Did Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark?

[m0dified]

In response to [acronym="Opening Post"]OP[/acronym], yes. Of course they did. But it wasn't bad plagarizing. It was using their sources well. They of course copyed from Q and stuff like the Gospel of Mary as well. No biggie.

That is one theory, not fact.

In your opinion.

Have you read the Gospel of Mary of late? Entire sections are quoted in Matthew and Luke.

Quelle and logia are just theories to cover the similarities between Mark Matthew and Luke. It could as easily have been that the identical portions were oral reports memorised word-for-word.

And I think its amazing that people are discounting the other possibility...that the identical portions could be the result of the Holy Spirit!?

[m0dified]

Here is some historical evidence for Matthew being first:

St. Irenaeus (d. A.D. 200) "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Against Heresies 3.1; A.D. 180-199).

Notice that St. Irenaeus tells us that Matthew was first written in HEBREW, not Greek. I think this is an important point to consider.

Yes, and that testimony is a century or more after the fact; in other words, there is no direct line from the testimony to an actual experience with the facts. In this thread, I discuss that in more detail, including this post where I mention what you just said, this post where I give some analysis of it, and this post where I briefly talk about whether or not Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

No direct line...pshhh.

"Early Christian writers who mention the subject are all in unanimous agreement that the original Gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew.

The earliest of these writers was Papias (Fragment 6), dating from about A.D. 167, who records, "Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", III,39,1). Irenaeus, one of the earliest of the Church Fathers, confirms Papias' statement a few years later when he writes, "Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue" (Ibid. V,8,2). A Jewish believer named Hegesippus is reported to "draw occasionally on the Gospel of the Hebrews ... and particularly on works in Hebrew" (Ibid. IV,22,4).

However, the most dramatic testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew Gospel is the well-known Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin in Bethlehem circa A.D. 400. In Jerome's extensive writings there are nineteen passages that speak of a "Hebrew Gospel" or a Gospel "according to the Hebrews". On one occasion he speaks of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" which, he says, "I have recently translated into Greek and Latin" (De vir. ill., II). "

Source: http://www.cfi.org.uk/hebrew3.htm

And also...

"The most conclusive evidence for Hebrew as the principal language behind not just the Synoptic Gospels, but the New Testament in its entirety, is the text itself. The New Testament is filled with semitisms: Hebrew vocabulary, Hebrew syntax, Hebrew idioms, Hebrew thought patterns, and Hebrew theology. Moulton and Howard have compiled an impressive 72 page list of Hebrew expressions and idioms found in the New Testament in their "Grammar" (Vol. 2, pgs. 413-485). "

[m0dified]

Anyone know about this:

http://www.v-a.com/bible/

They say its an entire Aramaic Bible that was kept in the Church of the East and has now been translated.

[m0dified]

UM...maybe we are both right?

"The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Matthew (in an Aramaic version) preceded Mark and Luke, but that Matthew’s Greek translation of his Aramaic Gospel may have come after Mark and Luke."

http://www.bartleby.com/65/sy/Synoptic.html

What if Matthew was originally in Hebrew, as the early Christians claim, and both the Greek version of Matthew AND Mark, used this as a source?

That would explain why they are similiar, and also explain the historical claims of the early Christians about the first being a Hebrew Matthew...

[UMSonOfMan7]

No direct line...pshhh.

"Early Christian writers who mention the subject are all in unanimous agreement that the original Gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew.

The earliest of these writers was Papias (Fragment 6), dating from about A.D. 167, who records, "Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", III,39,1). Irenaeus, one of the earliest of the Church Fathers, confirms Papias' statement a few years later when he writes, "Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue" (Ibid. V,8,2). A Jewish believer named Hegesippus is reported to "draw occasionally on the Gospel of the Hebrews ... and particularly on works in Hebrew" (Ibid. IV,22,4).

I present the same evidence from Papias here, and I analyze it here.

However, the most dramatic testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew Gospel is the well-known Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin in Bethlehem circa A.D. 400. In Jerome's extensive writings there are nineteen passages that speak of a "Hebrew Gospel" or a Gospel "according to the Hebrews". On one occasion he speaks of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" which, he says, "I have recently translated into Greek and Latin" (De vir. ill., II). "

Source: http://www.cfi.org.uk/hebrew3.htm

There's a Gospel of the Hebrews right there; perhaps that is what Jerome was referring to.

And also...

"The most conclusive evidence for Hebrew as the principal language behind not just the Synoptic Gospels, but the New Testament in its entirety, is the text itself. The New Testament is filled with semitisms: Hebrew vocabulary, Hebrew syntax, Hebrew idioms, Hebrew thought patterns, and Hebrew theology. Moulton and Howard have compiled an impressive 72 page list of Hebrew expressions and idioms found in the New Testament in their "Grammar" (Vol. 2, pgs. 413-485). "

You've brought that one up before, repeatedly, and I've even rebutted it before. Yahwist rebutted it here, and I rebutted it here. While intriguing, the balance of evidence still points towards a Greek gospel.

[UMSonOfMan7]

UM...maybe we are both right?

"The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Matthew (in an Aramaic version) preceded Mark and Luke, but that Matthew’s Greek translation of his Aramaic Gospel may have come after Mark and Luke."

http://www.bartleby.com/65/sy/Synoptic.html

What if Matthew was originally in Hebrew, as the early Christians claim, and both the Greek version of Matthew AND Mark, used this as a source?

That would explain why they are similiar, and also explain the historical claims of the early Christians about the first being a Hebrew Matthew...

That's possible, but the current balance of evidence still leads towards a the current gospel of Matthew originally being written in Greek; if the balance ever shifts, I would examine it and possibly revise my thinking on that in the future.