Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Naland: Okay, question for you: If Matthew had Mark before him, and most scholars believe
that 606 of Mark's 661 verses found their way into....
>>Montgomery: Give or take a verse.
>>Naland: Into Matthew...okay. So, here is Matthew who you believe was a eyewitness.
He was at the Last Supper. If Matthew was at the Last Supper, why did he copy from Mark,
who wasn't, the description of the Last Supper?
>>Montgomery: Heavens! When I write up events in which I have particČipated, I inevitably
try to get all of the stuff written by other people who were there or who had immediate
contact with people who were there in order to incorporate that as best I can. That's
the whole point of getting a comprehensive picture. And Luke makes the point that he
was so careful in his own presentation of Jesus that he wanted to be sure that he had
covered all of the other materials that were of imporČtance. There's no difficulty in
doing this, as long as you don't try to misalign or mishandle the material you're working with.
>>Ankerberg: Let me put Luke's statement on the board so we can actually see what the
case is here. This is just Luke Chapter 1, [verses] 1 through 4. Luke writes, "Many"
-- which is interesting -- "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
been fulfilled among us" -- namely the earthly career of Jesus -- "just as they were handed
down to us..." -- so he's not the first guy. He had stuff coming down to him. "...by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses" -- "eyewitČnesses," he said, gave this information to him. "Therefore,
since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good
also for me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you
may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." So it seems that he is saying
that he's not the only one, he is drawing from other accounts, but he also checked them
out because he wants to make sure that the account is certain. Now, is there anything
wrong with that?
>>Naland: Well, I'd like to go back just briefly to Matthew because there's a difference between
Mark and Luke, who were not eyewitnessČes, to Matthew and John, who some scholars claim
were. And I just, for the people watching this program, you know, ask yourself this
question: If Matthew did write the book which we call "Matthew" -- and in the original text
it's not titled "Matthew." We put that title on. If Matthew did write that, and if he was
at the Last Supper and a hundred other events, then why did he copy word for word what Mark,
who we know was not there, wrote? I mean....
>>Montgomery: Ah, but hang on here. Mark was a companion of Peter. So what Mark is doing
is providing Peter's perspective on this. And wouldn't Matthew be very much interested
in what the chief of the AposČtles had to say about those same events?
>>Naland: What you're saying is that when you do your autobiography and you're writing
about your wedding, that you would rather have the usher at the wedding provide information
than you?
>>Montgomery: As a matter of fact, when I have written up events in my own career, I
have been very careful to get hold of even the newspaper accounts of those same events,
and I frequently cite them. What I want is to get the most comprehensive picture I possibly
can. I can only be faulted if I pervert the data that I take from other people. And here
again, the burden of proof is going to rest on you to show that Matthew, in using Mark's
material, if he did, actually perverted it. Now the fact that there is variation among
these materials is not the question. You say yourself in your article that one expects
this kind of thing in reporting events. The important thing is the substance -- what it
actually has to say about the cruciality in the events such as the resurrection.