicitly denies Jesus 3 times and then is never heard from again. "Matthew" consistently shows the disciples in a better light and specifically shows Peter as the most insightful of the disciples. Matthew's Jesus states that Peter will lead Jesus' subsequent Church while Mark's Jesus says nothing about Peter being any type of future leader or any subsequent Church. The traditional Christian belief is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter. One problem with this belief is that the Gospel of Matthew gives much more information about Peter than the Gospel of Mark. The typical Christian explanation is that "Peter was being humble". This explanation is comical as "Mark" goes to great literary lengths to show Peter as the opposite of humble with Peter's statement that while others would fall away, he never would, then deny Jesus three times before the proud cock crowed

3)The cruncher, as the English say, is that in Mark there is no post resurrection communication between Jesus and the disciples. The implication is that the disciples all fell away. In Matthew the disciples communicate with the resurrected Jesus and receive instructions to proselytize all the nations creating the transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church. Perhaps there's an explanation here for the Christians as to why Jesus has not yet returned as periodically new nations keep being created and Jesus' instructions were to proselytize all nations. Maybe the Christians need to figure out how to prevent any more new nations from being created (mental image of Pat Robertson reading this, rubbing chin and saying, "hmmm").

--JoeWallack 07:34, 18 Jan 2007 (CST)

Con

Vincent Sapone

Vinnie: The answer to this does not lie in denying Marcan priority as one response suggests below. The answer lies in finding the errors that Joe is supposed to be highlighting here. I am a bit at a loss as to how to respond since JW did not actually find any errors or potential errors. That Matthew was written after Mark but is placed before him in the canon is evidence of an error? How is that an error?

Matthew has most of Mark and lots more sayings material and special material. It was the early church's most widely used Gospel and most of the church seems to have placed it first but it is irrelevant. Inerrancy does not say "the NT books appear in chronological order", thus finding and objection here is futile. If chronological order was the reason for the placement we might be inclined to suggest that the Pauline corpus would have been first. But this is anachronistic. Most of the church accepted traditional authorship and all these texts were early and eyewitness texts or "indirect eyewitness texts (LK and MK & Paul).

Furthermore, in a bit of sloppyness on JW's part he doesn't discuss the fluidity of Mark. Extant canonical Matthew very well might pre-date extant Mark. We can use agreements of Mt and Lk against canonical Mark to show current GMark is a redacted form of an original Mark just as Helmut Koester did in Early Christian Gospels. Thus, this final form of Matthew may very well be earlier than the final form of Mark--the original form of which influenced Matthw significantly.

Of course it might be claimed this original Mark looked a lot like canonical Mark and that is certainly true but since we are being so technical, one technicality (extant Mark is later) is as good as another (the placement indicates error). --Vincent Sapone

Peter Kirby

PK: As an error, this one fails. If you want to talk about the original Gospel, it wasn't packaged along with the other four; it was written on a scroll by itself and then later bundled. If you want to talk about modern packaging, it depends entirely on which Bible you buy and what the introduction says. At least one Bible I possess has it that the book wasn't written first of the four, nor probably by Matthew. But then, is the errancy of the Bible to be judged based on the modern packaging? Christians don't seem to believe that. Finally, if you want to talk about the early codices, they didn't all agree on the order the Gospels were to be placed in. The Codex Bezae has it as Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. I doubt that is intended as a chronological ordering. So even the claim that the placement of Matthew first implies a chronological ordering is suspect. After all, Paul's epistles are not placed in chronological order at all. --Peter Kirby 23:53, 17 Aug 2005 (CDT)

-Tim-

-- In lieu of someone writing a serious rebuttal to this article, a question to be considered is, "For what reason do we insist that the Bible be organised in a manner that we think would be logical or convenient?" Also, "Is there reason to think that it was intended to decieve?"

-- If I recall correctly, there is some amount of scholarship (I believe fairly small as yet) that holds that matthew was written first. I'll try to chase up more info on that at some point.

-Tim- 09:19, 16 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Justin Eiler

While I have no problem with Markan priority, I feel that the fallacy listed here is not so much an issue of Bible errancy, but of disagreement with post-Biblical Christian tradition. While the Early Fathers certainly made much of this book order, such is not an issue for Biblical scholarship, where most scholars (and a good portion of lay readers) are aware that book order does not indicate historical order.

In short, this may be a good argument against Augustine's assumptions, but as far as Biblical errancy, it's a tempest in a teapot.

--JustinEiler 09:29, 16 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.


Whosonfirst?


Costello: Allrite, who came first?

Abbey: The Father?

Costello: Right. Who came second?

Abbey: The Son?

Costello: Wrong. The Son came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son both came first?

Costello: Correct. Who came third?

Abbey: The Spirit?

Costello: Wrong. The Spirit came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son & Spirit all came first?

Costello: That's correct. You've got the Spirit!

Abbey: I've got the Spirit and I don't even know what I'm saying.

See also

Personal tools