If Matthew was a deciple of Jesus, why did he feel the need to copy Mark's account verbatim instead of telling his own account?
The gospels aren't actually written by Matthew Mark Luke and John, anon.This has been scholarly consensus for a long time now What is more interesting is when are we going to find some fragments of Q?
>>24831287Who cares? The "verbatim copies" are relatively far in between, it doesn't make much of a difference. The shorter and longer ending of Mark is a much bigger scholarly topic, richer in its impact and in the volatility of drawn conclusions.>>24831294>These weren't the authors, there is a source theory>Not a single fragment predicted by the source theory was yet found thoDid I understand you correctly?
>>24831321>matthew copied mark>haha, you're saying we have never found matthew's source!?Q has nothing to do with matthew copying mark, it has to do with explaining the similarities between matthew and lukeanother way of explaining it would be to say luke had access to matthew or vice versa, but a lot of people think that creates more problems than it solves. we know both copied mark because when they change mark, they change it in different ways, sometimes at the same point.why would us not having a copy of a hypothetical 1st century document be so shocking? We knew of a gospel of judas for centuries based on other writings but we only found it very recently. likewise we know of books that are based on sources which we don't have.The idea is that matthew and luke both had access to at least two written sources, mark and Q (we don't know what his document would be called), Q being a list of sayings of Jesus, similar in structure to the gospel of thomas. Therefore when matthew and luke copy their narrative, they get it from luke, but when they're sourcing their sayings, they're getting them from this other document. It has to be a written document because they are word for word the same, if they came from oral tradition there would be differences in phrasing or at least spelling, even slight AND perhaps most importantly, they're in the same order, which would be impossible to reproduce orally unless people were memorising an entire list of Jesus' sayings.Not him by the way.Also>Who cares?people who want to know what happened?
>>24831321>The "verbatim copies" are relatively far in betweenmatthew reproduces 93% of mark
>>24831393>Q has nothing to do with matthew copying markI didn't claim it did. I said instead of wondering about Q, one should wonder about the ending of Mark, a completely separate issue.>people who want to know what happened?For what end? You will find out that Matthe copied Q and Mark because he could testify to those exact things. Or that he copied them because he just loved how Mark put them and so decided to limit his own gospel to confirm Mark's. Or any other reason. I know who wonders... but who actually cares? And I ask this because I see that those who care are mostly motivated by the borderline existential need to dismiss the gospel altogether. Which I'm not saying is the case for anyone in this thread.>>24831396>matthew reproduces 93% of markNot even nearly verbatim, which is the goalpost in the OP. That it narrates the same events with 9 details matching out of 10 is somewhat foreseeable.
>>24831430>>24831321>uhhhh who cares dude >man it like doesn't even matter don't think about it!why are Christians like this when it comes to the supposed word of god? shouldn't you want to know as much as possible about it? Like authorial intent for example?It matters because copying an account is not consistent with being a direct witness to the events. This makes Matthew an, at best, second hand account. Why is this third hand account adding details that weren't in the second hand account? Why is he *changing* details? Omitting them? Even if you think they're both correct descriptions of what happened, knowing that Matthew copied mark changes your understanding of what he is trying to say. If he's just coping a passage word for word it's simple, he's just stating what he thinks happened. If he's changing the wording, that could mean he wants you to have a particular interpretation and so he's changing it to better reflect what he sees as the correct narrative.Viewing the book in light of the editorial changes can be eye-opening for some passges.
>>24831287Probably because it was easier than writing everything from scratch.
>>24831321Even seminary doesn’t entertain actual authorship. You’re an idiot advocating a meme position on theology out of pure ignorance. Odds are you never read the Bible to begin with. You larpers are a fucking plague.
>>24831287Because the Gospel of Mark was actually a recording of a sermon by Peter and because Peter was more important he deferred to not altering the material
3 schizos and 1 super schizo steal stories and put bullshit in it
Matthew was written first.
>>24831736Matthew wrote MatthewMark wrote MarkLuke wrote LukeJohn wrote JohnPaul wrote all the letters associated with him, including Romans and HebrewsPeter wrote all the letters associated with himThis was good enough for the Church Fathers and it should be good enough for you. You think you know better than Ignatius of Antioch?
>>24831294Luke (or, rather, an individual author) wrote his Gospel and Acts together. It is very much in the vein of an official letter produced for a wealthy patron in this era.The truth is that besides Luke the Gospels were written for communities and done post-hoc by people who were not eyewitnesses. The only one which even claims to be produced from a direct eyewitness account (as opposed to Luke, which openly says it’s a compilation) is John. Matthew is very clearly assembled for the Judaizer community, with its emphasis on Jewish law and Jewish prophecy.>>24832380Paul was a Gnostic, your canon comes from Marcion, and Ignatius was Peregrinus Proteus. You can cope about this however you please.
>>24831294What does Qanon have to do with the bible?
>>24832398>Paul was a gnostic
There are more evidence for the resurrection of Chrit than Q.
>>24832572Again you can cope about this however you please, but your "orthodoxy" was borne out of Judaizers like Peter and James who totally misunderstood the true message.
>>24833225>your "orthodoxy" was borne out of Judaizers like Peter and James who totally misunderstood the true message.nta but the letters attributed to Peter and James are almost certainly not written by them. Reality is that we have pretty much no idea what Peter and James actually beleived/preached
>>24832572In defence of that idea, the Gnostics (such as Marcion as that anon mentioned) loved Paul and clearly thought his ideas were compatible with theirs
There is nothing more miserable than textual criticism
>>24831287The tradition is that Matthew wrote first.That said, Mark was Peter's secretary, so it is not like he lacked credentials.>>24831294Biblical Academia is not a serious discipline. They lack evidence and whatever is accepted as the consensus view is accepted due to fads rather than new facts. There is zero evidence for "Q".
>>24834070It's a psyop by atheists or worse. The only reason they defend a composition date later than 70 AD is because they can't accept the temple destruction prophecy.It's basically an area for atheists and crypto atheists to exalt themselves on skeptical assumptions
>>24832578There is about as much evidence for Q as there is for Q Anon.Some liberal Christians apparently found out about it, except nobody has ever mentioned it or anything like it for 1800 years.
>>24831617>why are Christians like this when it comes to the supposed word of god?>shouldn't you want to know as much as possible about it?Jesus Christ is the Word of God and you know Him by obeying his commandments. How a text was historically formed is an understandable academic questions but mostly fruitless.>authorial intentEven if transmitting this were the key function of the text, trying to reverse-engineer a text's formation via various sources isn't going to do a whole lot for you. The Church, an institution formed precisely for transmitting the intent and validating interpretations by practical criteria, would be a much better bet.>Why is he *changing* details? Omitting them?First of all, none of this is established, second of all, you wonderfully demonstrate my point of how your line of inquiry raises more questions than it solves and none of them bear actual spiritual fruits.>Viewing the book in light of the editorial changes can be eye-opening for some passges.I will agree with this. Sadly, trying to causally determine how a text was changed at what point in what editorial through-line is perhaps the worst way to go about it.>>24831736What seminary did you go to, Anon? Or is this the good old "authorship means he wrote it down" sleight of hand?
>The Bible is fake because of all the contradictions>The Bible is also fake when it coincidesIt's amazing the intellectual knots atheists have to twist themselves into to support their world view.
>>24832398>the Gospels were written for communitiesLol>>24834086The worst part is how some of them used the criterion of dissimilarity. Some (but not all) used like this: "If anything claimed to have been said by Jesus agrees with what early Christians or contemporary Jewish people believed", Jesus didn't say it.
>>24834095There are pretty bad seminaries out there that went full modernist.
>>24834106and if the gospels were absolutely perfect, it would be a cover up and everyone "getting their story straight" before writing as if part of a criminal heist. you simply can't win in a textual discussion because they aren't even open to believing the proposition. if they are corrected on a thing, the next thing will be shifted to. dawkins goes from virtually no scholars believe jesus existed to ok a few think he did to ok the vast majority think he existed but it doesn't matter anyways because i can't do science. sam harris quotes jesus telling a parable and frames it as jesus saying it himself("slay them in my presence" luke 19:27), but when corrected just pivots to something else like slavery.
>>24834183Most atheism is based on resentment not actual honest inquiry. If God made you handsome or beautiful you wouldn't go out of your way to counter revealed wisdom.
>>24834106I have once read the argument "Luke didn't write the Gospel of Luke because it would make too much sense for Paul's doctor to have written it. Which is why they attributed it to him".
>>24831287Reckon St. Matthew was the originator of the material the went into St. Mark's work.
>>24831294And that's because of what, like statistics? 'Oh, what are the odds it were written by St. John. . .'*Meanwhile John says 'I am the beloved disciple, who's writing this'*
Does the intended audience come into account when trying to answer this?
>>24834355>b-b-but scholarly consensus shows us john was the last written one so his divination of christ is clearly a build up over time of his miraclesmeanwhile they put the letters to the corinthians and the ephesians in the 40s with all these christolic traditions present. they also can't seem to reconcile how luke sides with john vs mark on a number of things while luke/acts is pretty firmly planted in the 50s/60s ad. they just handwave that away because it absolutely brutalizes their case. luke has access to mark in his travels, why wouldn't he just side with all of what mark wrote? because the gospel of john is also an early convention.
>>24831287This is secularist thinking that comes from accepting Jesus as a real, historical figure, but deny vera homo, vera Deus. If you don't believe that the Bible is a divinely inspired, supernatural work, then it all falls apart. Faith is what provides you ears to hear, and eyes to see. It all falls apart on in the absence of faith.>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
>>24834355>>24834421The answer that satisfies everything is that the Apostles themselves didn't even agree on what the "message" was and how it should be conveyed, and had differing memories on the significance of what occurred. Peter didn't know/care to know about the Nativity so it's why Mark didn't put it in there, for instance. Luke-Acts and John are probably the most reliable, since Luke took from a multitude of eyewitnesses and pre-existing written accounts and John was clearly the most aware.Matthew is probably the least viable. It seems that Matthew, or whoever wrote that Gospel, was writing specifically for the Judaizer Hebrews who got BTFOd after the Sack of Jerusalem. It's more of a historical relic than anything.
>>24836081>since Luke took from a multitude of eyewitnessesSource?>and John was clearly the most aware.this is clear how?acts contradicts letters of Paul, when talking about Paul, so I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that it's reliable at all, but most reliable? it's based on mark, reproducing about 50% of mark, but you don't think mark is reliable?Furthermore, what makes you trust Luke's nativity story over Matthew's?
>>24831294The scholarly consensus is that the authors are anonymous, because well, they are anonymous.
>>24837057>source?luke himself in the opening to the book of luke. there are several books that analyze the devices and ways he wrote that really promote just how reliable he was for a first century author. semitisms validating the regions he was in, descriptions of places/nautical things, etc. a recent book i read off the top of my head that even runs these things through different systematic studies is called "the historical tell" by van wegh i believe.
>John Mark was not an eyewitness, so his account is less detailed. >Matthew was an eyewitness so his account is more detailed (and came first)>Luke was a trained historian using primary sources so his account has details the other don'tThis had been known for 1700 years.
>>24837057>Source?Taken from my Bible:>Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.Do "orthodox" Christians even read their own Bible? Or do you just absorb whatever your priest//reverent/clergy tells you on Sunday?>this is clear how?He clearly, without ambiguity, establishes from the very first lines that Christ is the Logos and God.>Reliability of ActsI never said it was infallible. I said it was reliable.>MarkMark has clear signs of editing, especially in regards to its ending, that it is obvious that it has gone through revisions. "Church tradition" also says that it was sourced from Peter, who cannot be trusted.>Furthermore, what makes you trust Luke's nativity story over Matthew's?You're misunderstanding here. I think that the Gospels, in of themselves, are fine sources of information to compare and contrast and build a picture, but you have to realize that they aren't infallible documents. They're eyewitness/collection of eyewitness accounts compiled and collated either by communities or by individuals to serve as liturgical documents for persons or their community. Matthew was one of those, and it has a clear bent towards painting Jesus in a Judaic light for a Judaic audience.
>>24834436> As long as your force yourself to believe it's real it will seem real to youBrilliant plan
>>24837711>Brilliant planIt actually is. Do you think yourself wiser than the creator of wisdom itself?"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."The corollary, of course, is that you will never find God when you fail to seek him with any heart.
>>24837162>>24837190Okay where does it say he interviewed eyewitnesses? He just says he went around collecting stories, probably didn't even leave his home town, if even leaving his own church community.
Why does Jesus tell his disciples to not go to the non-jews or the Samaritans ?Why is he so jew-centric when he's supposed to be from another religion ?
>>24838771because his initial focus was to fulfill the old testament prophecies of the messiah coming to israel first; a precursor to the great commission("Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..."). 12 apostles for the 12 tribes.>he's supposed to be from another religion ?he's hebraism fulfilled to its conclusion. i'm not sure what you even mean.
>>24838210>He just says he went around collecting stories, probably didn't even leave his home townStupid atheist didn't read the Acts
>>24838210>He just says he went around collecting stories, probably didn't even leave his home town, if even leaving his own church community.because of the "we" verses in acts and the fact that paul mentions him like 3 times in his letters.
>>24838210>Okay where does it say he interviewed eyewitnesses? In Luke 1>probably didn't even leave his home town, if even leaving his own church community.Go re-read Acts.Again, do "orthodox" Christians, whether they be Catholic, EO, or Protestant, even read the Bible? Or do you just go based on vibes?
>>24839251Where do you get he is an orthodox Christian?
