LeonMire

I've been reading about source criticism in the New Testament for a little while now, and so far, I've not found out why the Gospel writers used sources in the way they did. When the author of Matthew sat down to write his Gospel, why did he cut and paste so much from Mark's Gospel? I know that he changed a lot of Mark's Gospel in the process, but why did he keep so much exactly as it was? I don't really get it. Why wouldn't he rephrase everything he found in Mark's Gospel, except maybe direct quotes of Jesus? (Indeed, he often does rephrase direct quotes). It just doesn't seem normal to me, as a modern reader of the Gospels. Nowadays, even if a writer is heavily influenced by another, he doesn't quote at such length from other authors. For example, no modern historian on ancient Rome cuts and pastes from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, filling half his text with the exact same words Gibbon used. And I know that there wasn't really any such thing as plagiarism in Matthew's day - that's not my question. My question is why authors would choose to use literary sources in a way that seems so clumsy and ineffective. The only reason I can think of is that it was just easier for Matthew to take from Mark's Gospel, but that doesn't really seem like a sufficient explanation. Is there something I'm missing?

Peter Kirby

The only explanation that suggests itself to me readily is that the author of Matthew wanted to supplant Mark in the reading of the Gospel. (Historically speaking, he nearly succeeded, if not for men such as Irenaeus.) So the author started with a copy of Mark and made his own changes and additions until he ended with something acceptable to him, at which point he would want this to replace Mark in the communities that read the Gospel (starting from Antioch, the suggested location of Matthew's Gospel). I would not be surprised if more than one person was involved in the rewriting process that became Matthew in Antioch.

The best modern analogies (again, to my mind) are:

- Textbooks where an editor dies and another editor picks up and makes changes.

- Wikipedia, where an old encyclopedia article is rewritten until it achieves a form acceptable to the community.

Of course, no modern analogy is going to be very good for understanding what was an ancient scribe's way of thinking.

gnosis92

To what extent does this apply to John, Thomas, Peter, and Luke?

For example, while it is often claimed Thomas is a "pastiche" of sayings from the NT, why a sayings list? And why some NT sayings and not others? Ditto John.

regards

Peter Kirby

Luke--Luke's approach to Mark is not dissimilar to Matthew's, with just more allowance for freedom and artistic style.

Peter--Not sure, I haven't really studied the grounds for regarding or not regarding the Gospel of Peter as wholly dependent on the canonicals.

Thomas--Emphatically not a pastiche dependent on the Synoptics, as studies related to us by Stevan Davies have shown.

John--Excellent question with regards to John. I'm inclined to think that the author of GJohn knew about Luke, Matthew, and Mark yet, thoroughly dissatisfied with them all, set out to write a 'more spiritual' Gospel so that readers may come to know that Jesus is the Christ.