Chris,
I'm not a RC apologist, so I won't rise to the bait of you saying that Catholics are not Christians. But I do find it ironic that you reject the RC church while clinging to the scripture that they compiled and transcribed for you.
You seem to have turned my argument around on me...
I claimed:
1) A disciple would not use a non-disciple as a major source.
2) The author of Matthew used Mark as a source.
3) Therefore, Matthew was not written by the apostle named "Matthew".
You claimed:
1) A disciple would not use a non-disciple as a major source.
2) Matthew was written by the apostle named "Matthew".
3) Therefore, the author of Matthew could not have used Mark as a source.
So, we each made different assumptions at step two, and are now arguing in circles.
I'm familiar with the arguments for your (2), which are basically arguments from early church tradition and some writings from the early church fathers (Papius, etc).
I base the arguments from my (2) on "the Synoptic Problem", which examines why we have so many exact parallels in both order and (greek) wording between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, even though Jesus did not speak greek. It tries to determine who copied from who. The overwhelming consensus is that Mark was first, and Matthew and Luke used him for a source. Rather than me copy-and-paste arguments about this well-worn issue, just go read for yourself...
mindspring.com |
