-1

My question is motivated by the discrepancies between Mark and Matthew, for example on who was in Jesus's tomb initially, Matthew 28:2 says it was an angel and Mark 16:5 says it was a young man. Especially since Matthew used Mark as a source, why doesn't Matthew replace Mark, rather than being included alongside Mark?

user1010110
  • 65
  • 6
  • Welcome to Christianity.SE! and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, I recommend reading the Help Center's sections on asking and answering questions. – agarza Aug 14 '23 at 02:24
  • 4
    The structure and theme of Matthew and Mark were intended for different audiences. As for the "discrepancies" angel versus "young man" proclaiming the resurrection, is that a problem? Surely, the angel took the form of a young man, who presumably then disappeared after the proclamation. – M__ Aug 14 '23 at 02:27
  • 1
    Here is an article that does a nice job of harmonizing the different accounts of the visits to the tomb: https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/ – Paul Chernoch Aug 14 '23 at 13:49
  • @PaulChernoch I am having trouble reconciling Mark 16:8, that the woman did not tell any man about the discovery, with the article linked here. – user1010110 Aug 15 '23 at 01:05
  • The subsequent verses in Mark may clarify. "Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it." ... It seems that the three as a group told nobody, but then Mary Magdalene later separated from them and told the disciples. – Paul Chernoch Aug 15 '23 at 15:28
  • @PaulChernoch Most scholars say Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery, which may be why we are coming to different conclusions – user1010110 Aug 16 '23 at 01:54

1 Answers1

5

On the contrary, Matthew was written earlier and the contents of Mark can all be found within Matthew, except (I am told but I cannot confirm) fifty five verses.

It would seem likely to me that Mark read Matthew and realised that there was another book embedded within it.

Matthew concentrates on the kingdom of the heavens ; Mark focuses (see the first few verses) on the Messenger of the Covenant (see Malachi).

There are no discrepancies whatsoever. Like all of scripture, people suppose 'contradictions' but once they study the issue fully, these supposed differences just disappear.

We are given four accounts and these cover four different aspects of Jesus of Nazareth and what is revealed (by prophecy, by narrative, by testimony, by sign, by miracle, by opposition and by event) as to Whom He truly is.

They are meticulously precise ; they do not conflict ; they do not disagree ; the rather they are complementary and form, together, a full disclosure of the Person who was born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem, who went about doing good, who suffered at the hands of the Jews and Pontius Pilate and who rose from dead on the third day and is ascended into the heavens, in glorified humanity, from whence He came.

I recommend John Metcalfe's book 'Mark' which was lectured at Westminster Hall and then put into print. It is the best exposition of Mark that I have read.

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • Does John Metcalfe's book 'Mark' describe how we know that Matthew was written first? That seems to be a minority opinion among biblical scholars. – user1010110 Aug 15 '23 at 01:02
  • 1
    @user1010110 My understanding is that Matthew appeared in about 38AD. Peter's first epistle and James's epistle were about that time also. But yes, one can always find a 'scholar' who disagrees. Or even a majority who disagree. Academia is a competitive industry which thrives on controversy. Matthew wrote as a primary witness. Mark came later. – Nigel J Aug 15 '23 at 01:11
  • Why do you believe in this dating of Matthew? – user1010110 Aug 15 '23 at 03:40
  • 1
    @user1010110 It is historically accurate (according to my own studies of information) and it also makes abundant sense. The publishing of the New Testament writings was disciplined and orderly. First, Peter (for he had the keys and he opened the Greek scriptures and he was the chief apostle). Then Matthew as a primary witness. Then James in his role as a transitional prophet, a bridge from Old to New Testament. Both epistles (first Peter and James) are addressed to the diaspora. There is order in all of this. – Nigel J Aug 15 '23 at 04:47
  • You state what you believe, but why do you believe this? For example reasons why scholars date the gospels after the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 CE is their reference to the events of the war, the writing such as referencing Pharisees making more sense in the time period after the war, and Paul nor any other contemporary source ever mentioning the gospels . A reason why scholars say Mark was written before Matthew is editorial fatigue. – user1010110 Aug 16 '23 at 01:30
  • 1
    @user1010110 Yes, indeed. As I already pointed out, 'scholars' are under pressure to come up with contrary theories in order to publish papers and pursue their careers. This morass of disinformation requires diligent excoriating in the pursuit of truth. Such as the disinformation produced by Fitzgerald. – Nigel J Aug 16 '23 at 01:41