Did Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark?

[UMSonOfMan7]

Traditionally, the gospel of Matthew is believed to be the first gospel to have been written, and it is believed that all four gospels were written independently of the others, three of them by apostles and one by a very close follower of an apostle. But what if this isn't the case? What if--as many scholars now claim--Mark really is the first gospel, Matthew and Luke are largely copies of Mark with additional material added, and John is an older work, more a development of a particular theological perspective than a specific apostle recounting his experiences with Jesus?

In this thread, I address current research on the origins of the gospels (who wrote them) and now that I am finally finished with my classes for a bit, I will soon finish that thread and address the dating the gospels.

For now though, I would like to consider what it might mean if some of these scholars are right and the "tradition" passed down to us by the Catholic Church is not entirely accurate. But first, let me give you something to consider.

Matthew has 1068 verses.
Mark has 661 verses.
Luke has 1098 verses.

Matthew repeats 454 verses from Mark.
Luke repeats 350 verses from Mark.

"So what?" you might be thinking. Well, when I say "repeat," I mean either a word for word repeat or a very similar repetition with the primary differences being in word choice or order. For example, let's compare the accounts of Jesus' baptism (and I will highlight the parts in Matthew and Luke that mirror Mark's account):

Mark:

1:9
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
1:10
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
1:11
and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Matthew:

3:13
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
3:14
John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
3:15
But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented.
3:16
And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
3:17
and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Luke:

3:21
Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
3:22
and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Now, this is just one single example, and I chose it only because it is the first example in the text; nothing else special about it. So, we can see that there is clearly some repetition, much more than would be case if three people were simply recording the same event (and I am prepared to provide more examples if folks aren't convinced this isn't just coincidence yet). But the logical question is, how do we know that Matthew and Luke copied Mark rather than Mark copying Matthew or something along those lines? Let me explain.

First, take into consideration that Mark is only 16 chapters long, while Matthew and Luke are both significantly longer. Of Mark's 661 verses, 454 are repeated in Matthew and 350 are repeated in Luke. But now let's look at it from a slightly different angle--let's examine how much is not repeated.

While 396 of Matthew's 1068 verses are unique to Matthew and 530 of Luke's 1098 verses are unique to Luke, Mark only has 89 verses unique to Mark. In other words, nearly 87% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.

Now, let's take a look again from a different angle--this time, instead of verses, let's look at scenes and sayings (distinct sayings not dependent on dialogue in a story).

Mark has 95 scenes and 80 sayings.
Matthew has 117 scenes and 225 sayings.
Luke has 120 scenes and 182 sayings.

Of the 95 scenes and 80 sayings in Mark, Matthew repeats 77 of each. Luke repeats 67 of Mark's scenes and 62 of Mark's sayings. Mark only has 10 scenes and 1 saying that are unique to itself. In other words, 89% of the scenes in Mark are repeated, with Matthew repeating 81% of Mark's scenes and Luke repeating 65% of Mark's scenes, and thus it is primarily in the sayings that Matthew and Luke elaborate on Mark.

So, Matthew and Luke have copied a huge majority of Mark and then added some of their own material to it, primarily by expanding on what is already in Mark. The baptism story above is an excellent example of this; both Matthew and Luke have taken Mark's version, left the outline and order pretty much as is, repeated it, changed a few of the words here and there, and Matthew has added an additional two verses of dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist.



So, what does it mean if the writers of Matthew and Luke--rather than writing their own independent accounts--copied Mark, elaborated on it a bit, and then added some of their own material to that?



This page, on the Synoptic Gospels, by Mahlon H. Smith at Rutgers University contributed to my research, specifically by providing me with the statistics on the verses, scenes, and sayings.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I think it is like a newspaper editing a wire story. They use the basic account, add new information that they have, and edit it for clarity and the interests of their audience.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I think it is like a newspaper editing a wire story. They use the basic account, add new information that they have, and edit it for clarity and the interests of their audience.

That actually sounds like a fairly apt analogy.

[elainedavies]

So, what does it mean if the writers of Matthew and Luke--rather than writing their own independent accounts--copied Mark, elaborated on it a bit, and then added some of their own material to that?

I find this concept very interesting, and I have never heard of this before. I don't know enough about the subject to make any conclusions as to why they would do that, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

[UMSonOfMan7]

So, what does it mean if the writers of Matthew and Luke--rather than writing their own independent accounts--copied Mark, elaborated on it a bit, and then added some of their own material to that?

I find this concept very interesting, and I have never heard of this before. I don't know enough about the subject to make any conclusions as to why they would do that, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

Would you like to offer some speculation?

[elainedavies]

So, what does it mean if the writers of Matthew and Luke--rather than writing their own independent accounts--copied Mark, elaborated on it a bit, and then added some of their own material to that?

I find this concept very interesting, and I have never heard of this before. I don't know enough about the subject to make any conclusions as to why they would do that, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

Would you like to offer some speculation?

I think fod was on the right track. It would be near impossible for us to fully know the motivations behind the authors, but what has me the most puzzled is why they would include all three accounts of essentially the same information, just presented differently. I mean, why would they not just use one book and all contribute?

I'm going to have to look over this again tomorrow. Right now my brain is foggy from sickness.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I think fod was on the right track. It would be near impossible for us to fully know the motivations behind the authors, but what has me the most puzzled is why they would include all three accounts of essentially the same information, just presented differently. I mean, why would they not just use one book and all contribute?

Well, keep in mind, the canon was formed in the fourth century. Though it is clear now that the writers of Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source, the story being told by the late second century was that what we call "the Gospel of Matthew" was written by the apostle Matthew and it was written first. Mark was allegedly written second, by Peter's closest follower. Luke was written by someone who had interviewed several of the apostles and other eye-witnesses. John was written by John the apostle. That story is still told and widely believed to this day. In reality, however, the evidence supporting it is extremely thin and sketchy.

I'm going to have to look over this again tomorrow. Right now my brain is foggy from sickness.

When you come back to it, think about this too: One of the most interesting things about Mark, given that it almost certainly was written first and the other two Synoptic Gospels were based largely on it, is that Mark has no birth narrative and no post-resurrection appearances (in it's earliest forms; later manuscripts contain additional endings that include post-resurrection appearances). Definitely interesting to think about.

[LoveEndures]

I would think that Luke did borrow from the works that had been written by the others or at least question them on it, as it states at the beginning of the book:

1:1
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
1:2
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
1:3
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
1:4
so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.


As for the book of Matthew, it could have borrowed from Mark or if it was an Apostle that wrote it then he would have the same access to the information as the other Apostles. Shareing information as to what they had seen and heard would be most likely what happened if written by the Apostle.

Traditionally, the gospel of Matthew is believed to be the first gospel to have been written, and it is believed that all four gospels were written independently of the others, three of them by apostles and one by a very close follower of an apostle.

In the other thread you state that Mark was Peter's interprater, and that Luke was a follower of Paul. So how does two of those who were named being close to Apostles equal three of the books being written by Apostles?

What if--as many scholars now claim--Mark really is the first gospel, Matthew and Luke are largely copies of Mark with additional material added, and John is an older work, more a development of a particular theological perspective than a specific apostle recounting his experiences with Jesus?

Then I would assume that they no longer look upon the traditions that were passed down from early on as historical. This would indicate that they view the men who had written the tradition to be of a nature that cannot be trusted. The fact we can disregard the words of one because another is critical of their intelligence and yet disregard that one as well because he was not a contemporary of the Apostles as the other was already hurts my head.

I would question what it is you hope to accomplish through this exercise:
To find the truth?
To cast doubt upon what was written?
To test the faith you espouse?
To test the faith of others?

I don't mind the exercise itself, but understanding of how you are coming at this will help should I respond to it. I don't want to come off as defensive or attack what is written if this is merely an exercise in building up your faith or finding the truth.



written by elainedavies

I think fod was on the right track. It would be near impossible for us to fully know the motivations behind the authors, but what has me the most puzzled is why they would include all three accounts of essentially the same information, just presented differently. I mean, why would they not just use one book and all contribute?

I hope this helps to bring some understanding. The Bible talks about needing two witnesses for the truth of a matter to be known, to this end the Bible carries alot of redundent material from different authors with which to parcel out the truth.

I guess I could also state in this that the gospels were written to different audiences as well; Matthew was written to the Jews with more of a Jewish mindset, Mark was written to the Gentiles more toward the Roman mindset, and Luke was to the Gentiles as well but not a specific mindset as Mark was.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I would think that Luke did borrow from the works that had been written by the others or at least question them on it, as it states at the beginning of the book:

1:1
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
1:2
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
1:3
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
1:4
so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Borrowing is one thing; copying is a bit of a different matter.

As for the book of Matthew, it could have borrowed from Mark or if it was an Apostle that wrote it then he would have the same access to the information as the other Apostles. Shareing information as to what they had seen and heard would be most likely what happened if written by the Apostle.

Again, this goes quite a bit beyond sharing material. Matthew reproduces nearly the entire book of Mark, in the same order (as does Luke), and using most of the same words and verses. I don't call that sharing; I call it copying. And if I did it in seminary, I would fail due to violations of the academic integrity code. There is simply a difference between sharing information and having the same access to the same information and one of them outright copying the other.

If the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, why would he--instead of using his own personal experiences with Jesus as his primary source--need to copy the work of someone else who allegedly wrote down his own personal recollection of what Peter said happened?

In the other thread you state that Mark was Peter's interprater, and that Luke was a follower of Paul. So how does two of those who were named being close to Apostles equal three of the books being written by Apostles?

I wrote that at the end of a long day at work; I also clarified in a later post in this thread that it broke down as two and two; I guess I was just too lazy to go back and fix what I said earlier.

What if--as many scholars now claim--Mark really is the first gospel, Matthew and Luke are largely copies of Mark with additional material added, and John is an older work, more a development of a particular theological perspective than a specific apostle recounting his experiences with Jesus?

Then I would assume that they no longer look upon the traditions that were passed down from early on as historical. This would indicate that they view the men who had written the tradition to be of a nature that cannot be trusted. The fact we can disregard the words of one because another is critical of their intelligence and yet disregard that one as well because he was not a contemporary of the Apostles as the other was already hurts my head.

I agree with your first statement; in regards to your following statements, some scholars have come to those conclusions, but many have come to different ones as well. I fall into the group that has come to some different conclusions.

I would question what it is you hope to accomplish through this exercise:
To find the truth?
To cast doubt upon what was written?
To test the faith you espouse?
To test the faith of others?

I don't mind the exercise itself, but understanding of how you are coming at this will help should I respond to it. I don't want to come off as defensive or attack what is written if this is merely an exercise in building up your faith or finding the truth.

It is an exercise in challenging people to think about and consider some new information that they may not have been previously aware of. Nothing sinister about it. Jesus' words in the gospels are constantly referred to and pointed at by Christians telling other people what they need to believe and what they have to profess regarding various things in order to go to heaven and be in an authentic relationship with God. As long as folks are going to be doing that and reading volumes into the particular wording of a statement, I think it is important that we all consider where those words come from and how they got to us. If the writers of two of the gospels are copying from a third gospel but elaborating on it a bit and changing the words around, well, then I think that is sort of a significant piece of information to take into consideration when weighing those words and the specific wording that is used. I further think that it has significant implications on the writers themselves and whether or not they are really who we are told they are.

[writerguy]

It is an exercise in challenging people to think about and consider some new information that they may not have been previously aware of. Nothing sinister about it. Jesus' words in the gospels are constantly referred to and pointed at by Christians telling other people what they need to believe and what they have to profess regarding various things in order to go to heaven and be in an authentic relationship with God. As long as folks are going to be doing that and reading volumes into the particular wording of a statement, I think it is important that we all consider where those words come from and how they got to us. If the writers of two of the gospels are copying from a third gospel but elaborating on it a bit and changing the words around, well, then I think that is sort of a significant piece of information to take into consideration when weighing those words and the specific wording that is used. I further think that it has significant implications on the writers themselves and whether or not they are really who we are told they are.

UM, there you go again. It's Friday, just before the holidays, and yer tryin' to make me think, are ya??

Out come those Six Guns. Ka-BAM! Ka-BAM! Take that, ya ornery varment!! Yer makin' my da-blamed head hurt!!!!

(Hooray. Keep up the good work.)

[writerguy]

Is this off-topic? I don't think so. It's closely related to the whole field of textual criticism, though not directly related to the gospels as UM is discussing them here.

It's a site I found very interesting and an excellent complement to the threads like this which UM has been doing so well. You might find the materials here very interesting and useful: Bible Research.

Sorry if I've disrupted the thread, and please moderate this to a different thread if necessary.

I thank you!

[UMSonOfMan7]

UM, there you go again. It's Friday, just before the holidays, and yer tryin' to make me think, are ya??

Out come those Six Guns. Ka-BAM! Ka-BAM! Take that, ya ornery varment!! Yer makin' my da-blamed head hurt!!!!

(Hooray. Keep up the good work.)

Thanks, Gary.

[mswings]

UM - interesting topic. Like most similar topics, this makes me want to dig in and learn more, to do my own research and investigation and draw my own conclusions. Naturally, being a tired, lazy Mom of two, I'm probably not going to do as much of that as I'd like, but you've at least made me curious enough to want to know more.

I think all of us who consider the Bible a foundation of our faith have a responsibility to learn as much as we can about it. Quoting scripture without an understanding of the source weakens the message, I believe.

[PastorFreud]

I am pretty comfortable with Markan priority. Or maybe Q priority. But I think that it is not quite right to say "plagiarize." The concept of plagiarism comes with individualism and ownership of thoughts and print. I don't think this was an issue in the 1st century. What the authors of the gospels did in borrowing material was normal for that day and age.

But I have to tell my students that times have changed and this kind of thing is not allowed in the University setting. There is nothing new under the sun, so you better use those footnotes.

[Icebrc]

So I can't use a Religious Persecution line to get me out of my questionable paper, prof????

[writerguy]

So I can't use a Religious Persecution line to get me out of my questionable paper, prof????

Hmm. Interesting idea, Ice. I'm sure if you could demonstrate that you were simply trying to read a Bible on campus, and a faculty member confiscated it, etc., hey, I'll bet your friend Pat-of-the-evil-eyes Robertson could -- wink, wink, wink -- help you find a good attorney to push the religious persecution angle.

Works in K-12 at least. Now universities, uh, hmm?? State run universities, perhaps?

(Never met an ACLU lawyer I didn't like, [acronym="By The Way"]BTW[/acronym])

[PastorFreud]

Actually, I teach at a Christian University and we set students up to plagiarize by creating ridiculous standards and criticizing students for writing pieces that reflect their own thinking, albeit poorly written. I once had a student do a paper on angels. It was word for word the second chapter of Angels by Billy Graham. Of course, Graham probably had a ghost writer. Now that is a whole nuther story.

[PastorFreud]

So I can't use a Religious Persecution line to get me out of my questionable paper, prof????

Just plagiarize and comment that there is nothing new under the sun.

Seriously, I can't tell you how many times a student has been up all night doing "spiritual warfare" and couldn't finish a paper in time. I tell the student that God will certainly reward them for fighting the devil. I will take off points for the paper being late.

[LoveEndures]

Okay Doc you nearly made me spit out the water I was drinking with that one, how funny.

[LoveEndures]

Mark reproduces nearly the entire book of Mark

I would hope this was true or Mark really wouldn't be Mark.
Yes I do understand you meant Matthew but I just had to rib you on this.

If the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, why would he--instead of using his own personal experiences with Jesus as his primary source--need to copy the work of someone else who allegedly wrote down his own personal recollection of what Peter said happened?

Okay my thought on this is still that if Matthew was written by an Apostle then the message would be pretty much the same as what the other Apostles are teaching, the only difference would come to makeing that message understandable to the group to whom it is given. We already know that the Church has a central body early on in Jerusalem, and the only Apostle to not verify their teaching through this body was Paul. That would indicate to me a conformity of the message presented, ie a base teaching from which all the Apostles drew. A base teaching would also help to maintain a standard of truth and keep out anything that would be viewed as heretical or harmful to the Church body. Of course as it would be pretty standard overall then the actual names of those who wrote it down need not be the names that we have listed as the authors.

I wrote that at the end of a long day at work; I also clarified in a later post in this thread that it broke down as two and two; I guess I was just too lazy to go back and fix what I said earlier.

I figured that after reading the thread you had linked to as well as further on in this thread. But such mistakes can be used to make light of another, get an edge in a debate, or simply poke fun at a friend with.

I agree with your first statement; in regards to your following statements, some scholars have come to those conclusions, but many have come to different ones as well. I fall into the group that has come to some different conclusions.

Well I do look forward to seeing the conclusions you have come to as well as seeing the means by which they were come to.

It is an exercise in challenging people to think about and consider some new information that they may not have been previously aware of.

You could have probably stopped at "challenging people to think" not a normal endeavour for many to do. But I thank you for your candidness about your intent with this exercise, it sounds like fun so continue on Moi Capitain.

[AnarchyPraxis]

I think the authorship of Mark is established conclusivly. The early church fathers all affirm that Mark wrote this second gospel. Papias, bishop of Heiroplois, writing about A.D. 140, noted:

"And the preshyter (the Apostle John) said this: Mark haveing 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 not accompanied Him But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities (of the 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. (From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)

Justin Martyr, called the Godpel of Mark "the memoirs of Peter". He also agrees with the uniform voice of early tradition. Some points worth considering:

1) The early church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written.

2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness depend on Mark, who was not, even for his own conversion?

3)The statistics offered while interesting and very well research do not account for the differences. These differences argue against literary dependence and should be given more weight.

4) The repetition of events and sayings since it represents a concensus of content. General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency.

5) The amount of passages where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark amounts to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. Why would they change Mark's wording in the same way if that was their primary source?

Honestly, I am delighted at the prospect of a comparative study of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Still I don't see the problem, the traditional view has uniformly affirmed they were written independently.

[Icebrc]

2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness depend on Mark, who was not, even for his own conversion?

What is the evidence that Matthew the Apostle wrote that gospel?

as for the other points, its been too long since I researched this and have not in any way read to keep up that research so I doubt my ability to recall enough to make any assertions other than that there is not conclusive evidence that they are independent.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I think the authorship of Mark is established conclusivly. The early church fathers all affirm that Mark wrote this second gospel. Papias, bishop of Heiroplois, writing about A.D. 140, noted:

"And the preshyter (the Apostle John) said this: Mark haveing 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 not accompanied Him But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities (of the 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. (From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)

In this thread, I address the tradition of who wrote the gospels. You are welcome to peruse that and address that issue there if you would like; needless to say, I find the tradition to be less than reliable.

Justin Martyr, called the Godpel of Mark "the memoirs of Peter". He also agrees with the uniform voice of early tradition.

Justin would have made this statement sometime in the middle of the second century, long after Peter was dead. He most likely got that story from Papias earlier in the century. Repeating what he heard someone else say--still a century late if tradition is correct on when the gospels were written--doesn't make it any more reliable.

Some points worth considering:

1) The early church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written.

The Church believed the earth was flat for centuries too. Just because a lot of people believe something, and believe it for a long time, doesn't mean that it's true. That is the whole point of examining the source of this belief, which I have done in the above linked thread.

2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness depend on Mark, who was not, even for his own conversion?

That's a good question, and given that this is what appears to have happened, I think we should be asking why and examining whether or not it means the tradition may be incorrect.

3)The statistics offered while interesting and very well research do not account for the differences. These differences argue against literary dependence and should be given more weight.

Actually, no, they do not at all. The "differences" suggest that Matthew and Luke altered portions of Mark's material and then added some of their own. Having additional material beyond what is in Mark does not at all lead to the conclusion that they did not use Mark as a primary source, particularly when nearly the entire gospel of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and Luke, in order, and with very similar wordings.

4) The repetition of events and sayings since it represents a concensus of content. General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency.

No, repetition of content does not necessarily prove literary dependency, which is why I examined this much more deeply than just the reptition of content. Words, sentences, outline, and sequence of events are also repeated.

5) The amount of passages where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark amounts to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. Why would they change Mark's wording in the same way if that was their primary source?

I have never seen any evidence that Matthew and Luke changed Mark's wording in the same way. On the contrary, what I have seen but did not mention earlier in this thread for the sake of simplicity is that Matthew and Luke appear to have a second common source beyond Mark. In addition to what I shared in the [acronym="Opening Post"]OP[/acronym], there are an additional 218 verses, 5 scenes, and 77 sayings that are common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark.

Honestly, I am delighted at the prospect of a comparative study of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Still I don't see the problem, the traditional view has uniformly affirmed they were written independently.

Again, uniformity does not equal historical accuracy; it could just as easily equal uniform historical inaccuracy, particularly when it takes 100 years for that uniform traditional view to emerge. That is what further study of the issue is all about.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I am pretty comfortable with Markan priority. Or maybe Q priority. But I think that it is not quite right to say "plagiarize." The concept of plagiarism comes with individualism and ownership of thoughts and print. I don't think this was an issue in the 1st century. What the authors of the gospels did in borrowing material was normal for that day and age.

Right, and I would not actually call it plagiarization, but using that in my title gets folks' attention, and raising the point that if it was done today that is what it would be makes for an intersting comparison. In ancient times, however, they did not have academic standards like we have today and so copying the work of someone else was not bad, but when read in today's world, the tendency is to ignore any copying and pretend like they are four independent accounts and then to build an entire belief system with that as one of the underpinning premises, and so I think this is something important for us to talk about.

[UMSonOfMan7]

If the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, why would he--instead of using his own personal experiences with Jesus as his primary source--need to copy the work of someone else who allegedly wrote down his own personal recollection of what Peter said happened?

Okay my thought on this is still that if Matthew was written by an Apostle then the message would be pretty much the same as what the other Apostles are teaching, the only difference would come to makeing that message understandable to the group to whom it is given. We already know that the Church has a central body early on in Jerusalem, and the only Apostle to not verify their teaching through this body was Paul. That would indicate to me a conformity of the message presented, ie a base teaching from which all the Apostles drew. A base teaching would also help to maintain a standard of truth and keep out anything that would be viewed as heretical or harmful to the Church body. Of course as it would be pretty standard overall then the actual names of those who wrote it down need not be the names that we have listed as the authors.

LE, six months ago, you, I, Cross, and another person had dinner together in Oklahoma City. Now, imagine all four of us sitting down today to write out seperate and individual accounts of what happened. The broad sequence of events would be the same--we arrived at the restaurant; we were seated; we ordered food; the food arrived; we ate it; we paid the bill; we left. The entire rest of our accounts would probably vary rather significantly, however. Likely, we would remember differently what was said, when it was said, what was ordered; we might disagree on who arrived first; we would probably disagree some on who said what and how they said it. Likely, we might even remember the content of the conversation somewhat differently. We would definitely remember differently the order of conversation (who spoke when), and we would almost definitely have some significant differences in what we remember the topics of conversation being. And that was just one dinner and only six months ago. Not a year (if we believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or three years (if we believe John) in our lives that took place a decade or perhaps as much as several decades ago (depending on whether tradition or the majority of biblical scholars are correct in their assumptions on when the gospels were compiled).

On the other hand, in the material that Matthew and Luke have in common with Mark, all of the sequence is the same (not just the big picture), the events are the same, the sayings are the same, the wording is very similar, and the material from Mark is basically repeated in the midst of the additional content. That simply wouldn't happen if the four of us wrote our own independent accounts of that dinner that we had. This leads me to the very strong conclusion that the gospels are not four independent accounts.

I wrote that at the end of a long day at work; I also clarified in a later post in this thread that it broke down as two and two; I guess I was just too lazy to go back and fix what I said earlier.

I figured that after reading the thread you had linked to as well as further on in this thread. But such mistakes can be used to make light of another, get an edge in a debate, or simply poke fun at a friend with.

It is an exercise in challenging people to think about and consider some new information that they may not have been previously aware of.

You could have probably stopped at "challenging people to think" not a normal endeavour for many to do. But I thank you for your candidness about your intent with this exercise, it sounds like fun so continue on Moi Capitain.

Aye, Aye, sir.