Do Protestants believe Matthew and Mark wrote the Gospels respectively ascribed to them? If so, why? seeing as how this a tradition that is not in the text.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Matthew and Mark
- Thread starter Constantine the Sinner
- Start date
- Feb 29, 2004
- 5,104
- 5,901
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I do not understand your post. What is "this" that is a "tradition that is not in the text?"
Upvote
0
- Feb 29, 2004
- 5,104
- 5,901
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I am not a religious scholar, but I have read that Mark's gospel could have been written by him according to the dating of the text, but the dating of Matthew suggests it was not written by him. The account I read suggested it is someone's narrative of an oral tradition of Mathew's account. But what do I know?
Upvote
0
- Feb 29, 2004
- 5,104
- 5,901
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I have also heard it posited that some unknown person likely wrote both since most people were illiterate in the day and few would have the ability to put oral tradition on paper. It will be interesting to hear the scholars start to chime in on the thread.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Paul Yohannan
Well-Known Member
- Mar 24, 2016
- 3,886
- 1,587
- 45
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
There has been scholarly debate ad nauseum on the subject, but it is in my opinion, after having explored it to some degree, tedious and unprofitable.
Upvote
0
Protestants reject teachings based purely on tradition, they just don't see anything wrong with traditional practices as in rituals and so on. For instance, I don't think any Protestant believes Joachim and Anna were Mary's parents, or that James the Brother of the Lord was only Jesus's brother through Joseph, and if you say why do you reject this, they will say, "It's not in the Bible."
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Protestants generally accept that the translators are trying their best to present the truth in every detail as they find it, albeit they are not infallible. They generally accept many traditional things. Rejection of all tradition among Protestants is more of an urban legend, and there are few who take it literally. Protestants generally accept tradition, but hold it below the scripture in authority.
Below I have copied notes on the authorship of these two books by a respected theologian, who presents some historical information which includes theorizing among Protestant scholars. I hope this helps you at least somewhat to understand where some of the more educated Protestants are coming from.
Notes of Dr. Bob Utley of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the authorship of Matthew and Mark:
Matthew:
A. Although the earliest copies of the Greek NT (A.D. 200-400) have the designation “according to Matthew,” the book itself is anonymous.
B. The uniform tradition of the early church is that Matthew (also known as Levi, cf. Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,29), tax-collector (cf. Matt. 9:9; 10:3) and disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel.
C. Matthew, Mark and Luke are strikingly similar (i.e, synoptics = “to see together”)
1. they often agree in form on OT quotes that are not found in the Masoretic text nor the Septuagint,
2. they often quote Jesus in unusual grammatical constructions, even using rare Greek words,
3. they often use phrases and even sentences of exactly the same Greek words,
4. obviously literary borrowing has occurred.
D. Several theories have been advanced concerning the relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels)
1. The uniform tradition of the early church is that Matthew (Levi), the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel. The Apostle Matthew was unanimously affirmed to be the author until the Renaissance/Reformation.
2. Around 1776 A. E. Lessing (and later Gieseler in 1818), theorized an oral stage in the development of the Synoptic (“to see together”) Gospels. He asserted that they were all dependent on earlier oral traditions which the writers modified for their own target audiences.
a. Matthew: Jews
b. Mark: Romans
c. Luke: Gentiles
Each was related to a separate geographical center of Christianity.
a. Matthew: Antioch, Syria
b. Mark: Rome, Italy
c. Luke: Caesarea by the Sea, Palestine
d. John: Ephesus, Asia Minor
3. In the early nineteenth century J. J. Griesbach theorized that Matthew and Luke wrote separate accounts of Jesus’ life, completely independent of each other. Mark wrote a brief Gospel trying to mediate between these other two accounts.
4. In the early twentieth century H. J. Holtzmann theorized that Mark was the first written Gospel and that both Matthew and Luke used his Gospel structure plus a separation document containing the sayings of Jesus called Q (German quelle or “source”). This was labeled the “two source” theory (also endorsed by Fredrick Schleiermacher in 1832).
5. Later B. H. Streeter theorized a modified “two source” theory called “the four source” theory which posited a “proto Luke” plus Mark plus Q.
6. The above theories of the formation of the Synoptic Gospels are only speculation. There is no historical nor actual manuscript evidence of either a “Q” source or a “proto Luke.” Modern scholarship simply does not know how the Gospels developed nor who wrote them (the same is true of the OT Law and former Prophets). However, this lack of information does not affect the Church’s view of their inspiration or trustworthiness as historical as well as faith documents.
7. There are obvious similarities in structure and wording between the Synoptics, but there are also many arresting differences. Differences are common in eye witness accounts. The early church was not bothered by the divergence of these three eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. It may be that the target audience, the style of the author and the different languages involved (Aramaic and Greek) account for the seeming discrepancies. It must be stated that these inspired writers, editors or compilers had the freedom to select, arrange, adapt and summarize the events and teachings of Jesus’ life (cf. How To Read The Bible For All It Is Worth by Fee and Stuart, pp. 113-148).
E. There is a tradition of the early church from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis ( A.D. 130) which was recorded in Eusebius’ Historical Ecclesiasticus 3:39:16 that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. However, modern scholarship has rejected this tradition because:
1. the Greek of Matthew does not have the characteristics of a translation from Aramaic,
2. there are Greek word plays (cf. 6:16; 21:41; 24:30),
3. most of the OT quotes are from the Septuagint (LXX) not the Masoretic Hebrew Texts.
It is possible that 10:3 is a hint at Matthew’s authorship. It adds “tax-gatherer” after his name. This self deprecating comment is not found in Mark. Matthew also was not a well known person in the NT or early church. Why would so much tradition have developed around his name and this first apostolic Gospel?
Mark:
A. John Mark has traditionally been identified with the Apostle Peter in writing this Gospel. The work itself (like all the Gospels) is anonymous.
B. Another evidence of Peter’s eyewitness account is the fact that Mark does not record three special events in which Peter was personally involved.
1. his walking on water (cf. Matt. 14:28-33)
2. his being the spokesperson at Caesarea Philippi for the faith of the Twelve (cf. Matt. 16:13-20). In Mark only 8:27-30 and the “on this rock” and “keys of the kingdom” passages are omitted)
3. his procurement of the temple tax for himself and Jesus (cf. Matt. 17:24-27) Perhaps Peter’s modesty motivated him not to emphasize these events in his sermons
C. Early church tradition
1. Papias the bishop of Hierapolis, about (A.D. 130) wrote Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings, which is quoted by Eusebius (A.D 275-339) in his Ecclesiastical History 3:39:15. He asserts that Mark was Peter’s interpreter who recorded accurately, but not chronologically, Peter’s memories of Jesus. Apparently Mark took and adapted Peter’s sermons and organized them into a Gospel presentation. Papias claims to have received this information from “the elder,” which could refer to the Apostle John.
2. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, written about A.D. 180, identifies Peter as the eyewitness of Mark’s Gospel. It also states that Mark wrote the Gospel from Italy after Peter’s death (i.e. traditionally in Rome around A.D. 65).
3. Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, mentions John Mark as Peter’s interpreter and compiler of his memories after his death (cf. Contra Haereses 3:1:2).
4. The Muratorian Fragment (i.e. canon), written about A.D. 200 from Rome, although the text is incomplete, seems to affirm John Mark’s recording Peter’s sermons.
5. Walter Wessel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8, p. 606, makes the interesting comment that the above early church traditions are from geographically diverse church centers.
a. Papias from Asia Minor
b. Anti-Marcion Prologue and the Muratorian Fragment both from Rome
c. Irenaeus (cf. Adv. Haer. 3:1:1) from Lyons in France. Irenaeus’ tradition is also found in Tertullian (cf. Adv. Marc. 4:5) from north Africa and Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (cf. Hypotyposeis 6 quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. His. 2:15:1-2; 3:24:5-8; 6:14:6-7). This geographical diversity gives credence to its trustworthiness because of the tradition’s wide acceptance in early Christianity.
D. What do we know about John Mark
1. His mother was a well known believer in Jerusalem in whose house the church met (possibly the night of the Lord’s Supper, cf. Mark 14:14-15; Acts 1:13-14; Acts 12:12). He was possibly the unnamed man who fled from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52).
2. He accompanied his uncle Barnabas (cf. Col. 4:10) and Paul back to Antioch from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25).
3. He was a companion of Barnabas and Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but returned home suddenly (Acts 13:13).
4. Later Barnabas wanted to take Mark on a second missionary journey, but this caused a terrible disagreement between Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:37-40).
5. He was later reunited with Paul and became a friend and co-worker (Col. 4:10; II Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24).
6. He was a companion and co-worker with Peter (I Pet. 5:13), possibly in Rome.
7. I Clement, written from Rome about A.D. 95, alludes to Mark (as does Shepherd of Hermes).
8. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), in quoting Mark 3:17, adds that it comes from Peter’s memory.
9. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) asserts that those who heard Peter preach in Rome asked Mark to record these sermons.
10. Tertullian (A.D. 200) in Against Marcion (4:5) says Mark published Peter’s memories.
11. According to Eusebius’ Eccl. His. 4:25, Origen (A.D. 230) in Commentary on Matthew (there is no known commentary on Mark by anyone until the fifth century) says Mark wrote the Gospel as Peter explained it to him.
12. Eusebius himself discusses the Gospel of Mark in Eccl. His. 2:15 and says Mark recorded Peter’s sermons at the behest of those who heard them so that they could be read in all the churches. Eusebius bases this tradition on the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
E. Mark’s involvement seems confirmed by 14:51-52, where a man flees naked from the Garden of Gethsemane, just after Jesus’ arrest. This unusual and totally unexpected detail seems to reflect Mark’s personal experience.
Hope this helps.
TD
Below I have copied notes on the authorship of these two books by a respected theologian, who presents some historical information which includes theorizing among Protestant scholars. I hope this helps you at least somewhat to understand where some of the more educated Protestants are coming from.
Notes of Dr. Bob Utley of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the authorship of Matthew and Mark:
Matthew:
A. Although the earliest copies of the Greek NT (A.D. 200-400) have the designation “according to Matthew,” the book itself is anonymous.
B. The uniform tradition of the early church is that Matthew (also known as Levi, cf. Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,29), tax-collector (cf. Matt. 9:9; 10:3) and disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel.
C. Matthew, Mark and Luke are strikingly similar (i.e, synoptics = “to see together”)
1. they often agree in form on OT quotes that are not found in the Masoretic text nor the Septuagint,
2. they often quote Jesus in unusual grammatical constructions, even using rare Greek words,
3. they often use phrases and even sentences of exactly the same Greek words,
4. obviously literary borrowing has occurred.
D. Several theories have been advanced concerning the relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels)
1. The uniform tradition of the early church is that Matthew (Levi), the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel. The Apostle Matthew was unanimously affirmed to be the author until the Renaissance/Reformation.
2. Around 1776 A. E. Lessing (and later Gieseler in 1818), theorized an oral stage in the development of the Synoptic (“to see together”) Gospels. He asserted that they were all dependent on earlier oral traditions which the writers modified for their own target audiences.
a. Matthew: Jews
b. Mark: Romans
c. Luke: Gentiles
Each was related to a separate geographical center of Christianity.
a. Matthew: Antioch, Syria
b. Mark: Rome, Italy
c. Luke: Caesarea by the Sea, Palestine
d. John: Ephesus, Asia Minor
3. In the early nineteenth century J. J. Griesbach theorized that Matthew and Luke wrote separate accounts of Jesus’ life, completely independent of each other. Mark wrote a brief Gospel trying to mediate between these other two accounts.
4. In the early twentieth century H. J. Holtzmann theorized that Mark was the first written Gospel and that both Matthew and Luke used his Gospel structure plus a separation document containing the sayings of Jesus called Q (German quelle or “source”). This was labeled the “two source” theory (also endorsed by Fredrick Schleiermacher in 1832).
5. Later B. H. Streeter theorized a modified “two source” theory called “the four source” theory which posited a “proto Luke” plus Mark plus Q.
6. The above theories of the formation of the Synoptic Gospels are only speculation. There is no historical nor actual manuscript evidence of either a “Q” source or a “proto Luke.” Modern scholarship simply does not know how the Gospels developed nor who wrote them (the same is true of the OT Law and former Prophets). However, this lack of information does not affect the Church’s view of their inspiration or trustworthiness as historical as well as faith documents.
7. There are obvious similarities in structure and wording between the Synoptics, but there are also many arresting differences. Differences are common in eye witness accounts. The early church was not bothered by the divergence of these three eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. It may be that the target audience, the style of the author and the different languages involved (Aramaic and Greek) account for the seeming discrepancies. It must be stated that these inspired writers, editors or compilers had the freedom to select, arrange, adapt and summarize the events and teachings of Jesus’ life (cf. How To Read The Bible For All It Is Worth by Fee and Stuart, pp. 113-148).
E. There is a tradition of the early church from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis ( A.D. 130) which was recorded in Eusebius’ Historical Ecclesiasticus 3:39:16 that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. However, modern scholarship has rejected this tradition because:
1. the Greek of Matthew does not have the characteristics of a translation from Aramaic,
2. there are Greek word plays (cf. 6:16; 21:41; 24:30),
3. most of the OT quotes are from the Septuagint (LXX) not the Masoretic Hebrew Texts.
It is possible that 10:3 is a hint at Matthew’s authorship. It adds “tax-gatherer” after his name. This self deprecating comment is not found in Mark. Matthew also was not a well known person in the NT or early church. Why would so much tradition have developed around his name and this first apostolic Gospel?
Mark:
A. John Mark has traditionally been identified with the Apostle Peter in writing this Gospel. The work itself (like all the Gospels) is anonymous.
B. Another evidence of Peter’s eyewitness account is the fact that Mark does not record three special events in which Peter was personally involved.
1. his walking on water (cf. Matt. 14:28-33)
2. his being the spokesperson at Caesarea Philippi for the faith of the Twelve (cf. Matt. 16:13-20). In Mark only 8:27-30 and the “on this rock” and “keys of the kingdom” passages are omitted)
3. his procurement of the temple tax for himself and Jesus (cf. Matt. 17:24-27) Perhaps Peter’s modesty motivated him not to emphasize these events in his sermons
C. Early church tradition
1. Papias the bishop of Hierapolis, about (A.D. 130) wrote Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings, which is quoted by Eusebius (A.D 275-339) in his Ecclesiastical History 3:39:15. He asserts that Mark was Peter’s interpreter who recorded accurately, but not chronologically, Peter’s memories of Jesus. Apparently Mark took and adapted Peter’s sermons and organized them into a Gospel presentation. Papias claims to have received this information from “the elder,” which could refer to the Apostle John.
2. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, written about A.D. 180, identifies Peter as the eyewitness of Mark’s Gospel. It also states that Mark wrote the Gospel from Italy after Peter’s death (i.e. traditionally in Rome around A.D. 65).
3. Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, mentions John Mark as Peter’s interpreter and compiler of his memories after his death (cf. Contra Haereses 3:1:2).
4. The Muratorian Fragment (i.e. canon), written about A.D. 200 from Rome, although the text is incomplete, seems to affirm John Mark’s recording Peter’s sermons.
5. Walter Wessel in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8, p. 606, makes the interesting comment that the above early church traditions are from geographically diverse church centers.
a. Papias from Asia Minor
b. Anti-Marcion Prologue and the Muratorian Fragment both from Rome
c. Irenaeus (cf. Adv. Haer. 3:1:1) from Lyons in France. Irenaeus’ tradition is also found in Tertullian (cf. Adv. Marc. 4:5) from north Africa and Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (cf. Hypotyposeis 6 quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. His. 2:15:1-2; 3:24:5-8; 6:14:6-7). This geographical diversity gives credence to its trustworthiness because of the tradition’s wide acceptance in early Christianity.
D. What do we know about John Mark
1. His mother was a well known believer in Jerusalem in whose house the church met (possibly the night of the Lord’s Supper, cf. Mark 14:14-15; Acts 1:13-14; Acts 12:12). He was possibly the unnamed man who fled from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52).
2. He accompanied his uncle Barnabas (cf. Col. 4:10) and Paul back to Antioch from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25).
3. He was a companion of Barnabas and Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but returned home suddenly (Acts 13:13).
4. Later Barnabas wanted to take Mark on a second missionary journey, but this caused a terrible disagreement between Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:37-40).
5. He was later reunited with Paul and became a friend and co-worker (Col. 4:10; II Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24).
6. He was a companion and co-worker with Peter (I Pet. 5:13), possibly in Rome.
7. I Clement, written from Rome about A.D. 95, alludes to Mark (as does Shepherd of Hermes).
8. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), in quoting Mark 3:17, adds that it comes from Peter’s memory.
9. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) asserts that those who heard Peter preach in Rome asked Mark to record these sermons.
10. Tertullian (A.D. 200) in Against Marcion (4:5) says Mark published Peter’s memories.
11. According to Eusebius’ Eccl. His. 4:25, Origen (A.D. 230) in Commentary on Matthew (there is no known commentary on Mark by anyone until the fifth century) says Mark wrote the Gospel as Peter explained it to him.
12. Eusebius himself discusses the Gospel of Mark in Eccl. His. 2:15 and says Mark recorded Peter’s sermons at the behest of those who heard them so that they could be read in all the churches. Eusebius bases this tradition on the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
E. Mark’s involvement seems confirmed by 14:51-52, where a man flees naked from the Garden of Gethsemane, just after Jesus’ arrest. This unusual and totally unexpected detail seems to reflect Mark’s personal experience.
Hope this helps.
TD
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Well most Protestants agree that Matthew wrote Matthew and Mark wrote Mark. Based on tradition. Not sure your point.
Upvote
0
I think mainly they tend to accept that because that's how Bibles print it, otherwise they wouldn't reject all other history concerning Christ and the Apostles and Mary that's only witnessed in tradition. This isn't even touching on doctrinal issues that have very early witness in the Church Fathers, like Saint Ignatius of Antioch.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
This cuts both ways. Every group (EO, RC, P) accept and reject certain histories or traditions or supposed doctrinal issues tied to folks not eyewitnesses like Ignatius.
Upvote
0
Yes, that's because those other traditions and history were not accepted by the early bishops. As in, no early bishops taught them. The Apostolic Fathers (that is, the generation of leaders right after the Apostles) set this as central criterion for the laity to use to see whether or not something was spurious: if no bishop backed it, it didn't come from Christ and the Apostles. True, there would come a time when ever bishops would back heresies, but these were not the heresies of the first couple of hundred years of Christianity, they were ones that popped up much later.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Well, as mentioned, every group believes and makes the same claim as you do. Someone posted #9 the tradition of the authors of Matthew and Mark.
I suppose the real issue isn't the use of tradition, which we all do, rather the issue is whether one's tradition has somehow become a salvific issue. Do you believe there are Christians outside/ apart from the EO faith or have they fallen away?
Upvote
0
