Learner
Veteran Member
There's no advantage here for either of us by saying "I'm going from 'Christians believe' and 'one scholar' believes". I brought up the one scholar because I only discovered him recently... although I don't understand why he would be the "only" one scholar in your mind to think this.So we've gone from "Mathew is believed by Christians to be written first" to "Mathew is believed by one scholar to be written first."
And how do we conclude which Gospel was written first?
Scholars can translate scriptures well and we are gratefully indebted to the great work they do, but it doesn't make them necessarily better detectives than detectives or make them better psychologists than psychologists, so to speak.Based on everything we know about synoptic Gospels, it is easier to postulate that Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark while writing their narratives about the life of Jesus. Scholars call this line of evidence an argument from Mark’s redaction profile. Redaction means the author’s changes to their source while composing a new story version.It is contradictory to suggest that Mark wrote after Matthew and Luke, as the redaction profile of his Gospel implies otherwise.
Everyone can have access and analyse what is written in their works.
It doesn't matter at all if Mark wrote a book with lesser pages than the others, theres no conflict caused between the writers or gospels.If Matthew and Luke were indeed written first, and then Mark read them and decided to write his own Gospel--deliberately leaving out the birth and post-resurrection narratives--then Mark wrote an inferior gospel. Half a loaf may be better than no loaf, but it is far inferior to two whole loaves.
One of several things I would wonder then about your theory from your perspective is to ask: why would they leave Marks writings in the 'New Testament' if knowing that his writings having less pages could cause such doubt like the one you're having - when the idea in the first place is for the Church to bring people in the fold?
I mean... from your theory perspective, and if the Church was really concerned in the conflict of "no resurrection" in Mark, in the way you're seeing it. The Church would have simply left it out like the apocrypha and other books. And of course... deviously "hiding" Marks gospel would be quite counterproductive to the objective of the Church.
Fair enough... I am not compelled by yours either.Your arguments are not very compelling.
Last edited: