Jewish Skeptic Asks: Why Did Matthew and Luke Plagiarize Mark So Extensively?

Would Matthew, an alleged eyewitness and “presumably” an independent writer, need to borrow as much as 80% of the material in the Gospel of Mark, a non-eyewitness? If Matthew copied Mark, how could he corroborate Mark’s claims? It is absurd to think that Matthew, writing independently some years after Mark and employing only purported eyewitnesses, would have penned almost word-for-word 11,025 words found in Mark, while there are only 304 words in Matthew without parallel.

And how can it be claimed that Luke is independent of Mark and Matthew if he penned almost word-for-word an identical text? These similarities are explainable if Luke is copying and editing their works. In effect, there is only one source: the anonymous author of Mark. Unfortunately, his sources of information are unknown.

–Michael Alter, Jewish apologist and counter-missionary, in his book, The Resurrection and Its Apologetics: Jesus’ Death and Burial, Volume 1, p. 105

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.