PDA

View Full Version : Mark and Matthew



GreekAsianPanda
Apr 13th 2010, 11:32 PM
If I understand correctly, Mark was written before Matthew. They share a lot of material, too. Why would Matthew need to borrow so much from Mark if Matthew was an eyewitness to the events?

Kahtar
Apr 13th 2010, 11:41 PM
Why do you think one 'borrowed' from another? Just because they say some of the same things?

jayne
Apr 13th 2010, 11:50 PM
Not that I am a scholar on this or anything, but my gut answer would be that they had two very different audiences that they were writing to and used some of the same material but the approach was different because the audiences were different.

Here's a chart that I use in my Bible classes at school to explain the necessity for four gospels with some material seemingly overlapping.

Four Gospel Chart (http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Four_Gospel_Chart.htm)

markedward
Apr 14th 2010, 07:16 AM
Just because they say some of the same things?It's not exactly "some" of the same things... 76% (over three-fourths) of Mark equates to 45% (nearly half) of Matthew.

I think it's evident that at least one of the Synoptic gospel-authors relied upon at least one of the other Synoptic gospels. What order that is, I couldn't say. But at the same time, it should also be pointed out that none of them are 100% identical in the sections that are similar, showing that each of them—if having relied upon at least one of the other Synoptic gospels—also relied upon information about Jesus passed on by word-of-mouth. You've got all of these first-hand witnesses of Jesus running around (apostles, disciples, half-siblings, etc.), telling the same stories, etc., so it's not a "problem" that the Synoptics are so similar in structure or even wording. But this accounts for why the similar sections (e.g. the 76% of Mark that equates to 45% of Matthew) aren't exactly the same or even in the same order... And, as the above post says, they have drastically different audiences. Matthew's audiences is Hebraic, Mark's audience is (it seems) moreso Roman, and Luke's is (obviously) a Greek aristocrat.

So... why would it be a problem if (say) Matthew based his gospel on Mark's? Why do Christians get so upset over such a suggestion? Does it imply that one or more of the gospels was fraudulent or plagiarized or somehow not divinely inspired? Of course not. Regardless of whether Matthew based on Mark, or Mark based on Matthew, or Luke based on both of them, or John was slightly based on Luke, each one clearly presents an accurate and relevant account of Jesus' ministry and message.

JohnDB
Apr 14th 2010, 09:37 AM
Matthew was written before Mark was.

Matthew is one that is thought to be written first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek by Matthew himself.

The Book of Mark was written by Peter's cousin Mark of all of the stories that Peter used to tell firsthand. (after Peter was killed and Mark was an older gentleman)

Love Fountain
Apr 14th 2010, 02:32 PM
If I understand correctly, Mark was written before Matthew. They share a lot of material, too. Why would Matthew need to borrow so much from Mark if Matthew was an eyewitness to the events?

Hi GreekAsianPanda

The whole Bible is about Jesus.

Matthew presents him as King.

Mark presents him as a Servant.

Luke presents him as a Man.

John presents him as God.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain