Why Would Matthew Use Mark?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Is it inconsistent?

The link can be found here.

------

My in-laws got me an Amazon Tap for Christmas. As I speak, we are listening to the local Christian radio station on it. I also use it to listen to the Unbelievable? podcast, which I had been missing out on. (And during that, I utilize another gift I've been given, Final Fantasy XV from my parents.) On the show I heard yesterday, it involved a Christian and a Muslim debating if Jesus was seen as God and the Muslim presented a few times the claim "Why would Matthew use Mark when Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark wasn't? It doesn't make sense."

The sad thing is I see this objection from so many people, even many that should know better, and it leaves me wondering. If these people would spend a few moments thinking about this, then I think the answer would be clear. Just in case it isn't for some, I figured I'd write a little something about that.

Now some of you will want to contest traditional authorship. Making a case for the authorship of the Gospels is another post, but this objection assumes the traditional authorship for the sake of the argument. Therefore, I will be doing the same so please no replies such as "Well Matthew didn't really write Matthew!" or something like that. For the time being, let's accept the claims of attribution to the Gospels made by the early church.

Once we do that, we are reminded that Mark isn't just Mark writing without a source really. Mark is the testimony of Peter. (Interestingly, the church never called this the Gospel of Peter. They could have skipped the middleman, but they didn't. This was the work of Mark.) Why would this matter?

It's because despite Matthew being an apostle, Matthew was not part of the inner circle. Many times in the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus takes with Him Peter, James, and John. These three then directly saw things that Matthew himself did not see. By going to Mark, Matthew could ascertain his information on these events that he did not see.

On top of that, Matthew could get another perspective on events. Why not avail himself of that? Ancients did have good memories to be sure, but this was often a good memory in community. Some scholars will have you thinking that someone like Mark just suddenly wrote these stories thirty or forty years after the events and the rest of the time he was just sitting on them and not sharing them, talking about them, being a part of conversations with them, etc.

So contrary to the Muslim guest, yes, it does make sense. The explanation I think is simple and is consistent with the idea of traditional authorship. This isn't a proof of the traditional authorship to be sure, but I would hope that it is at least a refutation of what is a bad argument against traditional authorship.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Even if we are assuming the traditional authors, I'm not really sure that these explanations make much sense.

It's because despite Matthew being an apostle, Matthew was not part of the inner circle. Many times in the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus takes with Him Peter, James, and John. These three then directly saw things that Matthew himself did not see. By going to Mark, Matthew could ascertain his information on these events that he did not see.

Even if Matthew wasn't a part of the inner circle that saw some things which the rest of the apostles did not, why would Matthew need to copy from Mark, here? Matthew had been in direct contact with Peter, James, and John for a very long time before the Gospel of Mark was written. Are you claiming that Peter, James, and John were wholly unwilling to tell the rest of The Twelve (or even just Matthew) about these things, but Peter was perfectly willing to tell them to Mark?

Furthermore, that would be a more plausible answer if Matthew only-- or even primarily-- copied Mark when dealing with narratives in which Matthew was not present; however, this is not the case. Matthew borrows the majority of his text from Mark.

On top of that, Matthew could get another perspective on events. Why not avail himself of that?

Again, this answer might make more sense if Matthew borrowed from Mark here-and-there, but wrote primarily from his own perspective. However, it stretches credulity to think that an eyewitness to events would prefer secondhand accounts to his own memory over the majority of his work.

[One Bad Pig]

Even if we are assuming the traditional authors, I'm not really sure that these explanations make much sense.

Even if Matthew wasn't a part of the inner circle that saw some things which the rest of the apostles did not, why would Matthew need to copy from Mark, here? Matthew had been in direct contact with Peter, James, and John for a very long time before the Gospel of Mark was written. Are you claiming that Peter, James, and John were wholly unwilling to tell the rest of The Twelve (or even just Matthew) about these things, but Peter was perfectly willing to tell them to Mark?

Furthermore, that would be a more plausible answer if Matthew only-- or even primarily-- copied Mark when dealing with narratives in which Matthew was not present; however, this is not the case. Matthew borrows the majority of his text from Mark.

Again, this answer might make more sense if Matthew borrowed from Mark here-and-there, but wrote primarily from his own perspective. However, it stretches credulity to think that an eyewitness to events would prefer secondhand accounts to his own memory over the majority of his work.

There is a simple push-back to this. If Mark wrote first, and Matthew saw his account as basically correct, why reinvent the wheel?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

There is a simple push-back to this. If Mark wrote first, and Matthew saw his account as basically correct, why reinvent the wheel?

Again, this seems a bit far-fetched. You're basically saying that someone would spend all the time, money, and effort in getting a good education in Greek rhetoric so that he might write a record of his time with the person he believed to be the Son of God, only to suddenly become lazy and say, "Eh, this secondhand account is good enough. I'll just copy it and add a few more things."

[Faber]

Doesn't sound far-fetched at all. Matthew took a gospel which was written to a Roman-Greek audience, added passages which relate to a Jewish community, some OT scripture, fulfilled OT prophecy, and messianic references. And because Mark left out the birth account and resurrection appearances, Matthew added them also. That would make sense to me.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Doesn't sound far-fetched at all. Matthew took a gospel which was written to a Roman-Greek audience, added passages which relate to a Jewish community, some OT scripture, fulfilled OT prophecy, and messianic references. And because Mark left out the birth account and resurrection appearances, Matthew added them also. That would make sense to me.

More power to you, then. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Bisto]

I've got a question (or, well, two) somewhat related to the topic.

First, can scholars (or, do they) distinguish between the hypotheses "Matthew wrote his gospel based on Mark's gospel" and "Matthew wrote his gospel based on the traditions that are present in Mark's gospel"? Could it be that a witness Matthew doesn't just make a new narrative because he knows his audience values the Jesus tradition as they have come to know it, so he writes similarly so they can associate and memorize it easier, and integrate it into their own communities's oral tradition backlog, so to speak? If I remember correctly what Mr. JPH wrote (quoting one Malina scholar, I think), correctly recalling and applying respected tradition was seen as a honorable practice, so...

Second, how much later is Matthew's gospel dated related to Mark's? Could it be that Matthew took Mark as a big reference based on how respected and widely used it had to come to be?

[One Bad Pig]

Again, this seems a bit far-fetched. You're basically saying that someone would spend all the time, money, and effort in getting a good education in Greek rhetoric so that he might write a record of his time with the person he believed to be the Son of God, only to suddenly become lazy and say, "Eh, this secondhand account is good enough. I'll just copy it and add a few more things."

Wait..what?

Yeah, what you're saying IS far-fetched. Unfortunately for you, that's not what I'm saying - basically or otherwise. I have no idea where you're coming up with the notion that Matthew (or any of the NT authors, for that matter) had a "good education in Greek rhetoric." And even highly trained rhetors in antiquity felt free to incorporate large quantities of others' material in their writings.

[TheWall]

I know paul was a trained scholar but bot a rhetoritician. Mark was addressing his fellow jews using a witness he found worked better than his own.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Also keep in mind every writer would normally also use a scribe anyway. As for the inner circle knowledge, it's not like Matthew could just send an email or a phone call to Peter. This would especially be the case if Peter was dead already. It's also possible that Matthew was an editor who gave his final stamp of approval to a writer while telling some of his own material.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yeah, what you're saying IS far-fetched. Unfortunately for you, that's not what I'm saying - basically or otherwise. I have no idea where you're coming up with the notion that Matthew (or any of the NT authors, for that matter) had a "good education in Greek rhetoric."

Because, in the opinion of most NT scholars, the author of Matthew must have been well educated in Greek rhetoric and grammar to have composed the text. If the historical Matthew is the one who wrote the text, then he must have had an expensive education in Greek rhetoric and grammar, and considering the background described for the man in the NT, it doesn't seem likely that he would have received such education in his youth. As such, if Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, he would have needed to undergo an expensive and difficult education while he was an adult in order to do so.

And even highly trained rhetors in antiquity felt free to incorporate large quantities of others' material in their writings.

Did they commonly do so when writing about things which they had experienced first-hand? Did they do so to the point that the majority of their work was copied from others' material?

[Adrift]

Because, in the opinion of most NT scholars, the author of Matthew must have been well educated in Greek rhetoric and grammar to have composed the text.

In his The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Craig Keener points out that there's been a bit of a re-evaluation on Matthew's use of Greco-Roman rhetoric. That, while the author wrote in Greek, in the style of Greek biography, and was influenced by Greco-Roman rhetoric, Greco-Roman rhetoric is not dominant in his gospel, especially when compared to Luke and Paul. So, for instance, Keener demonstrates that Jesus' speeches in Matthew do not resemble typical Greco-Roman speeches. And when comparing the Gospel of Matthew with the writings of Paul, Paul abounds in Greco-Roman rhetorical devices, Matthew...not so much. Rather, there seems to be a move towards recognizing Matthew's style much more in the vein of Jewish Sage rhetoric.

[37818]

One of the things unique to Matthew's account, in reference to the kingdom, he uses interchangeably "of heaven" for "of God" as used solely in Mark.

[psstein]

I've got a question (or, well, two) somewhat related to the topic.

First, can scholars (or, do they) distinguish between the hypotheses "Matthew wrote his gospel based on Mark's gospel" and "Matthew wrote his gospel based on the traditions that are present in Mark's gospel"? Could it be that a witness Matthew doesn't just make a new narrative because he knows his audience values the Jesus tradition as they have come to know it, so he writes similarly so they can associate and memorize it easier, and integrate it into their own communities's oral tradition backlog, so to speak? If I remember correctly what Mr. JPH wrote (quoting one Malina scholar, I think), correctly recalling and applying respected tradition was seen as a honorable practice, so...

Second, how much later is Matthew's gospel dated related to Mark's? Could it be that Matthew took Mark as a big reference based on how respected and widely used it had to come to be?

Assuming Markan priority, Matthew replicates 90% of Mark's Greek, so scholars generally say that Matthew is literarily dependent on Mark.

Generally speaking, the dates of the gospels are as follows:

Mark: 63-75
Matthew: 75-85
Luke: 75-85 (there's been an increasing tendency to date it to the 90s or to the early second century recently)
John: 90-110

The dates of the synoptic Gospels are relatively arbitrary. There's not much preventing them from being as early as the 40s or as late as the late 80s/early 90s.

[psstein]

When I started doing work on the Synoptic Problem, I was convinced of Markan priority. As I've read more and more and gone into the material in detail, I've become far more supportive of Matthean Priority.