Protestantism

» Migisi - The Matthew argument...

In response to the writing of the Gospels posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Well, if Matthew the author of the Gospel of Matthew is indeed the disciple Matthew - then he too would be an eyewitness.
If we accept traditional attribution...
.
Yes, that's IF we accept tradition without question.
.
Just for discussion:
.
===============
.
Gospel of Matthew
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ma...
.
ALL QUOTES from subsection "Information on Gospel of Matthew"...
.
"It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
.
"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus...
.
Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):
"Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry."
.
J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):
"It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still."
.
Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):
"But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience." (end quotes)
.
=================================
.
Now, if Matthew relied on Mark's memory ("whatsoever he remembered") for his information, Matthew's gospel is actually a 3rd-hand recording. Oral tradition from Peter passed to Mark, Mark's recollections to Matthew. (Has anyone ever played the parlor game 'Telephone'? A sentence is passed from one person to the next in line, and it gets corrupted along the way.)
.
Gospel of Mark:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ma...
.
(QUOTE) Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark." (end)

-- posted by Migisi