Matthew and Mark Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julius_Caesar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Julius_Caesar

Guest
How weak does Matthew being the author of Gospel 1 look if Matthew relies on Mark for material?
 
Not at all, I would say. The so-called ‘Synoptic Problem’ has been debated for ages, and although Marcan priority has the upper hand these days, it doesn’t imply that Matthew is ‘weak’.

If one Gospel relied on the other for material (as the similarities between the two seem to indicate), it’s not a proof that one is ‘stronger’ and the other ‘weaker’. Rather, it simply demonstrates that one is ‘earlier’ and the other ‘later’. Both are the inspired Word of God, though. Both evangelists, we would say, were inspired to compose their Gospel.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
St. Matthew wrote first.
Click to expand...
If one reads through Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it becomes obvious that Mark’s Gospel serves as the core of the other two and that his Gospel was likely the first written.

That’s not the same as saying that Matthew didn’t write sections of his Gospel unique to him before Mark, or that St. Matthew the apostle isn’t the author.

We can hold to Markan priority while still maintaining the traditional authorship of all the Gospels. Furthermore, tradition holds that St. Mark wrote his Gospel based on the testimony of St. Peter. So, we should have no problem accepting the premise that the first Gospel written was the one handed down by the first pope.
 
St Augustine believed that Matthew was the first gospel written.
 
Something interesting to note is from the Ignatius NT Study Bible’s introduction to Matthew:
“For various reasons, the argument against Matthean authorship is not as strong as some proponents assert. The evidence can be re-read and interpreted otherwise. For example, if the Gospel of Matthew did rely upon the Gospel of Mark, he could have done so with the awareness that Mark’s Gospel was reputedly based on the preaching of Peter. In this case, it is neither unreasonable nor improbable to suppose that one apostle made use of the testimony of another, especially when the apostle in question was Peter, whose authority and favored position among the Twelve are among the themes of Matthew’s Gospel (10:2; 16:17-19; 17:24-27). Why would the evangelist feel compelled to produce his account from scratch if such a document, known to represent the apostolic witness to Jesus, was already in circulation? Furthermore, the hypothesis that Mark was written before Matthew and was used as a source by Matthew is not proven. A number of scholars hold the opposite, i.e., that Matthew was written before Mark and was used as a source by Mark. Though this alternative position remains a minority position among contemporary scholars, it dovetails with the tradition of the early Church that the Gospel of Matthew was the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
Why would the evangelist feel compelled to produce his account from scratch if such a document, known to represent the apostolic witness to Jesus, was already in circulation?
Click to expand...
Different audience maybe?

If one reads Mark’s account isolated one can get adoptionism.

Mark also leaves out details that make Peter look good.
 
St Luke begins by declaring in effect that he was not an eyewitness but spoke to those who were. Does it weaken his Gospel, if some of sources happened to be written rather than oral? Surely not. And the same applies to Matthew.

Aside from that, I have always found the Four Document Hypothesis compelling, and I don’t understand why traditionalists object to it.
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
St Augustine believed that Matthew was the first gospel written.
Click to expand...
A good example that
  1. even saints can be mistaken about things sometimes

    and/or
  2. later study often can provide a better understanding of things
 
Last edited:
felsguy said:
later study often can provide a better understanding of things
Click to expand...
True… but only when the new understanding does not contradict the truth as established in the Magisterium.

The historical question of who wrote what first and what sources he used is of academic interest only and has no bearing on revealed truth.
 
This is pretty cool. Just objective data on shared material.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
They are 3 different accounts of what happened - you could look at Luke more like a reporter who went out and got the story. The story basically would be the same but each one would have differences in what they witnessed if all the gospels were exactly the same I would say plagiarism but they are not each one is unique to the person and what they saw and heard that stuck with them. Luke obviously interviewed Mary to get that part of the story and many others. I read claims that said it was mostly from Peter but that’s speculation.
 
Maximian said:
The historical question of who wrote what first and what sources he used is of academic interest only and has no bearing on revealed truth.
Click to expand...
I agree. And who wrote the first gospel may never be ‘proven’ so it is a matter of opinion. And I go with St Augustine’s opinion any day.
 
Thank you, @Shakuhachi. That diagram presents the information in a very clear way. Do we know who the author is?
 
The intro to Luke validates the theory that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark, unless you take Luke to be the Gospel and Acts.
 
Dennis Barton sometimes seems overkeen to prove his point. Here’s an instance (on pp. 57-58) in which he presents an ingenious solution to a wholly imaginary problem.

• Many apparent discrepancies between the Gospels may be explained if we accept that Matthew’s Gospel was originally in Hebrew. In Matthew 22:19, we read ‘show me a coin’ while Mark 12:15 has ‘bring me a denarius’. In Hebrew, a coin is HBW and a denarius is HRW. In Hebrew, a small difference distinguishes B and R from one another, so could easily have been misread when being translated into Greek (JC 32).

The alleged mystery that Barton has so brilliantly solved is the change from “coin” (Greek nomisma) in Matthew to “denarius” (Greek denarion) in Mark. But if he had taken the trouble to check what it says in the Bible, he would have realized that there is, in fact, no such mystery at all. Matthew and Mark both use the word “denarius”. It’s as simple as that. The only difference is that, in addition, Matthew also uses the word “coin.” Here is the verse in full, first in Matthew’s own Greek and then in the NRSV-CE:

19 ἐπιδείξατέ μοι τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου. οἱ δὲ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δηνάριον.

νόμισμα (nomisma), coin

δηνάριον (dénarion), denarius

 
Last edited:
Hmmmm. Now we have two diagrams purporting to convey the same statistical breakdown, but the second diagram gives completely different percentages. This is going to require careful thought!
 
Really? I didn’t notice. I just did a quick image search.
I sure would be pains taking to verify.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top