The early tradition says that Matthew compiled the "oracles" of Jesus in "Hebrew" (probably Aramaic). Remember that in the 1st Cent authorship wasn't used quite as literally as it is now. If someone translated the teachings from Matthew into Greek but used Mark to supplement it (presumably because Mathew didn't have narrative), it could still reasonably have been attributed to Matthew. (The Logos commentary on Matthew suggests that the original Aramaic source could even be Q. I don't think this is a very popular theory, but it's not impossible.)Mark was the son of the women that owned the upper room. This is where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Mark loved to be a part of what was going on. He loved to sit in on the teaching of Jesus. Still Mark was very young and he did not travel with Jesus the way Matthew did. It is absurd to suggest that Matthew copied from Mark. Matthew would have been the tutor and Mark the student. Just like in a college today where the lower class man learn from the upper class men. Even this upper class and lower class label permeates society as a whole.
Personally I doubt that what we have is actually Matthew's work at all, but if you want a conservative theory, this would work.
Upvote
0