Gospel of Matthew

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canadianguy1143

Guest
Just to give some relevant background here, I am attending a Baptist University studying Business Administration and for one of the courses that I am taking, it teaches that Mark’s Gospel was written first, not Matthew’s and then Luke’s. One of the reasons they give is that they say:
“whereas the Church tradition is unanimous in stating that Matthew was written before Mark and Luke, that tradition in the same breath also argues that Matthew was written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Yet it is clear that our present Matthew is not a simple translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew) into Greek. Thus the Matthew of church tradition does not fit the Greek Matthew of the Synoptic Problem.”
Click to expand...
I would appreciate any and all apologetic information that would refute what they are saying as I have a term paper that is due in this course and would like to do it on correcting this misinterpretation.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Just to give some relevant background here, I am attending a Baptist University studying Business Administration and for one of the courses that I am taking, it teaches that Mark’s Gospel was written first, not Matthew’s and then Luke’s. One of the reasons they give is that they say:

I would appreciate any and all apologetic information that would refute what they are saying as I have a term paper that is due in this course and would like to do it on correcting this misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but it looks like the “Higher Criticism” type of commentary is being used. I would think a Baptist University would be more conservative. Do you know if this is a more liberal Baptist university as far as the faith is concerned? I say this because Fr Raymond Brown says similiar things about the gospels. I have a book entitled, “Free From All Error” by Fr William Most that covers this very subject (p116-117) you’re asking about. It’s too involved to give a short answer. I would suggest buying this book. He’s very charitable in his criticism of all the “Higher Criticism” arguments. Fr Most was also a great biblical scholar.
 
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
Code: 
        + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
        
        + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
        
        + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark,  so  producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.              The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
        
        + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament  in the  fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John              sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
        
        + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize  that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately,             so  confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
        
        + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that  Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
        
        
        + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both  point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he              alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his  own. In this way he was authorising the             work of Luke (a  non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in  shorthand, were distributed             to those who made requests. This  explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed  in literary             Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of  the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
        
        + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
        
        + This vindication of the reliability of the historical  records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting              that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical  records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect              agreement.
        
        **THE CHURCH**
        + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican             Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
        
        + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
        
        + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
        
        + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
         ================
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
Code: 
        The earliest Christian historians
        Modern literary analysis
        The doctrine of the church
        Recent Church statements
more…
 
“… Mark’s Gospel was written first, not Matthew’s and then Luke’s.”

Why do people care?
 
bkayw said:
“… Mark’s Gospel was written first, not Matthew’s and then Luke’s.”

Why do people care?
Click to expand...
So they can cast doubt on the inspiration of scripture and make you think that other authors plagiarized Mark rather than were guided by God.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
I would appreciate any and all apologetic information that would refute what they are saying as I have a term paper that is due in this course and would like to do it on correcting this misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
Nonsensical argument. They’ve already admitted that sources can be lost; to wit, they lost “Q.” And they’ve already admitted that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Therefore, Matthew and the other disciples could speak Aramaic. And they’ve already admitted that these guys could write in Greek (they wrote Q and the other gospels). Therefore, Matthew could write in Aramaic also.

Well, golly gee, Matthew wrote two copies of his gospel: one in Aramaic, and one in Greek. And we lost the Aramaic one.

QED, thus it is proven, done. :rolleyes:
 
bkayw said:
“… Mark’s Gospel was written first, not Matthew’s and then Luke’s.”

Why do people care?
Click to expand...
Which came first means little or nothing to most Christians, but it matters to theologians and other scholars conducting in-depth study of the bible. Biblical scholars care because they want to trace the development of the Gospel story through multiple authors to see how the theology of the early Church developed. They also care because when interpreting difficult passages it can be helpful to look at how different authors covered the same material. When doing that, its useful to know if Mark was expanding or explaining what Matthew said, Matthew was explaining Mark, or if they were independent descriptions of the same event.

Different Catholic theologians have come to different conclusions on the order of authorship. To my knowledge, the Church does not take a hard stance on any particular order. The most popular right now is Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. Second is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Again, it only matters if you are interested in tracing the history of the Gospels and doing in-depth bibilical analysis.
 
rcjones said:
So they can cast doubt on the inspiration of scripture and make you think that other authors plagiarized Mark rather than were guided by God.
Click to expand...
This is both wrong and strikingly uncharitable. Good solid Catholic theologians have suggested Markan priority, and good sold Catholic theologians have suggested Matthew. There is no reason to assume (or evidence to suggest) that these good Catholics (or their Protestant colleagues) have any evil motive.
 
TMC said:
This is both wrong and strikingly uncharitable. Good solid Catholic theologians have suggested Markan priority, and good sold Catholic theologians have suggested Matthew. There is no reason to assume (or evidence to suggest) that these good Catholics (or their Protestant colleagues) have any evil motive.
Click to expand...
Exceptions to a generality don’t make the generality untrue.

Let me be more precise so that if you know of some exceptions it won’t sound so uncharitable.

There are some who may suggest one time frame or another and not be wrapped up in the agenda of higher criticism. But those who are, whether they personally intend to or not, contribute to the popularization of the idea that the Bible is just a book written by men who evolved a concept of God quite apart from revelation.

The higher criticism agenda has been successful in popularizing the single intent school of hermeneutics which defines God out of the process of producing the scriptures and places the responsibility squarely in the knowledge and intent of the human authors.

It defines away the historical position of the church that the Bible has a literal and spiritual sense. (The Quadriga). Good theologians know the proper bounds for speculation and do not build doctrine on supposed dates of human authorship, and hence, to a good theologian, a speculated date is interesting but not important.

That probably doesn’t make toes feel any better, but at least you’ll know whose toes the author intended to step on. 😉
 
TMC said:
This is both wrong and strikingly uncharitable. Good solid Catholic theologians have suggested Markan priority, and good sold Catholic theologians have suggested Matthew. There is no reason to assume (or evidence to suggest) that these good Catholics (or their Protestant colleagues) have any evil motive.
Click to expand...
Can you give me some sources for that please.
 
rcjones said:
Exceptions to a generality don’t make the generality untrue.

Let me be more precise so that if you know of some exceptions it won’t sound so uncharitable.

There are some who may suggest one time frame or another and not be wrapped up in the agenda of higher criticism. But those who are, whether they personally intend to or not, contribute to the popularization of the idea that the Bible is just a book written by men who evolved a concept of God quite apart from revelation.

The higher criticism agenda has been successful in popularizing the single intent school of hermeneutics which defines God out of the process of producing the scriptures and places the responsibility squarely in the knowledge and intent of the human authors.

It defines away the historical position of the church that the Bible has a literal and spiritual sense. (The Quadriga). Good theologians know the proper bounds for speculation and do not build doctrine on supposed dates of human authorship, and hence, to a good theologian, a speculated date is interesting but not important.

That probably doesn’t make toes feel any better, but at least you’ll know whose toes the author intended to step on. 😉
Click to expand...
I stand by my previous comment.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Can you give me some sources for that please.
Click to expand...
Have you read much biblical commentary by Catholic theologians? Most support Markan priority. I can’t give you a comprehensive list off the top of my head, but Fr. Ray Brown comes to mind.
 
i don’t want to confuse things but i favour the Griesbach Hypothesis.
That is that Matthew wrote first Gospel for the Palestinian Jews, Luke wrote next for the Gentiles based on Matthew and independent research and then Mark wrote third when recording the preaching of Peter who was preaching in Rome using both Matthew and Luke and throwing in his own words and reflections in basic Greek.

No need for the invention of Q at all.

maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm

archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04-03/04-19-03/a06op041.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis

Mark Goodacre who supports Mark writing first but who also thinks Q is not credible.

markgoodacre.org/Q/
 
Hi canadianguy,
On this, the Feast Day of Saint Matthew, may I wish you the very best of luck in your course.

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
(Matthew 28: 18-20)

God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
There is an excellent book titled “The Birth of the Synoptics” by Jean Carmignac, a French scholar. The book is only 88 pages long – a short, readable/understandable version for the public of a much longer and extensive scholarly work.
There’s a short bio of him on Wikipedia, but unfortunately it’s in French; they’re asking for someone to translate!
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Carmignac

Fr. Carmignac argues very strongly for original Hebrew for Matthew and Mark.
Just a few clips:
Re: Language and Date (From Chapter 1 “Elaboration of Hypotheses”
While translating the texts of Qumran, I discovered many connections with the New Testament and each time I prepared an index card. …I wanted to begin with the Gospel of Mark. …, I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran. I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between Semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy… For the Greek sentence, much more flexible than the Semitic sentence, allows for a great deal of liberty in the positioning of words, whereas in Semitic languages the placing of the various parts of speech is determined by more precise rules.
How to explain this fact, that the Greek of Mark adhered so readily to the laws of Hebrew grammar.

…

…, I increasingly came to realize the consequences of my work in the area of exegesis and theology. If Mark had really been redacted in Hebrew…, the dates of composition currently admitted must be revised, not only for him, but also for Matthew and for Luke: All are then much earlier than had been imagined. …

Re: Which Gospel written first
In Chapter 4 “The Synoptic Problem”, he goes into the chronological order of the gospels.

It’s been so long ago that I read the book that I can’t remember if he comes to a definite conclusion or not regarding which gospel account came first. I will read this afternoon; if I find a conclusion on his part, I will post it. In scanning, I came across this in Chapter 4.
(“both” in the first sentence refers to Mark’s gospel and “Collection of Discourses”:
Many modern exegetes think that Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, utilized both of these sources. But then how does one explain the fact that often they both modified the text of Mark in the same way: the same omissions, the same additions, the same substitutions (either in Greek or in Hebrew). …

Could be the English version is out of print. Amazon seems to have only used copies available.
amazon.com/Birth-Synoptic-Gospels-Jean-Carmignac/dp/0819908878
 
Nita said:
…It’s been so long ago that I read the book that I can’t remember if he comes to a definite conclusion or not regarding which gospel account came first. I will read this afternoon; if I find a conclusion on his part, I will post it. …
Click to expand...
In the book he accepts the Mark written first position — but I wouldn’t say it was a “definite” conclusion. He was still researching.
 
When one reads the introduction to the Gospel of Mark in the NAB on the US Bishops’ website, the first words are: "This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written."

Bible Scholar J Benton White states in his book “Taking the Bible Seriously” that the Gospel of Mark was likely the first written and that in reading the four Gospels in the order of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, “one is struck by how the story expands in the telling.”

Jaroslav Pelikan, a renowned scripture scholar, said that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels “in the opinion of most New Testament scholars.”

J.R. Porter, Professor of Theology, writes in his book “Jesus Christ” (which I highly recommend): ** “It was only in the nineteenth century that Mark came to the forefront of New Testament study, with the widespread recognition that it was in fact the first gospel, and that both Matthew and Luke depended on it.”**

In his book “Who Wrote the Gospels?”, Randel Helms also considers Mark’s Gospel as the earliest.

I would think Marcus Borg would hold that position as well, but I could not readily find a source to verify that.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admitted that the dominant opinion at the time (early 20th century) was for the primacy of Mark, although they presented several possibilities to explain the connections between the synoptic Gospels: ** “The prevailing view at the present among Protestant scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and England as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark’s Gospel is prior to St. Matthew’s, and used in it as well as in St. Luke’s.” **

I don’t think the Church today holds a definite stance on the order of the Gospels, and as others have asked, is it really important which was first? For most of us, no.
 
Hi, Buffalo,

Thank you for an excellent post.👍

While I was thinking that knowing the chronology of the Books is important, these Books were placed in a particular order - mainly by size (like the Letters of Paul) rather than by date. This may be true with the other New Testament books with the exception of the Gospels and Revelation.

My understanding (and I have no idea where I got this from…) is that since Revelations basically ends the Divine message to mankind, it had to be the last Book. The ordering of the Synoptic Gospels was more related to some other characteristic - but, I really do not know what it is - but, I just did not think it was simply chronological order.

God bless
buffalo said:
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
Code: 
        + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
        
        + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
        
        + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark,  so  producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.              The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
        
        + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament  in the  fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John              sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
        
        + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize  that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately,             so  confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
        
        + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that  Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
        
        
        + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both  point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he              alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his  own. In this way he was authorising the             work of Luke (a  non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in  shorthand, were distributed             to those who made requests. This  explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed  in literary             Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of  the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
        
        + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
        
        + This vindication of the reliability of the historical  records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting              that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical  records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect              agreement.
        
        **THE CHURCH**
        + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican             Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
        
        + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
        
        + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
        
        + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
         ================
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
Code: 
        The earliest Christian historians
        Modern literary analysis
        The doctrine of the church
        Recent Church statements
more…
Click to expand...
 
chaunceygardner said:
When one reads the introduction to the Gospel of Mark in the NAB on the US Bishops’ website, the first words are: “This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written.”
Click to expand...
It’s very sad that something so BLATANTLY STUPID got into a Catholic Bible. There’s no more warrant for that claim than saying, “The shortest person is likely to have written the first gospel,” or “The man with the shortest beard is likely to have written the first gospel.” Length of writing has no bearing on first in time. Come on, how many pages is the Iliad? And the Odyssey?

And then they counter, “But the 2nd guy had to copy of the first guy, and he probably added to it.”
**And I say, “YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT WHICH YOU SET OUT TO PROVE. YOU CANNOT ASSUME THE ANSWER.” **
Bible Scholar J Benton White states in his book “Taking the Bible Seriously” that the Gospel of Mark was likely the first written and that in reading the four Gospels in the order of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, “one is struck by how the story expands in the telling.”
Click to expand...
Read it the other way around. Do it. Get your Bibles out and spend a few hours reading the Matthew first, and then Luke, and then Mark last. IT WORKS BEAUTIFULLY. Seriously. Get your Bibles out and do it! Read Mark third. You will be struck at how the story expands in the telling with Mark last of the three. **I’m serious. Do it. **
J.R. Porter, Professor of Theology, writes in his book “Jesus Christ” (which I highly recommend): “It was only in the nineteenth century that Mark came to the forefront of New Testament study, with the widespread recognition that it was in fact the first gospel, and that both Matthew and Luke depended on it.”
Click to expand...
Translation: the theory of Mark first, and it’s companion theory of Q, arose in the 1800s. Before that it was unheard of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top