Rise,
First and foremost, I would like to comment on how much I have enjoyed our exchange. I am new to this board as my old religion discussion board is closing and this has been the kind of interaction that I am looking for. You are an erudite and capable apologist who is familiar with the material. Moreover, you clarified your position when I had misinterpreted it (regarding the supernatural) in a dispassionate way which I appreciate.
I also appreciate your honest willingness to engage with the content I've posted and the congenial nature in which you do it.
I hope to get back to any unmentioned components as time allows.
Likewise, my time is taken in many directions, so if I take a while to respond it is likely I just have not had time yet.
Papias is the earliest attested source we have writing more than 115 years or so after the events in question though I grant somewhat closer to the traditional assumed date of composition of Mark. Thus, a subsequent reiteration of Papias claim is only historically useful if it is distinct in some way. It would have to be an independent attestation based on some posited data (e.g. the author was a companion of a relative of Mark or something of that nature). A source writing the fourth century corroborating Papias is of little historical value.
You appear to be basing your statement on the assumption that all historical claims are a reiteration of Papias. However, there is no reason for us to assume that is what happened; In fact, the evidence is against it.
Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus both make mention of details about the writing of Mark which are not found in Papias's writings. Clement, especially, gives many more details surrounding the authorship of Mark that had to have come from some other source, whether oral or written.
We have church writers in the 2nd and 3rd century from the western half of the Roman empire to North Africa to Asia Minor that all witness to the same uniform tradition of Gospel authorship.
It would be a gross error of logic to assume that the communication stream of the early church was so narrow that there would have only been a single source for this information to be passed down across the entire Roman empire in only the span of about a century. There was no central control of information in this timeframe when Christians were a persecuted minority. Each region and community would have had to pass down the same traditions independently from their apostalic sources. Although they did have intercommunication to the extent it was possible in that day to cross check what had been passed down to them; no one community or region was able to force it's views on another.
Even worse than assuming the empire-wide tradition of authorship comes from a single source that is non-apostalic would be assuming that Papias was that source - Because history tells us Christianity already had many established communities across the empire before Papias was even writing. Why would we assume he had such weight of influence to establish such a tradition amongst all the regions of the Roman empire, where presumably none existed as passed down from the apostles themselves, when Papias was just one church leader amongst many throughout the empire?
Moreover, the value of Papias as a source is still suspect due to the problems I noted earlier with special emphasis on the idea of a Matthew being originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic if we are being kind).
Irenaeus and others state that Matthew was written in Hebrew, and as I just pointed out, it would be a logical error and inconsistent with what we know to assume our only and originating source of this fact was Papias.
As to the question of Hebrew Matthew:
St Jerome records that in his time there still existed copies of Hebrew Matthew in the library of Caesarea and among the Nazarenes.
So what do we actually know, and what can we actually prove about the Gospel of Matthew's language?
-We know that the Gospel of Matthew is full of Hebraisms. This reflects a Jewish writer.
-It is without doubt from the content of Matthew that it's intended audience was Jewish.
-We see in the 14th century a Hebrew version of Matthew (Assuming it represents a copy of the traditional document st Jerome refers to, as some believe) we see that some clarity is brought to certain scriptures like Matthew 23:3 and Matthew 5:3 when looking at the nuance of the Hebrew. Much more apparent in this document are also Hebrew word puns, which are very common elements of Hebrew scripture. Although we can't prove it goes back to the original Hebrew Matthew, it is an interesting consideration because it would seem unlikely for a Rabbi to translate from the greek such poetry and scriptural clarifications - especially when their purpose for keeping this document was to use in defending their religious positions against Christian evangelism. However, even if we are to assume that this is just a natural way the Rabbi reasoned to translate the scripture through his understanding of the context of the text and his knowledge of both languages; At the very least that tells us this Hebrew version of Matthew can be said to demonstrate how the text comes together with even more clarity and composure when the Hebrew nuance and words are restored to it.
This also begs the question: If Matthew were not written first; but a Gospel of Roman origin were written first; how then is that idea consistent with recorded history and scripture which tells us the church started in Jerusalem first amongst Jews before spreading to Rome? It makes most sense for a Gospel written for a Jewish audience to be written first - just as history tells us happened.
So my question to you would be how can you prove that Matthew never wrote his first gospel in Hebrew?
As an aside, your reference to Clement of Rome mentioning one dominical saying, though early, does very little to make the case that traditional identification of authorship is strong.
You said Clement made no reference of Matthew or Mark; but I can show you several instances, not just one, where he quotes content found in them.
It also shows a lack of understanding for Clement's letter in general to suggest that He can't reference a particular Gospel without citing it's writer. In his letter he has a habit of not citing specific books or locations for the scripture he gives but instead simply saying something like "it is written in a certain place".
Furthermore, we know that Clement is alluding to written sources when he quotes from Matthew or Mark, not just oral sources, based on 1 Clement 15:2 where he writes "For He saith in a certain place" rather than saying something like, "For the Lord Jesus said".
1 Clement 15:2, in reference to Matthew 15:8 or Mark 7:6:
For He saith in a certain place This people honoreth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me,
Matthew 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:6
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
When Jesus overhears,
he says to them:
“Since when do the able-bodied need a doctor? It’s the sick who do.”
And
When Jesus overheard,
he said,
“Since when do the able-bodied need a doctor? It’s the sick who do.”
Are basically the same sentences.
They are not the same in either the Greek or English. Without even a need to delve into the Greek, let's look at this entire paragraph that makes up this exchange starting with the mention of the Pharisees and ending with Jesus saying "He has not come to call the righteous but sinners".
Matthew (ESV):
And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark (ESV):
And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Here we see significant differences in their content, yet these differences do not contradict each other in their details or alter the message of Jesus.
-Mark is more specific in saying it was Scribes of the Pharisees rather than just Pharisees.
-There is a different ordering of how the sentence is structured, with the disciples being referenced at opposite ends of the sentence.
-Mark says why does "he" eat with the tax collectors, whereas Matthew says "your teacher".
-Mark also says "when he heard it", while Matthew says "when Jesus heard it".
-Differences in sentence content that doesn't have to do with altering the words of Jesus; such as "he said" vs "he said to them".
-Matthew adds an additional detail of Jesus saying "Go and learn what this means, ' I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'.
That last point actually further evidences the fact that Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. They would have been well familiar with this verse and how it applied to the sacrificial systems that dominated their culture. To them it would be read as a powerful and cutting indictment against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. However, to a gentile Roman audience, or perhaps even a cosmopolitan Roman Jewish audience far removed from the temple and pharisaic culture, such a comment would not have been as relevant or necessary to relate.
If Matthew were supposedly copying Mark and then adding in other information on top of it, this again begs the question of why we find details in Mark not repeated in Matthew. Such as the additional specification of them being Scribes of the Pharisees instead of just Pharisees. This may be a small detail in isolation, but throughout the whole of Mark you find many pieces of information that add to a more complete view of the Gospel which Matthew doesn't have. It's no coincidence, as I already pointed out, that some of this information actually evidences Peter as it's source. This is very significant evidence (especially when combined with the amount of latinisms in Mark) to support history's version of Mark's authorship and origin. Therefore, if you want to insist that Peter was not the source of this material then you're going to need to be able to explain that evidence away somehow.
All of this is consistent with what we would expect to find if we had two independent sources writing to different audiences yet aiming to be faithful and accurate in relating the details of Jesus's life, his sayings, and teachings.
As to how they can accurately relate the sayings of Jesus across the gospels: This goes back to the point I already made about the nature of their relationship to Jesus and the community they were a part of. They spent years with him, hearing his public and private teachings and sayings. It's reasonable to assume they probably heard many things more than once in that time. Additionally, as a part of the Jerusalem church, they would have no doubt retold the stories and sayings of Jesus many times as part of teaching new believers and evangelizing others. All of this being done in the context of a community of apostles and disciples who were eye witnesses, able to verify and re-enforce the truth. How much more so is all that true when you add the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said would lead them into all truth and bring remembrance to all the things He taught them? (John 14:26)
If they were too different you might accuse them of not telling the same story or getting their information wrong. If they were too similar you'd accuse one of copying the other and not being genuinely independent works. Ironically I've seen people who disbelieve in the authenticity of the Gospels try to make both arguments at the same time - Implying that they not only copied each other but that they did so poorly which leads to contradictions; and apparently no one in the early church noticed or tried to correct it (because presumably they had no qualms about making up and altering religious scripture in the first place).
There seems to be an underlying assumption that these could not have independent works guided by divine inspiration - which leads me to ask; What exactly do you think the Gospels should look like if they were consistent with independent sources that are also harmoniously accurate due divine inspiration?
What exactly would you expect to find between four different gospels that would be evidence of them being both independent works and divinely guided truth?
Too similar and it's just copying. Too different and it's not inspired enough. Do you just assume that's never a possibility and work from that premise to try to find an naturalistic explanation that throws out church history and the internal textual evidence that supports that history?
As to you not seeing verbal correspondence in the one example I gave, I think that might be an insurmountable hurdle in terms of our debate. The passage and many other passages like it have numerous similarities and tense shifts and pronoun/noun substitutions are not ‘significant disparities’. For example, tou versus tois and tes versus ten are bolded in your example, but again, that’s these are the same words. Generally, Mark is written in the present tense while Matthew and Luke prefer past tense. If you are positing that verbal correspondence in terms of word-choice and ordering, but not tense is simply insignificant then I don’t know what more can be said. This and many other pericopae have many passages that point to redaction/composition from a common source. If nothing less than absolute correspondence is indicative to you of significant borrowing then I don’t know how to counter such a notion.
I see what you say is correspondence, but I also see from the different structure, word choices, spelling, and grammar that demonstrate one writer is not scribing the work of the other.
You'd have to be claiming that someone decided to steal material from an existing manuscript, put a different name on it, leave some information out, and then either purposefully change the way it's presented or simply not care and do a shoddy job of relaying the information.
What it comes down to is that your underlying assumption is an unprovable one. You're speculating about what might have happened with no real proof.
And, as far as speculation goes, it's not the only way we have of understanding the material.
There are other explanations for why we see what we see in the text that don't involve the assumption of plagiarism and fabrication.
As I've pointed out, some of these other explanations that are actually consistent with the whole of the internal and historical evidence we have.
Why then would we throw out these holistically consistent explanations of what we see in the scripture without some provable reason that would tell us there's a need to?
I would ask you then, why do we even need to turn to the hypothesis of Mark primacy? In what way is the historical record not sufficient to explain what we see in the Gospels to the point where we need to speculate on alternatives?
