Formation of the Bible

[Christian2]

Hello,

I have read, but don't remember where, that the Gospels were at one time in early Christian history compiled into one volume and then later separated into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?

Thank you

[Jac3510]

I'm pretty sure there is nothing to that. We know pretty much for sure that either:

1) Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their writing (so, we therefore know that Mark was used first), or

2) All three used a common source.

The second is pretty unlikely. As a third note, some people are trying to push Lukan priority recently, so I've read, but I'm not familiar with who (see New Testament Survey by Thomas Lea). In any case, because of the similarities between the three, they have been dubbed the synoptic gospels, but that doesn't mean they were all originally part of the same manuscript. Most likely, Mark was written in the mid to late 50's, Matthew the early 60's, and Luke the mid to late 60's. John would have been written probably around 90.

[Christian2]

Hi Jac3510,

Thank you for your response.

I think this is where I may have gotten my misinformation.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

A clip:

At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', and so on. About AD 115 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, refers to 'The Gospel' as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four 'Gospels' it may well be that by 'The Gospel' he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.

Also in this same article:

About AD 170 an Assyrian Christian named Tatian turned the fourfold Gospel into a continuous narrative or 'Harmony of the Gospels', which for long was the favourite if not the official form of the fourfold Gospel in the Assyrian Church. It was distinct from the four Gospels in the Old Syriac version. It is not certain whether Tatian originally composed his Harmony, usually known as the Diatessaron, in Greek or in Syriac; but as it seems to have been compiled at Rome its original language was probably Greek, and a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron in Greek was discovered in the year 1933 at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates. At any rate, it was given to the Assyrian Christians in a Syriac form when Tatian returned home from Rome, and this Syriac Diatessaron remained the 'Authorised Version' of the Gospels for them until it was replaced by the Peshitta or 'simple' version in the fifth century.

Anyway, wasn't Luke and Acts at one time one book and later separated? Or am I wrong about this too? lol

God bless

[Jac3510]

I see. I misunderstood what you meant by "one volume." I thought you had read that they were originally penned as one volume and then later separated . . .

I see no problems with the information in your clips. I suspect that the four gospels were compiled together very quickly, has as Paul's letters were and the rest of the NT. Further, harmonies of the gospels have been common throughout the years, so, again, I see no problem with that. It's just important to remember that the four books were four distinct books, written by four different authors at four differnent times to four different primary audiences for four difference theological purposes!

As to Luke-Acts, it is often considered one work, but, again, Luke didn't write them at the same time. He wrote Luke first, and some time later (probably as little as a year or so) wrote Acts. Most biblical scholars simply refer to Luke-Acts as one work because the narrative of Acts picks right up were Luke leaves off, and, of course, we have the same author.

[Christian2]

Hi,

After re-reading my original question, I can see why you misunderstood. I did not make myself clear. I did not mean that they were "originally penned" as one volume. I know that they were written by 4 different authors, at different times.

Again, thank you for your reply.