Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, if Jesus said so...Suffering, in whatever form, from a baby drowning to mass genocides like the Holocaust, will happen. Jesus said so. Believe him or don't. Your choice. In the end, Jesus reigns and "conquer(s) the world". As Romans 8:18 tells us "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." IOW, God knows more than you do.
Conjecture. Both Matthew and Mark were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. If we watch the same football game we will have very similar observations but not 100% in unity given we may be sitting in a different part of the stadium. Two sports writers submit their coverage and assessment of the game. Both are very similar because both sports writers are in the same stadium, watching the same game but one is more succinct as his editor wants the hard facts and get them out. The other editor wants more detail and gets the story out later.Back to Matthew. The first thing we notice about Matthew is that it looks very much like what we would expect if somebody was editing Mark. If editing was happening, we could get Matthew from Mark. For Matthew often simply copies from Mark. For instance, in the text below, I show a parallel between Mark and Matthew, with the blue unique to Mark, and the red unique to Matthew.
Mark 11:15-17American Standard Version (ASV)
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers.
Matthew 21:12-13American Standard Version (ASV)
12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.
Now that sure looks like Matthew was simply copying Mark, taking out some of the redundancies, and adding a few changes. And we find that throughout the book of Matthew, with Matthew repeating 90% of the verses in Mark. In fact, when Matthew tells the same story as Mark, Matthew always ends up looking like he is copying Mark.
Uh, but what if one sportswriter copies the other sportswriter's words, making only minor changes? If they were both eyewitnesses, wouldn't they both be writing using their own words? That is the problem with Matthew. He took Mark and copied what Mark wrote.Conjecture. Both Matthew and Mark were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. If we watch the same football game we will have very similar observations but not 100% in unity given we may be sitting in a different part of the stadium. Two sports writers submit their coverage and assessment of the game. Both are very similar because both sports writers are in the same stadium, watching the same game but one is more succinct as his editor wants the hard facts and get them out. The other editor wants more detail and gets the story out later.
You are kidding right? Maybe you are not. Go ahead and show me how this is explained in the Koine Greek. Did I miss that part of the thread?Uh, but what if one sportswriter copies the other sportswriter's words, making only minor changes? If they were both eyewitnesses, wouldn't they both be writing using their own words? That is the problem with Matthew. He took Mark and copied what Mark wrote.
Did you even read the post I wrote on Matthew?
You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it? Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.You are kidding right? Maybe you are not. Go ahead and show me how this is explained in the Koine Greek. Did I miss that part of the thread?
No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?Yes the one you linked me to. Did you run Matthew and Mark through some plagiarism internet site?
Hmm. They are called synoptic gospels right. Let me ask. How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?
You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it. Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.
Uh, I gave you two examples in that post. Do you or do you not agree that those are examples of Matthew copying from Mark?Hmm. They are called synoptic gospels right. Let me ask. How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?
Uh, I am not a Koine Greek expert, but I know that critical Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that Matthew is copying from Mark. It is not simply a translation problem that inserts the same parenthetical in Matthew that appears in Mark.Yeah I sure do. Did it occur to you the similarities are due to English translation? I mean Mark and Matthew wrote their accounts in Koine Greek.
So I’m sure since you stuck your neck out on a Christian site you would be prepared to speak of your analysis of the Koine Greek. Right? So did I miss it?
Considering Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and Mark in Koine Greek you have a problem with your theory.You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it? Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.
Then your position is Matthew copied the Koine Greek from Mark and translated it in Hebrew? In your research did that come up?No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?
My assessment is both men experienced the same Ministry of Christ. Considering Mark went West and Matthew went East of Jerusalem I’m not seeing when they had their cram session.Uh, I gave you two examples in that post. Do you or do you not agree that those are examples of Matthew copying from Mark?
Quite dubious as I mentioned the two men were not in the same place.Even Christian critical scholars agree that Matthew was copying from Mark.
That’s a good question. They were both quoting their Rabbi and as a disciple would know His inflection and teaching points.If Matthew was not copying from Mark, why did he use the same parenthetical as Mark at the same place?
Actually many scholars are being swayed by the Augustinian hypothesis which takes us back to Matthean priority. And Luke is standing alone given his introduction in Luke 1 where he sets out to investigate independently. Then you have the Jerusalem priority theory which puts Luke in primacy.Uh, I am not a Koine Greek expert, but I know that critical Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that Matthew is copying from Mark. It is not simply a translation problem that inserts the same parenthetical in Matthew that appears in Mark.
@doubtingmerle still need an answer to this.How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?
Since you brought up the question, let's hear your answer first.@doubtingmerle still need an answer to this.
That is certainly not the opinion of critical scholarship, which supports that Matthew was written in Greek. I am no expert on ancient languages. I understand some of the saying of Matthew have Aramaic syntax, but most of the narrative appears to have a Greek origin, and much of it specifically appears to have come from Mark.Considering Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and Mark in Koine Greek you have a problem with your theory.
No.Then your position is Matthew copied the Koine Greek from Mark and translated it in Hebrew?
We do not know who wrote the first two gospels, so any statement about what they did is pure speculation.My assessment is both men experienced the same Ministry of Christ. Considering Mark went West and Matthew went East of Jerusalem I’m not seeing when they had their cram session.
Second century church leaders referred to a Hebrew book of sayings by a Matthew, but that book does not appear to be a description of what we now call Matthew. It is possible that the fame of Matthew as a sayings writer caused later Christians to associate him with the first gospel.Also considering the early church fathers by majority put the Matthews Gospel first and written in Hebrew and later translated into Koine Greek.
Uh, the phrase, "Let the reader understand" was a parenthetical assertion by Mark, and could not have been something his Rabbi said. The Rabbi would have said "Let the hearer understand" if he had actually spoke it.That’s a good question. They were both quoting their Rabbi and as a disciple would know His inflection and teaching points.
I am well aware of the Matthew first view, but it is rejected by most critical scholars, for the simple reason, that, given the existence of Matthew, there is no good reason to write Mark. Given the existence of Mark, there are plenty of reasons to add the additions of Matthew.Actually many scholars are being swayed by the Augustinian hypothesis which takes us back to Matthean priority. And Luke is standing alone given his introduction in Luke 1 where he sets out to investigate independently. Then you have the Jerusalem priority theory which puts Luke in primacy.
Lol take your pick. A whole lot of theory to try to accuse two others of plagiarism.
Even Bart Ehrman is not convinced of the primacy of Mark. Given he is truly a NT scholar (and agnostic) he does take into account the early scholarship of the early church. Which again is Matthew was first and written originally in Hebrew. Which Jerome mentions was still in the library in Palestine when he went there to translate the Scriptures into Latin Vulgate.
It’s historical fact. The majority of early scholars actually had a Hebrew Matthew in existence. And they believed it was later translated into Greek.That is certainly not the opinion of critical scholarship, which supports that Matthew was written in Greek. I am no expert on ancient languages. I understand some of the saying of Matthew have Aramaic syntax, but most of the narrative appears to have a Greek origin, and much of it specifically appears to have come from Mark.
I believe I already showed you the early church scholars knew exactly who wrote the Gospels.We do not know who wrote the first two gospels, so any statement about what they did is pure speculation.
Source.Second century church leaders referred to a Hebrew book of sayings by a Matthew, but that book does not appear to be a description of what we now call Matthew. It is possible that the fame of Matthew as a sayings writer caused later Christians to associate him with the first gospel.
No what a disciple quoting a Rabbi would do is when one speaks parenthetically, one writes it as such.Uh, the phrase, "Let the reader understand" was a parenthetical assertion by Mark, and could not have been something his Rabbi said. The Rabbi would have said "Let the hearer understand" if he had actually spoke it.
Not rejected by most scholars as the wind is changing again for Matthew first.I am well aware of the Matthew first view, but it is rejected by most critical scholars, for the simple reason, that, given the existence of Matthew, there is no good reason to write Mark. Given the existence of Mark, there are plenty of reasons to add the additions of Matthew.
Please show me a church scholar before 180 AD who knew exactly who wrote the four gospels.I believe I already showed you the early church scholars knew exactly who wrote the Gospels.
I had made several statements. Which of those do you need a source for?Source.
Oh puhleeze. You are going to tell me that Jesus, when speaking to the disciples said, "Let the reader understand". And his disciples remembered that they said that and wrote it down as "Let the reader understand" years later? Ha! I think it far more likely that Mark inserted this phrase because he wanted his readers to think it was important.No what a disciple quoting a Rabbi would do is when one speaks parenthetically, one writes it as such.
I know there are a minority who think Matthew was first. Please document your statement that most critical scholars think Matthew was first.Not rejected by most scholars as the wind is changing again for Matthew first.
Where does history document that early scholars knew Matthew was first?Plus history confirms the early scholars knew Matthew was the first Gospel.
Polycarp was the teacher of Irenaeus. See Against Heresies where he quotes extensively from 25 of 27 NT books. Once again showing the unbroken chain of custody of the church.Please show me a church scholar before 180 AD who knew exactly who wrote the four gospels.
Oh puhleeze. You are going to tell me that Jesus, when speaking to the disciples said, "Let the reader understand". And his disciples remembered that they said that and wrote it down as "Let the reader understand" years later? Ha! I think it far more likely that Mark inserted this phrase because he wanted his readers to think it was important.
Where does history document that early scholars knew Matthew was first?
I see. So you have no documentation that they knew Matthew was first. You will just state that they knew it.Church fathers.
Polycarp was the teacher of Irenaeus. See Against Heresies where he quotes extensively from 25 of 27 NT books. Once again showing the unbroken chain of custody of the church.
Go back and highlight some of the words I used as in “Rabbi” and “Disciple.” Add to that the comments of how Holy Scriptures were handled by the Jewish people and the words of Christ by Jewish and Gentile Christians.
.
Do you know how we have Euclidean geometry, because triangulation originated from the Egyptians, Thales learned it while he was doing business there. He started a school, actually a study group and one of their disciples was Pythagorean who famously solved the A squared plus B squared equals C squared. We have this approach to solving these problems because the Greeks wrote things down in encyclicals, that and their language was their gift to western civilization.You mention two people in the second century .Again the issue is the gap from the apostles to the second century .
And the fact that irenaeus mentions four gospel writers does not mean his mentor agreed .
So far you have not offered one iota of evidence that the four gospels were widely recognized as scripture in the first century, that they were widely known, or that they were copied by anybody other than a few barely literate people here and there in the first century.Do you know how we have Euclidean geometry, because triangulation originated from the Egyptians, Thales learned it while he was doing business there. He started a school, actually a study group and one of their disciples was Pythagorean who famously solved the A squared plus B squared equals C squared. We have this approach to solving these problems because the Greeks wrote things down in encyclicals, that and their language was their gift to western civilization.
So if those scrolls were being kept, studied and used, it kind of makes sense that sacred texts could be preserved and even proliferated. The ancient Levites would not only count every word, but every letter, indicating the central letter. Just three errors and the scroll had to be burned, now that's meticulous care. John Mark was a Levite, he was immanently capable of making copies of his own Gospel and would, I expect, pass on the information of how to do something like that since it was very common in Jewish communities to make copies of these sacred writings.
At some point you are really going to have to consider the culture that produced and proliferated these writings because random generalities are hardly convincing.
Perhaps I posited on the other thread we are on. Doctor of the Church, bishop and historian St Augustine addressed Matthew as the first Gospel.I see. So you have no documentation that they knew Matthew was first. You will just state that they knew it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?