The real reason Peter is always mentioned first


#1

The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers


#2

[quote=allischalmers]The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

Wow, and here I thought the Bible was the inspired Word of God. I personally don’t believe in coincidence but Godincidence and a reason for everything. But if you want to believe it is just happenstance that Peter was always mentioned first, God will let you choose to do so.

God Bless,
Maria


#3

if any part of the bible was manipulated… then
the whole of the bible is corrupted…

because there would be no way of deciding which
parts were manipulations, and which were God’s
words…

i’ll just continue to believe the bible is God’s
inspired revelation…

:slight_smile:


#4

[quote=allischalmers]The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

This understanding requires an adherence to Q Source Theory at least in part. However, not only is Q Source Theory an argument from silence and thus not a credible theory it is also under serious scrutiny today in current exigesis because biblical archeology has found that the Catholic tradition of Matthew being written first is valid as they have found Matthew in the original Hebrew and is dated as the oldest version of the Gospel to date.


#5

[quote=allischalmers] he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.

When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first.

Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

I always wondered if the bible was inspired by man…:whacky:… thanks

forever Catholic
Mr S (who knows one day you too will be Catholic… it says so in the bible - the one written by God)


#6

[quote=allischalmers]The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

Do you any historical evidence for your claim that Mark was the first Gospel written?


#7

Actually this view must be correct. Since there is no authority to say otherwise.


#8

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Looks like Scripture disagrees with you allischalmers.

Even if your claims are true, that Mark was written first, that Mark was a scribe to Peter, do you not see that there God inspired him to do so first so all others would follow suit?

Is your God so small that He is incapable of doing so? I don’t think so and sincerely pray you don’t either.

Is He so big that He is not worried about little details like that? Don’t you see that you argument goes agaist scripture that tells us God even cares for the sparrows?

God Bless,
Maria


#9

[quote=mosher]This understanding requires an adherence to Q Source Theory at least in part. However, not only is Q Source Theory an argument from silence and thus not a credible theory it is also under serious scrutiny today in current exigesis because biblical archeology has found that the Catholic tradition of Matthew being written first is valid as they have found Matthew in the original Hebrew and is dated as the oldest version of the Gospel to date.
[/quote]

Are you referring to the DuTillet hebrew Matthew, I am trying to clarify here?
BH


#10

[quote=mosher]This understanding requires an adherence to Q Source Theory at least in part. However, not only is Q Source Theory an argument from silence and thus not a credible theory it is also under serious scrutiny today in current exigesis because biblical archeology has found that the Catholic tradition of Matthew being written first is valid as they have found Matthew in the original Hebrew and is dated as the oldest version of the Gospel to date.
[/quote]

More on this.

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm

The writer has some good analysis. However, one point of difference I have with him is that he insists that the similarities in the synoptic gospels must be attributed to a common (written) literature. That MAY be true, however, it was very common into the Middle Ages to have individuals be able to memorize stories amounting to thousands of lines of text after one hearing. It is true that usually these verses had a rhyming scheme associated with them, but I believe that the aural abilities of the cultures of the ANE are vastly underrated by modern textual researchers.

Peace,
Richard


#11

[quote=allischalmers]Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
[/quote]

Have you really looked at the picture Mark paints of Peter? If Mark was simply being Peter’s toady as you suggest, he would have made a serious effort to present Peter as at least faithful, not the impulisve, rash and vascilating Peter who appears in Mark’s Gospel.

Sorry, that argument is simply inconsistent with the evidence at hand.


#12

[quote=allischalmers]The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

I heard the some thing from another Baptist but this guy also said that John the Baptist was the one that stated the Baptist Church.maybe you are both right,WOW

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]


#13

[quote=MariaG] 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
[/quote]

I thought this referred to the OT? The NT Canon of Scripture was chosen by the Catholic Church sometime later.

Are we looking at a Catholic plot here? :rolleyes:


#14

I agree with Lapsed (or is it Ex-Lapsed, now? Congratulations!) in that Mark isn’t very complimentary on Peter. This is not the normal treatment from one who is a Toady. If Mark wanted to include Peter first, I think he would have shown him in a better light.

As a matter of fact, Peter seems to be pretty self-depracating in his Epistles, as well.

Notworthy


#15

[quote=allischalmers]The first gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve but was a companion of Peter, he may even have acted as Peter’s secretary. Most or all of the information that Mark had for writing his gospel he recieved from Peter. So when Mark started writing he naturally put the name of the person from whom he get his infromation first.
Since there was not a Bible in every pew ,so to speak, in the eary centuries whenever someone was able to have the written word they would memorize it then pass it on for someone else to memorize.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels they drew off of Marks Gospels probably from what they had memorized and so since Mark had written Peters name first their mind just pick up Peters name first. Nothing supernatural here.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

By that reasoning, then, if Matthew and Luke got their information from Mark, they should have put his name at the beginning of their Gospels!

Also, if it is “perfectly natural” for biblical writers (or other writers in antiquity for that matter) to place the name of their sources at the top of any list, I’d like to see this principle demonstrated from other writings. Otherwise it is just speculation–and poor speculation at that.

Maybe — just maybe— the gospels say what they do because that is actually the way things happened…

Naaah! That WOULD be supernatural.
.


#16

I beleive that scripture was God inspired but I do not think the God dictated it word for word. there were a lot of things that had an inflence on the writing of scripture.

forever Baptist
allischalmers


#17

[quote=allischalmers]I beleive that scripture was God inspired but I do not think the God dictated it word for word. there were a lot of things that had an inflence on the writing of scripture.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

Peter isnt mentioned first in EVERY case, do I conclude that the “author” was interviewing other apostles?


#18

To suggest that the other evangelists simply copied from Mark is not supported by the facts. If they copied from Mark, one would expect each list of the apostles in the other Gospels and Acts to agree 100% with Mark’s but this is not the case, as can be seen below:2The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Matthew 10:2-4)

14And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach 15and have authority to cast out demons: 16Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 17James the son of Zeb’edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner’ges, that is, sons of thunder; 18Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3:14-19)

[size=1][/size]
[size=1]13And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; 14Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Luke 6:13-16)

[size=1]13[/size]and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. (Acts 1:13)

What a careful examination of these lists does show is that Peter is always mentioned first and that Judas Iscariot is mentioned last. Judas Iscariot is arguably the least of the Twelve because he betrayed Christ. Since the least of the Twelve appears last on the lists, one can reasonably assume that the greatest of the Twelve, appears first on the lists, namely Peter.

[/size]


#19

[quote=allischalmers]I beleive that scripture was God inspired but I do not think the God dictated it word for word. there were a lot of things that had an inflence on the writing of scripture.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

I agree. Each writer brings their own flavor to the gospel.

But to write off, no pun intended, the fact that Peter is listed first on the fact that Mark was written first, (which seems to be in dispute) and others followed his lead is truly mind boggling to me.

It seems to me you are so desparate to prove Catholicism wrong you have closed your mind to obvious leading and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in which Peter was listed first time and time again.

Do you think God was unaware of the disunity His Church would be in?

Do you think He had no knowledge of the disunity that would be blamed on the primacy of the Pope?

Can’t you see that this was just another way that God was trying to help people see the truth of the Catholic Church?

For someone who places such importance on Scripture, it amazes me that you fail to actually see the significance when that very same scripture, Scripture that you think is the inspired word of God, lists Peter’s name first so very many times, not just one time, not just in Mark.

**So if it were to be proved that Mark was not written first, do you believe there is significance then? **

God Bless,
Maria


#20

[quote=allischalmers]I beleive that scripture was God inspired but I do not think the God dictated it word for word. there were a lot of things that had an inflence on the writing of scripture.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

and since the Church began, there are lots of people (outside the Church) that have tried to influence the interpretation of scripture.

shame…shame…shame


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.