It's said the authors of the gospel were eye witnesses

The Gospel of Matthew isn't a school essay… Besides he probably asked be apostles and all

Matthew was written in Hebrew for a Jewish audience, it couldn't have been copied from Mark which was written in Latin for a Roman audience.

Paul and John and Luke and Peter mention themselves.

The Gospel of John is the only gospel that is based on eyewitness accounts. Mark and Luke are clearly based on 2nd/3rd hand information (Luke even says as much in the intro), while Matthew is a gospel harmony of Mark and Luke. All gospels use John as a source, either directly or indirectly.

Attached: 89a.png (680x340, 174.02K)

The problem is near exact wording, all the while tradition claims that it is an original account by one of the 12 apostles.
The fact that Matthew uses Mark as a source is beyond a shadow of doubt, since the gospel only corrects the grammatical mistakes Mark makes, otherwise the wording being identical. The author of Matthew used Mark as a primary source, and added in details from Luke and John (with the tiny remainder of the text being most likely original additions meant to harmonise the text). Matthew was written to advance Petrine supremacy and and appeal to non-Christian hellenised Jews after 70AD. It is most likely the first apocryphal gospel, or the first gospel harmony. The Gospel of Peter was probably a similar, less successful attempt at the same.

Linguistic analysis proves otherwise. Matthew was clearly written in Greek. The hebrew version was most likely a translation, used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites.

Really makes you think

Another clue about the composition of the gospels is theological elaboration. Mark and John have the most primitive theology (John's so-called "high Christology" notwithstanding, which is a massive red herring, as most of the theology actually in John is a natural outgrowth from the Qumran community, maybe with some hellenistic influences), Luke shows signs of elaboration, reinterpretation and syncretisation with pointedly non-Jewish culture (it is the first universalising gospel; key example: the parable of the prodigal son, which is the most literarily elaborate parable in the New Testament), while Matthew shows the clearest signs of purposeful, structured composition, and has by far the most complex theology of the 4 (completing the universalising project started by Luke/Paul, while grounding it in a reinterpreted jewish tradition).

It is worth saying a couple more things about Christology, and how it has often been used as an argument for John's late composition –

1. John's Christology is no more advanced than the one Paul espouses in his letters, which are almost certainly written early, many by Paul himself. So to claim that John's high Christology means it must have been a late composition is to posit a counterfactual that is easily refuted. It obviously did not take Paul very many years to develop a high Christology.

2. In fact, Matthew's Christology is also high, while also being more complex, since it is a syncretisation of John's high Christology (the Word made flesh) with Mark's low (Son of Man) Christology (Jesus is just a shaman or a wizard according to Mark, not God himself).

lol

Attached: 1510222487301.png (645x729, 50.43K)

It is no accident that the Gospel of Matthew is the first book of the New Testament: it is the main text that puts forward the mature Orthodox (Petrine) Christian view (Christ both man and god, et cetera).

It is also no accident that the gospel of John's comes last among the 4 in the NT, as most of it shows a very critical view of Peter.(In fact, it is quite likely that its final chapter was a late forgery that was meant to take the bite out of the gospel's criticism of Peter. A less likely scenario is a conciliatory one coming from John himself/the Johannine community, after Peter's martyrdom forced him to re-evaluate his position on Peter. While the scenario is plausible enough – the persecution in the 60s causing the various early Christian schools to band together, emphasising their similarities more than their differences – what chips away at its likelihood are the linguistic features of the final chapter, which exhibits a clearly different voice/author compared to the rest of the gospel.
A third plausible scenario was that this epilogue was based on some final chapter of Mark (it shows many parallel motifs with the Gospel of Mark, like a focus on fishing, and stylistic similarities, like the importance of the number 3 and the use of 3-fold repetition). This might also explain Mark's abrupt ending (it's missing a chapter, which ended up, at least in part, as John's epilogue).

Regardless if it was a wholly original composition or extracted (and edited) from Mark, I believe this epilogue was added in by the author(s) of Matthew.

Yes, that is how Mark portrays Jesus. The messianic message in Mark is very crude. You're reinterpreting Mark in light of Matthew's elaboration on it.

The transfiguration is present in Mark where Jesus shines with divine light and God announces "This is my beloved son, listen to him!". So no, Mark portrays Jesus as much more than a mere miracle worker. You just need to understand that Mark was written as a 'cribs notes' style summary of Jesus ministry for Roman believers.

Once again, you're reinterpreting Mark in light of Matthew.

This can mean many things. The phrase "son of God" is also used in the Old testament, and it only denotes a special relationship with God, not a state of divinity on the one denoted with this title. For example, the title is often used for kings of Israel, and it is more likely that its usage in Mark is in line with this temporal messianic view (see also the anointing of Jesus episode in Mark, in the same vein).

It is the elaborations in Matthew that give us the Orthodox interpretation.

Except that Matthew didn't "elaborate" on Mark since Mark was written in Latin in Rome and Matthew was written in Hebrew in Judah. You're basing your entire thesis on the predication that the theory of Marcan priority is correct, and it isn't. The two gospels were written independent of each other.

Seems to me like the gospels were written in order. Matthew first, Mark second, etc.

The fact that the Holy Bible has been compiled that way since pretty much the very start is a testament to this.

Once again, there are verses in the Old Testament that use the phrase "son(s) of God" in relation to characters or beings that are clearly not Christ. Its usage in Mark is in line with this temporal (earthly) messianic tradition, and is meant to identity Jesus as a king of Israel.

As for doubting the priority of Mark over Matthew, you're talking nonsense. Both gospels were written in Greek.

The books are compiled in order of theological importance, not date of composition. You can see the same with the rest of the books in the New Testament, which are not ordered by date of composition (for example, the late epistle to the Romans coming before Paul's other letters, because it is more theologically mature and hence relevant to the early Christian community).

John is the most theologically important gospel though. It was specifically written by John for a small community of early Christian believers and emphasizes facts that are important for Christians.

1. The divinity of Jesus as the logos
2. The importance of baptism
3. The importance of the eucharist
4. The purpose of the crucifixion as substitutionary atonement

The other gospels are simply historical narratives of Jesus life and ministry. It's in John where you find the meat of "Ok what does this all mean?". John is placed last because it contextualizes all the other gospels and allows the reader to understand the true meaning of Jesus actions in the prior gospels

What denomination are you? Your theology is very strange. Some kind of Adventist?

Not to Orthodox (mainline/Petrine) Christians. Not in the early Church in any case. The Gospel of Matthew has always had a right of place for the early Christians, especially in the latin west. The eastern Orthodox Church do put more emphasis on it than the west, but that is in relative terms, and in comparison to Matthew it still holds a secondary place (as far as theology goes). There had also been debates in the early Church whether to even include John's gospel in the canon or not, while Matthew's held a more fixed, prestigious position.
The Gospel of John has been used as a supplement to the synoptics, the Church appealing to it only when the synoptics did not suffice. Theological development did not start from it, but from the Matthean/Petrine tradition first, and the Lucan/Pauline tradition second. John was included in the canon eventually to strengthen Paul's position, and its importance has grown as the Church has grown less jewish over time.

Also present in Matthew, though not as explicit and not linked to the conception of the Logos in the Johannine sense (as per jewish Wisdom literature/Hellenistic understanding).
Is espoused by all gospels.
You're interpreting John in light of Matthew now. The last supper episode in John doesn't even feature the breaking of the bread (Jesus instead washes the apostles' feet).
Also in Matthew.

They're incorrect narratives to boot (all stemming from Mark's logia hodgepodge; Luke claims to have "ordered the account" but his narrative is clearly not in chronological order either).

I agree with this however. In fact, I think it is extremely likely that the Gospel of John was the first one ever written, probably in several stages once John started traveling, the final version (sans the epilogue chapter) being completed in Ephesus before 70AD.

Perhaps due to my own failing to express myself properly. I am typing freely, so I didn't take time to structure my thought properly.
I am very sympathetic to the Radical Orthodoxy theological school.
My key point here is that the Gospel of John is the one that provides us with the most authentic version of the Christian 'good news'.

Right of way*. See for example Augustine's take on the synoptic "problem".

t-that's not true! b-baka!

Attached: angryloli.gif (1280x720, 667.4K)

I was referring to Jesus "bread of life" speech in John 6.

Only when you interpret it in light of John. You're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing.

That has nothing to do with the Eucharist, unless (you guessed it), you interpret John in light of Matthew.

I concede this point. You can also rely on Paul's letters to make a similar point however (although I would argue that Paul writes with knowledge of John's gospel, if not in its written form, than in its oral form, from his own dialogues with John in the flesh.)

Back then scribes used other sources to write their own testimony.

Nice meme, but people are taking it too far already.

Attached: Sir Frederic Trevis.png (1268x484, 361.44K)

Except that this is literally a voice from heaven, God himself, openly proclaiming that this is "my beloved son". Note how he says my "beloved" and not just "my son".
Where does God in the Old Testament call anyone directly his beloved son?

Does God only love Jesus?

God loves everyone, but he loves Jesus in a different way. The word love is a loaded term with many meanings, the "love" between a husband and wife is different to the love a father has for his son etc.
Jesus is the Father's beloved because he is his son.
You also didn't answer the question. Where in the Old Testament did God when directly revealing himself call anyone "his beloved son"? To Moses? To Abraham? To Joshua? To David? None of them. Only Jesus is called directly by God as his beloved son.