G
Gorgias
Guest
I don’t know of a single one who suggests that Mark wasn’t written by Mark. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
- Status
K
Kei
Guest
It is also conjecture that St Mark would want to write the same thing that was already written.
A
Agathon
Guest
What are you saying?
K
Kei
Guest
In your comment, you said that it would be odd for Mark to be after Matthew and Luke because of the amount of material he would have deleted (which makes the modern assumption that a whole lot of borrowing was going on, which is likely an early oral traditon).
The comment I replied to was your comment to another poster that his explanation of such was conjecture.
The comment I replied to was your comment to another poster that his explanation of such was conjecture.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
It was written by St Mark, of course.
That’s basically how I view the history of the synoptic gospels too. The original writings of St. Matthew, which the Greek version of his gospel is based on, predates the Gospel of St. Mark. But it’s very likely that the Greek translators of St. Matthew original writings added and edited the writings of St. Matthew to include more than what St. Matthew had originally written, including stories that were written down in the Gospel according to St. Mark.buffalo:
Was Augustine’s, Irenaeus, Papias’s, or Origen’s statements that Mark was written before Luke Protestant innovations?
What I personally believe is that Mark was the first to compose his Gospel in Greek. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, then Mark, then Matthew in Greek, then Luke.
Hence, in what became the accepted canonical versions of the Holy Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, St. Mark’s is the oldest, followed by St. Matthew’s and then St. Luke’s.
B
brian_custer
Guest
maybe; i’d always been “taught” that the “order” is mark, matthew, luke, john
A
Agathon
Guest
Teaching the Synoptic Problem after the Synoptic Gospels - Jason Staples
I had the opportunity to teach a five-week course of “Introduction to New Testament Literature” at UNC-Chapel Hill this summer, and I took the opportunity to reexamine and revamp a few aspects of how I’ve taught that course (or have seen others teach it) in the past. In addition to a lot of...
www.jasonstaples.com
Considering how much information we find in Luke’s gospel that draws on Mark’s…:man_shrugging:t6:
K
Kei
Guest
1%.
All Synoptics have a fair bit in common, but Luke shares much more with only Matthew than with only Mark, at least according to that chart.
Of course, an easy solution to the “synoptic problem” is that they all shared a very similar early tradition, some of which the synoptics shared, because it’s based upon actual events, rather than coming up with Markan priority and a hypothetical document that we have no physical proof of or mention of whatsoever.
A similar, shared oral tradition. It’s really that simple. And then not everything was written down by each, only what they wanted to. It’s all quite simple without a bunch of confusion.
All Synoptics have a fair bit in common, but Luke shares much more with only Matthew than with only Mark, at least according to that chart.
Of course, an easy solution to the “synoptic problem” is that they all shared a very similar early tradition, some of which the synoptics shared, because it’s based upon actual events, rather than coming up with Markan priority and a hypothetical document that we have no physical proof of or mention of whatsoever.
A similar, shared oral tradition. It’s really that simple. And then not everything was written down by each, only what they wanted to. It’s all quite simple without a bunch of confusion.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
If you consider the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Peter became a disciple before Matthew, it would make sense tha Matthew may have drawn some traditions from Mark and edited his Hebrew original to make Greek Matthew.
B
brian_custer
Guest
then good old Saint Paul showed up; his compadre Luke tagged along & wrote His gospel & the “Acts”
i think it worked out fairly well
i think it worked out fairly well
G
Gorgias
Guest
This creates more issues than it solves, though, doesn’t it?
If you hold to Matthean priority, then how do you explain the passages in Mark that match passages in Matthew (after all, according to your timeline, Mark was ‘copying’ from a Hebrew manuscript, not a Greek one) – how did they just happen to translate Mark’s Hebrew identically?
But, if you hold to Markan priority, then you have to explain why Matthew modified his Gospel to match Mark’s, when he translated his Gospel from Hebrew to Greek!
Seems rife with difficulties…
A
Agathon
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
I hit ‘reply’ to your post from last week. Still, I’m not sure I buy what you wrote last night:
Are you suggesting that Mark was Peter’s disciple prior to Matthew becoming an apostle? That just doesn’t make sense.
Or, are you suggesting that the only items that Matthew pulled from Mark happened prior to Matthew’s call to be an apostle? If memory serves, that’s not where the correspondences between the two Gospels exist. (I mean, you could make the claim that Mark and/or Matthew aren’t strictly chronological accounts… but then you’d have to claim that the correspondences between Mark and Matthew – that is, the parts that you’re claiming Matthew got from Mark – all happened chronologically prior to Matthew’s call. That’s a really tough claim to support…)
Otherwise, your suggestion appears to have a quite serious weak point: why would Matthew – an apostle – draw from what Mark learned from Peter?
Here’s the thing: there’s no data to suggest that Matthew translated his Hebrew into Greek. Even Jerome (IIRC) asserts that no one knows who translated it. Even so, you would have to make the case for the reason why Matthew would ‘write’ his Gospel twice, in two languages.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
I guess Irenaeus and Papias’ statements aren’t evidence.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Here’s what they have to say on the matter of Matthew translating his own Gospel into Greek, AFAIK:I guess Irenaeus and Papias’ statements aren’t evidence.
On the other hand, here’s what they did say:
I’m not aware of any statements by either of them, asserting that Matthew either translated his own Gospel into Greek or edited his Gospel, adding Markan material.
(Perhaps modern scholars make this claim, but not from any direct claims from anyone, especially Papias or Irenaeus.)
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
Why does it feel you’re not really reading my post? Lemme break it down for you. Peter was a disciple before Matthew. Mark wrote his Gospel from what Peter told him. So it would make sense for Matthew to use Mark as his source material for writing his Gospel in Greek.
A
Agathon
Guest
Still, a Hebrew Matthew existed. These statements make sense once you consider the facts.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I dunno. Maybe because you’re not making sense.
OK… this is what I’d hoped you weren’t saying. Are you suggesting that the sequence of events went something like this:
- Peter is called as an apostle
- Mark becomes Peter’s disciple
- Peter tells Mark what Jesus said and did
- Mark writes down what Peter told him
- Matthew becomes an apostle
- Matthew writes down what Jesus said and did
Or, are you claiming:
- Peter becomes an apostle
- Matthew becomes an apostle
- Mark becomes Peter’s disciple
- Peter tells Mark some stuff that happened before Matthew became an apostle
- the common material between Mark’s Gospel and Matthew’s Gospel is the stuff that Peter told Mark (but which Matthew never experienced personally)
(p.s., the info we have on Matthew is that he wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic), not Greek.
)
A
Agathon
Guest
I’m making sense. It seems as if you are deliberately not understanding my argument.
- Status