F
FishyPete
Guest
And im glad that most scholars don’t hold to the primitive Mark idea anymore. Its silly beyond belief.
- Status
F
FishyPete
Guest
Why have it in the cannon? Because it is an eyewitness account from Peter.
When we investigate “happenings” the more eye-witness accounts the better. Besides, different audiences and different needs.
F
FishyPete
Guest
For example if Edwin and FishyPete both saw who shot Slappy Peters, both our accounts would be recorded. And if Edwin and FishyPete were together when they saw the shooter, they’d discuss, and come to a conclusion concerning the event. Later we would be interviewed and we’d have slightly different accounts depending on who interviewed us and what we thought was important. You dig?
F
FishyPete
Guest
When you wrote this response to Nans post (I believe) you posted the most accurate post in this thread. I agree with what Edwin (you) wrote here.
F
FishyPete
Guest
Or there was a high demand for a written account from Peter in Rome. So, knowing there was an Aramaic Matthew in existence, Mark put together Peter’s book. Why re-create the wheel? But Peter did choose to not be so complimentary of himself, and using the info necessary for his audience in Rome (those not so concerned with the OT etc.). You see what i’m getting at?
BUT - you made the most sense in this thread (like usual) see post #90.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not assuming anything. I have thought about the matter and reached a conclusion. The narrative skeleton of Matthew, largely coinciding with Mark, appears to be less detailed and vivid in many places, with more elaboration of what the stories mean. This seems to point to Mark being closer to an eyewitness about than Matthew. It is simply not plausible that the Apostle Matthew wrote those sections of Matthew as an eyewitness account. I am quite open to the possibility that he did write down a collection of Jesus’ sayings which scholars now call “Q,” and which someone else later incorporated with Mark and other material to form what we call “Matthew.”
Edwin
F
FishyPete
Guest
And why is it not Plausible that the Apostle Matthew wrote those section of Matthew as an eye witness account?
F
FishyPete
Guest
Have you considered this? Its less detailed because Matthew wrote it and not Mark, and that Mathew was writing for Jews and Mark was writing for Romans? That They were writing for different audiences? The detail was filled in later by Peter who may have remembered more fully?
The internal evidence is once thing, but the external evidence points to Matthew or an Aramaic Mathew.
Don’t you believe that the Gospel of Mathew was an eye-wittness account by the Apostle Mathew himself?
F
FishyPete
Guest
Marks gospel was for Romans was it not. They needed different details. Besides, the Gospel of Mark was based on Peter’s preaching was it not?
If Mark was first, why leave out all the post-Resurrection stuff and the genealogy stuff? Mark and Peter probably knew it was written in Mathew, or Mathew-Q and figured it wasn’t necessary to re-create that stuff, which was available otherwise, and besides, I strongly believe Mark based most of what he recorded on Peters preaching to the Romans so maybe they didn’t need to hear that stuff.
If Mark was first, why leave out all the post-Resurrection stuff and the genealogy stuff? Mark and Peter probably knew it was written in Mathew, or Mathew-Q and figured it wasn’t necessary to re-create that stuff, which was available otherwise, and besides, I strongly believe Mark based most of what he recorded on Peters preaching to the Romans so maybe they didn’t need to hear that stuff.
F
FishyPete
Guest
And some of the earliest Church Fathers state that Matthew wrote first. Why would they say that if it wasn’t true?
I haven’t been convinced of this Mark first thing. too many holes in the theory.
But again, like you say, does it matter?
I haven’t been convinced of this Mark first thing. too many holes in the theory.
But again, like you say, does it matter?
P
powerofk
Guest
Right. The only thing that’s pretty much known for sure about the Gospels is that (a) they were written for different audiences, and (b) John was probably written last, as the last living apostle felt the need to combat early heresies about Jesus, namely adoptionism and docetism.
F
FishyPete
Guest
I found this:
External Evidence
more…
External Evidence
Code:
Matthew is almost unanimously testified as the oldest gospel by the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria even supported both Matthew and Luke as before Mark. This is significant because Mark is said to have founded the Coptic branch of Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt. If any place were to argue for Markan priority, Egypt would be the most likely. A sampling of the church fathers' testimony follows:
Papyus “Matthew wrote in Hebrew and others translated.”
Origen said the first gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew.
Iraneus (grandson in the faith of John by Polycarp of Smyrna) said the first gospel was written written by Matthew in land of Hebrews in their own language.
Eusebias — Matthew had first preached to Hebrews and wrote in their own language
Jerome “Matthew was the first to compose in Hebrew and his text is still available in [library near Bethlehem].” He even challenged his critics to go see it if they doubted.
As the church rose out of the mission to the gentiles, it is interesting that the church fathers supported the Judaic gospel of Matthew instead of Mark. Also consider that they testify that Mark was the companion of the Apostle Peter in Rome which became one of the five sees of the early church (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, Egypt). Unless the tradition of Matthean priority were very early, it is unlikely that they would all arrive at it independently. In fact, the slight differences in their testimonies provide evidence that they came from different sources.
Even though one of the main arguments for Markan priority is that Mark is shorter and "later authors would be more likely to expand than contract," such is not always the case (see, for example, the Reader's Digest Condensced Library). Summarizing a longer work is well known and has been for a long time. There are even ancient works which name their sources and state, "this work will be a shorter, more understandable account of the events than X."
The Didache clearly relies on Matthew. While the date of this document is debated between AD 50 and AD 150, the earlier it is, the earlier Matthew has to be.
When you examine second-century Christian writings, Matthew is quoted far more frequently than Mark. So is Luke. If Mark enjoyed a period when it was the only written gospel, it seems that it should have been more popular. Likewise, Matthew's Gospel enjoys a more central place in the second century liturgy than any other gospel or even Paul's epistles.
F
FishyPete
Guest
Textual Evidence
Code:
There are a significant number of places in Matthew where the parallel account in Mark makes more sense to have been edited down than for Matthew to expand. It is possible to read Mark with the hypothesis that it came from Matthew and run into no redactional problems that challenge said hypothesis. However, reading Matthew as a redaction of Mark does cause such problems.
There are places where Mark uses a certain word but Matthew does not, even though he used that word in other places (for example "pherein"). This makes more sense with Mark editing Matthew than of Matthew copying Mark.
There are places where Matthew has phrases he likes and uses them consistently. Mark has parallels of most of these accounts and is very free in his translations of the phrases. It makes more sense for Mark to be free styling from Matthew than it does for Matthew to be forcing the phrase into his wording whenever he sees it in Mark. One of these phrases is opias de genomenes, found first in Mt 8:16 and Mk 1:32. Markan priority has to conclude that Matthew copied the form exactly as Mark had it the first time, then always and consistently used the same grammar whenever he found a similar phrase in Mark and introducing it himself in Mt 20:8 which has no parallel in Mark.
There are places where Mark combines details from both Matthew and Luke. An example of these duplicate expressions can be seen in Mark 1:32 compared to Mt 8:16 and Luk 4:40.
Mk 1:32 When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed.
Mt 8:16 When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill.
Lk 4:40 While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them.
In these parallels, Mark combines the introductory phrases from both Matthew and Luke. In this case, Markan priority would require that Luke know of both Matthew and Mark and consciously choose to use the exact phrase that Matthew does not. However, if Matthew writes first and Luke second, there is no such problem.
Matthew leaves semitisms in place where Mark smoothens them. This includes wording and patterns that Mark breaks. Yes, Mark has eight semitic words, but Matthew has many more semitisms (so does Luke, a plethora of semitisms). Many of Mark's semitisms seem to be added for drama while Matthew's flow naturally.
Adding to the semitisms are 12 times where Matthew (and Luke) uses the participle of a verb while Mark uses the past tense. Using a participle for the second verb in a set (and he answered, saying) is well-known when coming from a semitic language (all over the Septuagint) but is not used in normal Greek. Mark also uses these participles but not as often. It would be more likely to edit them out than to edit them back in.
Many more examples exist where Matthew and Luke agree with one another in wording and Mark is different.
Matthew and Luke both record 8 healing miracles. Mark has 10. The two left out of both Matthew and Luke are the saliva miracles (Mark 7:32-35 and 8:24). Did they both decide to skip the same miracles independently or did Mark add them from another source?
C
Contarini
Guest
That and the other things you talk about are possible. They just don’t seem very probable. And in the absence of clear teaching by the Church, I’ll go with the most probable.
Yes, which is why I’m open to the idea that “Q” was in fact written by Matthew. That takes care of the external evidence for Matthaean priority and of the problem that “no one mentions Q.”
You ask in another post “why would they say Matthew was written first if it wasn’t true?” Perhaps because by the early second century Matthew had already become really important. On the one hand, it contained lots of polemic against Pharisaic Judaism. On the other, as a very Jewish Gospel, it was a good resource for refuting those who wanted to throw out the Old Testament and cut all ties with Judaism. Or maybe because, in fact, there was an earlier text by Matthew which was edited into the Gospel of Matthew as we know it.
I thought I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe that (of Matthew in its present form). Why do you find this so odd? Most scholars don’t believe that.
Edwin
F
FishyPete
Guest
St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an Apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint’s authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus’ sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form.
This is how I see it. Maybe we see it somewhat the same way.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s the traditional view, one not taken too seriously by most scholars (but I think coming back into fashion to some extent thanks to Richard Bauckham). I do take it very seriously. It’s one reason why I believe in Marcan priority.
I think the best explanation for the former is that Mark was written to give the background to the Resurrection story. It ends, as it were, with a cliff-hanger, with the key moment where Jesus actually appears to the disciples foretold but not actually shown. This seems to fit with Mark’s general narrative methods.
Genealogy may just not have been a concern for Mark or his audience. Given that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies, it doesn’t seem likely that there was a genealogy passed down orally as part of the original “proclamation.” It was probably a later concern.
The latter point is valid, I think (for the genealogies, not so much for the lack of appearance stories). But given how much all three Synoptics repeat, your explanation that “it wasn’t necessary to re-create that stuff” doesn’t make sense.
Edwin
F
FishyPete
Guest
The theology in the genealogy is sound, and the oral history could have existed in some form (perhaps Mathew Aramaic Q), i’m thinking that Luke, with access to Our Lady would know, and clear up Matthew, don’t you think. Unless you think he didn’t have direct access to Our Lady, and if that’s the case, then I don’t think we can come to an agreement.
At the end of the day, I think you would accept a Mathew Aramaic Q as a possibility no?
F
FishyPete
Guest
Ok, then this:
blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm
Since the times of the early church fathers, the apostle Matthew has always been accredited with the authorship of the first gospel (canonically). Even the title “According to Matthew” (KATA MAQQAION) is found in the earliest manuscripts, and was the most highly regarded and quoted of the gospels by the church fathers. [1] Matthew is also called Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 5:27). He was a tax collector (telwnhV), probably stationed on a main trade route near Capernaum where he would have collected tolls for Herod Antipas from commercial traffic. [2] Additionally, being a tax collector might better qualify Matthew for his role as an official recorder of the life and actions of Christ. [3] After the resurrection there is no other mention of him in the New Testament.
According to the resources available to us, Papias (the Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia ca. AD 130) was the first to associate the apostle Matthew with this document. Eusebius, the early church historian, records Papias’ account: “Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” [4] This quote also introduces some problems. What was Papias referring to when he stated that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew dialect? Some have understood this not as a reference to the Hebrew as we have in the Old Testament, but instead the Syro-Chaldaic, [5] or Aramaic. On the other hand, most scholars insist that Matthew was originally written in Greek because many parts of the Gospel are extremely (if not identically) similar to Mark’s, which was indubitably written in Greek. Others have also concluded that Matthew wrote two Gospels-one in a Palestinian language and the other in Greek. Ralph Martin’s conclusion is that “Papias’ tradition can at best relate only to a collection of material later used in the composition of the entire Gospel.” [6]
Not until the eighteenth century did the question of authorship become an issue. More recently, since Matthew does rely heavily on Mark’s Gospel (see “Date and Location of Composition” below), some scholars have discarded the idea that the author was one of the twelve apostles. On the other hand, Papias also said that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, [7] and therefore, the apostle Matthew would not have a problem with deferring to the early leader of the church. [8]
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord’s public ministry.
Jesuit Father Jose O’Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John’s being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FREALWROT.htm&ei=CsWtU7yQEoyPqgbP_IGoBg&usg=AFQjCNE5kA5DID6YIzrY3VTetITZh2MBJA
Jesuit Father Jose O’Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John’s being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FREALWROT.htm&ei=CsWtU7yQEoyPqgbP_IGoBg&usg=AFQjCNE5kA5DID6YIzrY3VTetITZh2MBJA
F
FishyPete
Guest
I agree with this research.
- Status