Matthew and Mark

[BartholomewB]

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,

How, then, do they account for the 200-plus sayings that are found in both Luke and Matthew but not in Mark? Did Luke get them from Matthew?

 

[Joe_5859]

Did Luke get them from Matthew?

I think that’s one of the possibilities mentioned.

To be honest, I don’t really see why any of the evangelists would have had to borrow from the others. If Jesus said something or did something, and there were many witnesses (among whom were the evangelists themselves or their close friends), then it’s not like they only way they would have included a particular saying is because someone else wrote it down first. Matthew was an apostle. He was there. He wouldn’t need to see it written down in Mark first. He’d just have to remember back to what Jesus said.

 

[Dovekin]

I don’t really see why any of the evangelists would have had to borrow from the others.

Well, it is what Luke tells us about what he did:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,4so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Luke 1: 1-4

The working theory is that Luke and Matthew both worked from already existing narratives, as Luke describes his work. Mark does not seem to be cobbled together like that, which is one reason it is thought to have been first. But there are arguments for almost every side of the questions and we will not know for sure unless the Lord intervenes and tells us.

He wouldn’t need to see it written down in Mark first.

Understanding how the gospels were written is one facet of understanding what they are saying. Sometimes the changes made from an earlier gospel to a later can tell us a great deal the meaning. Knowing how one heart speaks to others teaches us how to preach.

 

[JohnR77]

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,

If we operate on the belief that Matthew was first written, then Luke, and then Mark’s was written
(which I contend IS what happened)
why do you suggest that those verses should have been in Mark ?

 

[JohnR77]

Matthew was an apostle. He was there. He wouldn’t need to see it written down in Mark first.

The wording is very very close in the common verses.
It is hard to deny the second was copying from the first,
and the third written was using the other two.

And since Matthew the Apostle would not have relied and even based his Gospel on a non-Apostle Mark, which is ASSUMED to be first, demonstrates in most modernists eyes that Matthew the Apostle is not the author of the Gospel with his name.

The problems with Markan Priority are not few in number.
They are Legion.

Some have suggested that each was copying from the same sources which surprising just did not survive till today.
That is a problem too.
John

 

[Genesis315]

A lot of these theories on who wrote what do not take into account the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which no doubt took various forms–both inspiring the writers with ideas and words and to borrow from elsewhere so that, as the Catechism puts it, “they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more.” (CCC 106).

As for St. Matthew not relying on a non-Apostle, Mark’s Gospel was essentially St. Peter’s so if Matthew did indeed rely on it, it would make perfect sense given St. Peter’s primacy.

 

[JohnR77]

As for St. Matthew not relying on a non-Apostle, Mark’s Gospel was essentially St. Peter’s so if Matthew did indeed rely on it, it would make perfect sense given St. Peter’s primacy.

I have no doubt the Holy Spirit guided the writers in a very special and infallible way. However he did not take away their humanity. They still had to work at remembering as one New Testament writer put it The scriptures say somewhere???

I have not heard one person pushing markan priority who claimed as I do that Mark was writing a transcription a Peter’s preaching .
I believe that they misunderstand the father’s Writings and will say mark was just writing from what he remembered, Therefore not necessarily Peters exact words.

Therefore Matthew -the Apostle -
would not have based a gospel on it

 

[JohnR77]

And if those scholars did admit that mark’s gospel was a transcription that would Undermine their position that Mark’s was 1st

 

[Dovekin]

A lot of these theories on who wrote what do not take into account the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Of course, most do “take into account” the imspiration of the Holy Spirit. If they did not, the gospels could not inspire us to share the story of Jesus with others. Recognizing the inspiration in the gospels teaches us torecognize inspiration in our own lives.

This is very different from the standoffish, God wrote it all, ideas that used to prevail in biblical exegesis.

 

[Dovekin]

And if those scholars did admit that mark’s gospel was a transcription that would Undermine their position that Mark’s was 1st

I agree. Saying Mark just transcribed Peter’s words takes Mark out of the picture.The beautifully crafted gospel tells not just the story of Jesus, but the story of every Christian from baptism to Resurrection. The simplicity of that story is one reason for saying Mark was first.

 

[JohnR77]

Saying Mark just transcribed Peter’s words takes Mark out of the picture

I do not agree with that .
the early church fathers report how at first St. Peter was neither for or against promoting what Mark had done. Later after seeing how well it was received he then favored it.
John

 

[Tolle_Lege]

While I agree with the traditional authorship of all four Gospels, it is evident that sharing was done among the synoptics; numerous passages read as if they were edited from a page, not independently handed down orally and then coincidentally written almost word-for-word.

 

[speculator]

The gospel oh John is clearly different from the three other gospels.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are sinoptical I.e. they are very similar in words and tales, suggesting textual or traditional dependence.
I think Matthew wrote first in Hebrew a gospel that started with John the Baptist.
Second Mark who accompanied Peter as his interpreter wrote in simple Greek a free translation of the gospel of Matthew carried by Peter.

Third Luke was more literate and, as from his foreword, accessed information firsthand by Mary and his gospel is the finest.
Later someone (Matthew?) added the gospel of the infancy and translated from Hebrew or added to a shorter Greek gospel.