Matthean priority

[jeremyp]

they could have been written independently of each other.

No they couldn't. Something like 95% of Mark is also contained in Matthew with only fairly small variations. There is almost no chance of this happening if one of them didn't have the other in front of him as he was writing.

[Spud]

That's assuming Mark had Matthew's gospel before him. Of course they could have been written independently of each other.

Or he could have been using an earlier, unedited form of Matthew's gospel? Or one that was written in Hebrew? The messy grammar in Mark could be due to being a poor translation.

[Spud]

The instances you quote are trivialities. Jeremy has outlined some far more significant details. There are more.

It is acknowledged that Mark writes in grammatically bad Greek, often switching between present and past tense and back whilst relating the same incident or teaching. Matthew and Luke do not make these kind of mistakes. Would Mark think that Matthew's grammar was defective, and 'correct' it to something worse? (He was supposed to be inspired by God, you know )
It is far more logical to think that Matthew (and then Luke, independently) noticed Mark's bad grammar and produced their own more scholarly texts, whilst relying on Mark's original text for details.

Could Matthew successfully correct Mark without sometimes replicating Mark's style? Does he replicate it?

Similarly, Mark gets his Old Testament quotes wrong - notoriously in his description of John the Baptist, where he conflates texts from Malachi and Isaiah and attributes them only to Isaiah. Matthew and Luke prune out the words from Malachi, leaving only words correctly attributed to Isaiah.

Actually this could be seen as Mark conflating Matthew's references to both Isaiah (Mt 3:3, Isa 40:3) and Malachi (Mat 11:10, Mal 3:1). The Malachi quote is itself a conflation of Malachi and Exodus 23:20. So Mark has three quotes from separate prophecies all of which he attributes to Isaiah. I don't see this as getting it wrong, as both the Malachi and Isaiaic ones are referring to the same person. It could be a clever bit of editing.

Perhaps most significant of all is the scenario where Jesus asks Peter to state who he thinks he (Jesus) is. Mark simply states: "You are the Christ". Luke more or less follows this by writing "The Christ of God". Whereas Matthew inflates the text, including an unmistakeable implication that Peter has realised Jesus' divinity: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him . Yet he is quite happy to suggest that Peter had only come to the realisation that Jesus was "The Anointed One" (Messiah, in Hebrew).

A point of order - Mark could be using Matthew's statement, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (Mat 16:20). Rosenstock-Huessy says (I know other views are available) that Mark was "not permitted to make Peter an equal to Jesus. Peter was only an apostle like others; Jesus was the Lord." (Why Four Gospels p. 228) Several phrases or sentences in Matthew that make Peter look important are not in Mark, such as vv 17-19 of Mat 16. The reason, according to R-H, was that over time, Jesus' identity as Lord would become obscured by Peter's prominence in the church and so Mark reduced the risk of this.

[Dicky Underpants]

Could Matthew successfully correct Mark without sometimes replicating Mark's style? Does he replicate it?Actually this could be seen as Mark conflating Matthew's references to both Isaiah (Mt 3:3, Isa 40:3) and Malachi (Mat 11:10, Mal 3:1). The Malachi quote is itself a conflation of Malachi and Exodus 23:20. So Mark has three quotes from separate prophecies all of which he attributes to Isaiah. I don't see this as getting it wrong, as both the Malachi and Isaiaic ones are referring to the same person. It could be a clever bit of editing.
A point of order - Mark could be using Matthew's statement, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (Mat 16:20). Rosenstock-Huessy says (I know other views are available) that Mark was "not permitted to make Peter an equal to Jesus. Peter was only an apostle like others; Jesus was the Lord." (Why Four Gospels p. 228) Several phrases or sentences in Matthew that make Peter look important are not in Mark, such as vv 17-19 of Mat 16. The reason, according to R-H, was that over time, Jesus' identity as Lord would become obscured by Peter's prominence in the church and so Mark reduced the risk of this.

I feel that a small application of Occam's Razor might help here.

[Spud]

I feel that a small application of Occam's Razor might help here.

Quite: The testimony nearest the event in time is to be trusted most.

[Dicky Underpants]

That's assuming Mark had Matthew's gospel before him. Of course they could have been written independently of each other.

Are you suggesting some independent means of oral tradition, perhaps? This would suggest some very good memories, because of the identical content of so much of the two gospels. Or some other written source? I'm assuming you don't think the evangelist Matthew was actually the disciple Matthew? Occam's Razor, scraped every morning, is recommended. Twice a day if there's five o'clock shadow.
In fact, as I'm sure you know, the only substantial tradition we have about the gospels comes via Papias about Mark's, and that's none too certain:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The information regarding Matthew is much more nebulous, with some reference to a Hebrew version. (As for John, we know that it was the favourite of the gnostic Valentinus - which I wouldn't have thought you'd be too pleased about). Another alternative is divine inspiration for one or the other (can't be both, because of the differences and indeed contradictions, unless God really is confused)

[Dicky Underpants]

Quite: The testimony nearest the event in time is to be trusted most.

And how do we know that with any certainty?

[Spud]

And how do we know that with any certainty?

The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.

[Dicky Underpants]

The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.

The original gospels are anonymous. It was not until the middle of the 2nd century that names were given to them by the Church Fathers. Their testimony on all these things should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Spud]

The original gospels are anonymous. It was not until the middle of the 2nd century that names were given to them by the Church Fathers. Their testimony on all these things should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The author of Matthew identifies Matthew the disciple as the tax collector, whereas the other gospels disguise him by using the tax collector's other name. That he does this could be a clue that he is referring to himself. Another clue could be that he includes the saying that tax collectors are the worst of men (Mt 5:46-47). Compare how Paul says that he is the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). And also he simply says he got up and followed, whereas Luke says he left all and followed.

[jeremyp]

The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.

No they are not.

[jeremyp]

The author of Matthew identifies Matthew the disciple as the tax collector, whereas the other gospels disguise him by using the tax collector's other name. That he does this could be a clue that he is referring to himself. Another clue could be that he includes the saying that tax collectors are the worst of men (Mt 5:46-47). Compare how Paul says that he is the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). And also he simply says he got up and followed, whereas Luke says he left all and followed.

The renaming of Levi as Matthew is actually the only reason why anybody calls the gospel “Matthew”. Maybe the author’s name really was Matthew and he renamed one of the disciples as his namesake. At any rate, Luke either corrected the error or was not aware of what Matthew did.

[Steve H]

You wish to believe that to be true, but it is a mere opinion with nothing substantial to back it up.

He gives one piece of evidence in the very post you quote, and anyway, why should you care which gospel was written first?

[Spud]

The renaming of Levi as Matthew is actually the only reason why anybody calls the gospel “Matthew”. Maybe the author’s name really was Matthew and he renamed one of the disciples as his namesake. At any rate, Luke either corrected the error or was not aware of what Matthew did.

Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.

[jeremyp]

Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.

The disciple wasn't the author.

[Roses]

Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.

It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.

[Steve H]

It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the comment from Spud that you quoted!

[Dicky Underpants]

It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.

He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread. As for believing the gospels to be 'literally true': in the instance under discussion he is having to find ways to explain how a tax collector is called 'Levi' in Mark and Luke, and why the same tax collector  is called 'Matthew' in - Matthew.
So which is 'literally true'* -  was the tax collector called Levi or Matthew? Spud resolves this by saying he was called Levi Matthew or Matthew Levi. This is just as much inventing a story to explain the discrepancy as he accuses Jeremy of 'inventing a story'. But to give him his due, his comments have a certain plausibility.

*It's entirely possible (and I'm sure you'd agree here) that absolutely nothing of it is true - but that's another story.

[ad_orientem]

He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread. As for believing the gospels to be 'literally true': in the instance under discussion he is having to find ways to explain how a tax collector is called 'Levi' in Mark and Luke, and why the same tax collector  is called 'Matthew' in - Matthew.
So which is 'literally true'* -  was the tax collector called Levi or Matthew? Spud resolves this by saying he was called Levi Matthew or Matthew Levi. This is just as much inventing a story to explain the discrepancy as he accuses Jeremy of 'inventing a story'. But to give him his due, his comments have a certain plausibility.

*It's entirely possible (and I'm sure you'd agree here) that absolutely nothing of it is true - but that's another story.

It's entirely possible that one person can have two names.

[Spud]

The disciple wasn't the author.

Maybe he was? Just found more evidence: Eusebius writes,
"It is reported that among persons [in India] who knew of Christ, [Pantaenus] found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time"

[jeremyp]

Maybe he was? Just found more evidence: Eusebius writes,
"It is reported that among persons [in Alexandria] who knew of Christ, [Pantaenus] found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time"
I couldn't find anything else to confirm that Bartholomew went to Alexandria.

The document we call Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. Therefore, whatever Eusebius is describing is not the present gospel.

[Spud]

He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread

But lovin it.

[Roses]

But lovin it.

If that is how you get your kicks, fine.

[Spud]

The document we call Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. Therefore, whatever Eusebius is describing is not the present gospel.

I read somewhere (I can't find it) that Matthew's gospel has been edited four times. What I don't know is whether the person who said this thought that included the process of translating it into Greek.

Jerome said that "whoever then translated it into Greek is not known". So I guess the question is whether it shows signs of having been translated. If it has been heavily edited then perhaps it wouldn't show such signs.

[Spud]

Regarding which gospel came first, I think the way to find out is to compare sections common to them and look for signs of one author clarifying something the other has said. The section on the rich young ruler looks to me as though Mark has corrected Matthew on his point about what someone who has left everything to follow Jesus will inherit and when (in this life and in the age to come).