Maark wasn't an Apostle, was he?

[polonius]

We have shown that Matthew the Evangelist was not Matthew the Apostle.

Here' another gospel writer was not an Apostle

'"John Mark's Gospel, the earliest account of Jesus' life, may have been told to him by Peter when the two spent so much time together. It is widely accepted that Mark's Gospel was also a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke."

Mark's Gospel was probably the first. It omits any Ascension story which was added in the second century.

[onewithhim]

Mark was not an Apostle.

The writer of Matthew's Gospel WAS an Apostle.


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Why does it matter whether or not a Gospel author was or was not an Apostle?

[polonius]

Mark was not an Apostle.

The writer of Matthew's Gospel WAS an Apostle.


.

RESPONSE
Not at all. See the Introduction to Matthew, in the New American Bible

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.
SE:

[onewithhim]

Mark was not an Apostle.

The writer of Matthew's Gospel WAS an Apostle.


.

RESPONSE
Not at all. See the Introduction to Matthew, in the New American Bible

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.
SE:

I guess you didn't see my post quoting from the Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version, which tells us that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are ALL written by the men whose names they have carried. Imprematur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 1961. Want to argue with an Archbishop over this issue?


.

[polonius]

Mark was not an Apostle.

The writer of Matthew's Gospel WAS an Apostle.


.

RESPONSE
Not at all. See the Introduction to Matthew, in the New American Bible

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.
SE:

I guess you didn't see my post quoting from the Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version, which tells us that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are ALL written by the men whose names they have carried. Imprematur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 1961. Want to argue with an Archbishop over this issue?


.

Since he's been dead for quite awhile I woun't bother. The "Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version " hasn't yet been approved by the Catholic church, has it?

How does it differ from the New American Bible (Catholic) and the New Revised Standard Bible (World Council of Churches)?

[polonius]

Mark was not an Apostle.

The writer of Matthew's Gospel WAS an Apostle.


.

RESPONSE
Not at all. See the Introduction to Matthew, in the New American Bible

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.
SE:

I guess you didn't see my post quoting from the Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version, which tells us that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are ALL written by the men whose names they have carried. Imprematur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 1961. Want to argue with an Archbishop over this issue?


.

Since he's been dead for quite awhile I woun't bother. The "Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version " hasn't yet been approved by the Catholic church, has it?

How does it differ from the New American Bible (Catholic) and the New Revised Standard Bible (World Council of Churches)?

It isn't very wise to cite Spellman as a reference. Like many people, I have little confidence in Spellman a firm supporter of the Vietnam War.

"Saigon, South Vietnam (JFK+50) The Catholic Archbishop of New York, Francis Cardinal Spellman*, while visiting American military personnel in South Vietnam today said that the war in Vietnam is "a war for civilization (although)...it is not a war of our seeking."

Really? Then how did we get there and why were we there?

[bjs]

[Replying to polonius]

Mark was not an Apostles, and both Matthew and Luke probably used Mark’s Gospel when writing their Gospels. The authorship of Matthew is highly debated and it is difficult to say if the Apostle Matthew, also called Levi, wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

The most controversial claim in the opening post is that the “Ascension story was added in the second century.�

The account of the Ascension is found in the first chapter of Acts. The second chapter of 1 Clement, written around 95 AD, quotes Acts 20:35. So Acts must have existed and been considered authoritative before the end of the first century. It is highly unlikely that the Ascension story was added to Acts later. Internally the story fits the style and narrative, and there is not external evidence of any changes that significant.

The claim that the Ascension story was added in the second century must be considered fraudulent.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius]

Mark was not an Apostles, and both Matthew and Luke probably used Mark’s Gospel when writing their Gospels. The authorship of Matthew is highly debated and it is difficult to say if the Apostle Matthew, also called Levi, wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

The most controversial claim in the opening post is that the “Ascension story was added in the second century.�

The account of the Ascension is found in the first chapter of Acts. The second chapter of 1 Clement, written around 95 AD, quotes Acts 20:35. So Acts must have existed and been considered authoritative before the end of the first century. It is highly unlikely that the Ascension story was added to Acts later. Internally the story fits the style and narrative, and there is not external evidence of any changes that significant.

The claim that the Ascension story was added in the second century must be considered fraudulent.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you should research more thoroughly.

"The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. According to Bruce Metzger, “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.� ((Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123. Metzger also states: “The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).�)) The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper� ending."

Explain that some ancient manuscripts of Mark 16 have verses 9–20, but others do not. This is why virtually all modern translations place the verses in brackets and provide an explanatory footnote. The longer ending of Mark is not present in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, which is important. These verses contain words and phrases uncommon to Mark and his style of writing, and read much like a compilation of other texts of Scripture. Some scholars believe the ending of Mark was lost, and this is how ancient theologians tried to compensate for such an abrupt ending at verse 8.

“The earliest Greek, versional and patristic evidence supports the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at Ch. 16:8.� (William Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 601.)

“The undisputed facts are that everything which follows 16:8 in any surviving MS (manuscript) can confidently be declared non-Marcan on grounds of attestation, style, and content; thus the Gospel in the earliest form in which we can trace it ended at 16:8.� (Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark, The Penguin New Testament Commentaries. (London: Penguin Group, 1992), 439)

Mark 9-20 is first attested in the 2nd century. It is considered to be Canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, and was included in the Rheims New Testament, the 1599 Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and other influential translations. In most modern-day translations based primarily on the Alexandrian Text, the longer ending is included, but is accompanied by brackets or by special notes, or both.

[bjs]

[Replying to polonius]

Mark was not an Apostles, and both Matthew and Luke probably used Mark’s Gospel when writing their Gospels. The authorship of Matthew is highly debated and it is difficult to say if the Apostle Matthew, also called Levi, wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

The most controversial claim in the opening post is that the “Ascension story was added in the second century.�

The account of the Ascension is found in the first chapter of Acts. The second chapter of 1 Clement, written around 95 AD, quotes Acts 20:35. So Acts must have existed and been considered authoritative before the end of the first century. It is highly unlikely that the Ascension story was added to Acts later. Internally the story fits the style and narrative, and there is not external evidence of any changes that significant.

The claim that the Ascension story was added in the second century must be considered fraudulent.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you should research more thoroughly.

"The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. According to Bruce Metzger, “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.� ((Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123. Metzger also states: “The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).�)) The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper� ending."

Explain that some ancient manuscripts of Mark 16 have verses 9–20, but others do not. This is why virtually all modern translations place the verses in brackets and provide an explanatory footnote. The longer ending of Mark is not present in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, which is important. These verses contain words and phrases uncommon to Mark and his style of writing, and read much like a compilation of other texts of Scripture. Some scholars believe the ending of Mark was lost, and this is how ancient theologians tried to compensate for such an abrupt ending at verse 8.

“The earliest Greek, versional and patristic evidence supports the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at Ch. 16:8.� (William Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 601.)

“The undisputed facts are that everything which follows 16:8 in any surviving MS (manuscript) can confidently be declared non-Marcan on grounds of attestation, style, and content; thus the Gospel in the earliest form in which we can trace it ended at 16:8.� (Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark, The Penguin New Testament Commentaries. (London: Penguin Group, 1992), 439)

Mark 9-20 is first attested in the 2nd century. It is considered to be Canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, and was included in the Rheims New Testament, the 1599 Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and other influential translations. In most modern-day translations based primarily on the Alexandrian Text, the longer ending is included, but is accompanied by brackets or by special notes, or both.

Perhaps you should take your own advice about thorough research.

I said nothing about the extended ending of Mark anywhere in my post. I pointed out that Acts is a first century book that includes the Ascension.

I have no idea why you gave information about the extended ending of Mark. It does not apply to my argument in any way. Can you explain your reasoning?