Julio

Of course, quoting John's short reference to the incident [John 6:68-69], introduces a serious imponderable.
On one hand we have a late writer making no reference whatsoever to Peter the Rock, who by that time [90 CE] was dead and some Clement of Rome being the fourth pope [bishop of Rome] in the perpetual succession.
On the other, the omission by John's gospel [an apostle present at the declaration] of that important detail in Matthew explains why we have to reject that gospel as a Johannine work.
Does this make sense?

Toto

It doesn't make a lot of sense to think that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It makes even less sense to combine that belief with modern scholarship that dates John to 90 CE.

Julio

We know John is a counterfeit production of the second half of the second century.
In that light, nothing in John is genuine, if we could count on some genuine material from the other gospels.
Therefore, have we established, that quickly, that the passage in Matthew is discredited by what we could call internal evidence?
Or do we have to agree that the two factions of textual inspection - fundamentalists and liberals - will be forever at loggerheads on such matters?

Toto

How do you know that one gospel is any more counterfeit than another? The internal evidence is not very persuasive for any of the NT.

aa5874

But, such is not the case at at all. Peter knew that Jesus was Christ in gMark.

Mark 8:27-38 - Peter was no dummy in gMark. The other disciples did not seem to know who Jesus was.

And this is the simplest way of tracking all the fiction writers in the HISTORY of the Church.

All the Church writers who claimed Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome or bishop of Rome are, without reasonable doubt, FICTION WRITERS.

Solo

The problem with this line of arguing is that it puts the cart before the horse. The two first gospels created a common theological ground for the church, not vice versa.

It makes no sense to call Matthew a "forgery of Mark". Matthew provided a comprehensive answer to what the Pauline community of Mark claimed was the authoritative gospel of Jesus Christ. Transparently, the gospels were attempts to assert the primacy of the Pauline and Petrine (exiled Nazarene) community, respectively, in proselytizing and in trying to absorb the other one. Mark did not simply make the disciples look a little dumb. He accused them of a faithlessness betrayal of Jesus and the gospel (to Mark his own narrative allegory of Paul and Paul's scriptures was 'one gospel'), and imposed harsh terms for their descendants to win salvation. Nothing less than full repentance (4:12), acceptance of the cross theology (8:34), and the primacy of Paul (written into the mystery of the empty tomb, which resolves the Messianic Secret) would do. Matthew's answer from the Petrine camp, was in essence: ok with the first two but no deal on the Pauline resurrection. Matthew cleverly re-wrote Mark, leaving 90% of the script in place. This assured wide acceptance of Matthew even within the Pauline camp. When he made changes, they appeared mostly miniscule corrections of Mark although some were substantial. He added a lot of new material, some of his own composition (e.g. the nativity) some from the Palestinian traditions. He also added some Pauline material (e.g. "love your enemies" in the sermon, derived from Paul's eschatological version of Pro 25:21, in Rom 12:20, also Mt 10:8, 10 from 1 Cr 9:14,18 although it is not clear whether by his time these sayings were widely believed to be Jesus').
The upstaging of Mark by Matthew was complete and thorough and lasted well into the 20th century (The Tuebingen boys and Schweitzer both supported the Griesbach hypothesis of the primacy of Matthew). Mark was victimized by his own gnostic genius; his gospel was not consumable except by the church intellectuals and fell therefore to Matthew's more accessible and colourful storytelling.

The Matt 16:17-19 small addition to Mark, coupled with an almost imperceptible re-write of Mk 4:10 in 13:10 completely reverses Mark's original structures in which it was the ghostly Pauline mystics intervening in the story who had the intimate access to Jesus, and not the Twelve. In Matthew, Peter is now the undisputed primus and Jesus' confidante, and Matthew manages to make his faithless "showing" into an ordinary human frailty. In that he becomes a sympathetic fallible human in the company of the living God, who is understanding and not as impossibly demanding or aloof as the Pauline saviour or its explosive, fearsome incarnation that was Mark's Jesus. Chesterton famously said, that by making the waffling, bumbling and cowardly Peter the head of his church, Jesus assured its success: the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

But, your claim has no support whatsoever even by the Pauline writers. The very evidence that makes one deduce that gMatthew copied gMark CANNOT be found to claim gMark is a copy of the Pauline writings.

Not one single line or verse can be found in gMark that can be said to be ONLY from the Pauline writings.

The author of gMark shows NOT one awareness of any peculiar details of the Pauline writings or doctrine at all.

Complete nonsense. Nothing is mentioned about Paul or Saul at all in gMark or the Synoptics. Peter is the main disciple or Peter, James and John are the three most mentioned disciples in the Synoptics.

At certain events, like the transfiguration, only Peter, James and John were present. See gMark 9.2

Again, no such "cross theology" is in gMark. In gMatthew and gMark Jesus did NOT teach the disciples about salvation through the resurrection. In the short-ending of gMark, the visitors of the tomb TREMBLED and RAN AWAY.

Mark 4.12 is NOT about salvation but is the complete opposite. Mark 4.12 is about non-forgiveness, non-conversion of the Jews[/b]. Jesus DELIBERATELY wanted the Jews to be confused so that they will PERISH in their sins.

Mark 4.11-12
But, you don't really know who wrote gMatthew. You are just making stuff up. Your are not providing history but mere speculation about things of which you have no evidence and is contradictory by the NT and Church writers.

We ALREADY have stories from the writers of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers and there is not anything in them that is even remotely close to what you made up.


The author of the gospel of gMark has not even been identified by the Church up to today..

But, in gMatthew and gMark, Jesus did not really need any Churches with bishops, deacons with people filled with the Holy Ghost and talking in tongues.

In the Synoptics the WORLD was coming to an END and Jesus simply told his disciples that they must believe that he was THE MESSIAH and those Jews who believed he was the Messiah would be saved when he comes BACK on the clouds.

In gMatthew 24.29 and gMark13.24-25, the sun, the moon and the stars were supposed to go dark and fall, heaven and earth would pass away, then IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of the Jewish War c70 CE, Jesus would come in the clouds of heaven.

There would have been no need for Churches, bishops and deacons, there would be a NEW JERUSALEM. See Revelation 21.1

The passage in Matthew 16.17-19 may not have been originally part of the Jesus story.

gMatthew and gMark is about the KINGDOM of Heaven/ the KINGDOM of God, not Peter and earthly churches.
.

Mt 4:17 - Mr 1:14 -15

Julio

Very interesting, gentlemen; thanks.
Can we actually suppose that the "original" source of Matthew in Hebrews [gospel of the Hebrews] would have had the passage here debated in the text?
Is there any external evidence that we could use to accuse those three verses as fraudulent insertion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

bacht

I don't disagree. Someone else was using the "forgery" idea.

I would only add that Matthew may have been reworked. R. Price sees two layers of Peter material, the first to correct Mark's version, the second actually re-introducing some anti-Peter material. And Matthew is a bit schizo re the gentiles, not to mention the Sermon on the Mount vs remarks like "I came not to bring peace but a sword". Mark seems a little less chopped up.

aa5874

The "Sermon on the Mount" do not need "Peter" , just look in Hebrew Scripture.

Matt 5:4 - Isa 61:2 -
2. Matthew 5.5. Psalms 37:11 -
Mt 5:7 - 2Sa 22:26 -
Mt 5:8 - Psalms 24:3-4 - The author of gMatthew does not need an actual Peter for the sermon on the mount just Hebrew Scripture.