Evidence for God from Science

Most, but not all, Christian scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark.

Since Mark was not a disciple and Matthew was, wouldn't it make more sense for Mark to copy from Matthew? The only way it might make sense is that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew.

I have a question about Papias' statement which follows:

... but with regard to Matthew he (Papias) has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could....Fragments of Papias, Fragment VI, (Quoted by Eusebius)

Isn't it believed that the "oracles" were sayings and not an actual gospel?

Would the "Hebrew language" in the first century be today's Hebrew or would it be more like Aramaic?

I understand that some scholars believe Papias meant Aramaic and not Hebrew.

Thank you.

Christian2 wrote:Most, but not all, Christian scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark.

Since Mark was not a disciple and Matthew was, wouldn't it make more sense for Mark to copy from Matthew? The only way it might make sense is that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew.

I have a question about Papias' statement which follows:

... but with regard to Matthew he (Papias) has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could....Fragments of Papias, Fragment VI, (Quoted by Eusebius)

Isn't it believed that the "oracles" were sayings and not an actual gospel?

Would the "Hebrew language" in the first century be today's Hebrew or would it be more like Aramaic?

I understand that some scholars believe Papias meant Aramaic and not Hebrew.

Thank you.

Mark was likely a disciple and relative of Peter. It's generally accepted by many that his Gospel relied upon eye-witness accounts based upon oral tradition.

However, while it is a minority position, there is a strong contingency who believe Matthew was the first. One of my professors when I did my Biblical Lit work was a Matthean Priorist.

Biblical criticism in this regard sometimes basis it's theories upon the needs of consistency with the field. For example, the Marcan Priorists often conjecture a "Q" document which is a list of the sayings of Christ that they reason must account for the common material in Matthew and Luke that is not present in Mark. That may be, however, oral tradition is an adequate explanation to some degree in my mind. The hypothetical document is assumed because the theory requires documents and doesn't allow for a common denominator in the Holy Spirit's inspiration.

Sometimes you form your theories to meet the requirements of the discipline you are working in.

Sorry, I can't offer anything on Pappias as I'm not readily familiar with the material.