Matthew and Mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anrmenchaca47

Guest
My wife is reading a book by Lee Strobel “A case for Christ” and she came across a passage saying that Matthew and Mark were not part of the 12 disciples. Any truth to this?
 
Well, may you quote the passage so we can read it and investigate it?
 
Just because Mark wasn’t one of the 12, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a key early disciple.

People think Mark the Evangelist was the same John/Mark mentioned when the angel rescues Peter from prison–
12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. 13 Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. 14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, “Peter is at the door!”
Click to expand...
So Peter is a frequent enough visitor to Mark’s mom’s house that the servants recognize his voice.

Scholars also think he’s the same Mark as mentioned in 2 Timothy, which would show he was involved with Paul as well:
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
Click to expand...
And there’s also the theory that Mark put himself in his own gospel to show his presence during the Passion narrative, which would explain the weird side note about–
51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Click to expand...
Similarly to how scholars suspect that Luke inserted himself into his own gospel in the Road to Emmaus narrative, where he identifies Cleopas as one of the two men, but leaves the other man nameless, or how John the Evangelist refers to John the Apostle as “the disciple Jesus loved”, supporting the hypothesis that the two are the same, although scholars argue about that one based on John 21:24.
 
St. Mark’s Gospel is basically St. Peter’s. The ancients are in agreement that St. Mark was the writer and publisher, but the substance comes from St. Peter–either St. Mark recording and organizing what St. Peter preached or even having taken dictation from him.

St. Luke was a companion of St. Paul. He compiled his Gospel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by recording eyewitness accounts from Apostles and others.
 
Matthew was one of the Twelve. His calling by Jesus is described in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
He was a tax collector, sitting in his booth, when Jesus called him, and he left his booth and followed Jesus.
 
Yes, Matthew and John were apostles, Mark and Luke were not.

Interestingly, St. Augustine was not convinced that Mark was not simply a plagiarist of Matthew’s work, because he was not convinced that a non-Apostle was capable of writing an independent Gospel…Historical scholars would later learn that Mark’s Gospel was most certainly written before Matthew’s.
 
St Mark was not one of the 12, but likely one of the 70 that Jesus sent before him at one point. There is a tradition that St Mark went to Alexandria, Egypt and converted many pagans there.
 
If you’re worried that not being an apostle invalidates their writing? No.
St Paul wasn’t an apostle either.
 
Here is the explanation that is most consistent with the early church fathers on how the Gospels were written.

The Apostles were in need of a written Gospel early on to help the communities they founded to stay in unity of the whole Church. St. Matthew the Apostle, as a tax collector, was trained in writing. Roman’s would have demanded accurate written records to insure their taxes were handled appropriately. St. Matthew wrote the first Gospel.
St. Mark transcribed Peter’s words, which we now call Mark’s Gospel.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

.
The guy immediately in front of St. Mark is assisting and holding a black ink well.
The gentleman behind him is holding blank scrolls.
.

www.defendingthebride.com

How the Gospels Were Written : Clementine Tradition

How the Gospels were written based on the testimony of Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, (died AD 215.) This explains how the main reason for Markan Priority does not even exist.
www.defendingthebride.com www.defendingthebride.com
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
St Paul wasn’t an apostle either.
Click to expand...
But, Saint Paul was an apostle…just not one of the 12…actually he was the 14th (after Mathias replaced Judas of Iscariot)…but still an apostle…like the original 12, Paul saw the resurrected glorified body of Christ, and was sent out personally by the Lord on a mission, just as the others were.
 
Yes, he does 🙂 but he wasn’t part of the original twelve, who walked with Jesus before the crucifixion.

No, I said what I did because the OP seemed concerned about it while reading a book called The Case For Christ
 
We were taught in Bible History class that Mark wrote his gospel first, to boost the morale of the early Christian martyrs.
Matthew then adapted it for the Jewish people and Luke adapted it for the Gentiles.
 
Recent Catholic commentary I’ve read all states that it’s established, or at least widely agreed upon, that Mark was first. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They also used a so called Q source for many of Jesus’ quotations not found in Mark but shared by Matthew and Luke They also had their own independent traditions and sources, referred to as M and L.
 
Last edited:
Zach said:
Recent Catholic commentary I’ve read all states that it’s established, or at least widely agreed upon, that Mark was first. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They also used a so called Q source for many of Jesus’ quotations not found in Mark but shared by Matthew and Luke They also had their own independent traditions and sources, referred to as M and L.
Click to expand...
This is certainly the current majority position - and it makes sense to me. But who knows what future scholarship will bring? Many now doubt the existence of Q, or at least that Q is a single coherent source. An interesting topic.
 
The professors I had for Scripture classes were not fans of Q and the Marcan hypothesis. They stuck with the traditional view that Matthew wrote first, so I’ve always leaned in that direction. Ultimately, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the Gospel message and our salvation, so Catholics can believe whatever they want about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top