- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
What does audience have to do with it?Its not hard to believe at all. How they wrote it down and for what audience is another matter entirely.
Upvote
0
What does audience have to do with it?Its not hard to believe at all. How they wrote it down and for what audience is another matter entirely.
I agree with you over 99% of this.Yes and it was the view of the church until liberal skeptic theological thought in the 19th century questioned it. And they have no evidence to question the witness of the church for centuries.
Its about the focus of who is the primary reader, to me at least.What does audience have to do with it?
Most of the apostles were dead or moved far from Jerusalem prior to 70AD. That is why most theologians today believe three of four gospels were penned before 70AD. Acts of the Apostles shows us a persecuted church which had a lot of moving pieces and not a whole lot of sitting together and strategizing who wrote what and sharing documents.I agree with you over 99% of this.
All I am saying is that the contents are shared. The sharing means, to me, that the contents were distributed over the books in order to achieve a certain message for a certain audience.
I also think that, for example, the apostles consciously chose Matthew to talk to Jewish people. They did this on purpose. This is reasonable since he probably had a specific way of talking that was amenable to his audience.
This does not in any way mean that Matthew could not have talked to a Greek, or that Paul could not evangelize Jews even if his mission was primarily to evangelize gentiles. They were not robots. Do you see what I mean?
Also, I never once said that the Gospels should not be attributed to the apostles that they are attributed to, just as the church rightly does. Of course they should.
My point is that I do not doubt that somewhere along the way Matthew talked to Greeks, Paul talked to Jews, Peter talked to anyone who would listen, etc. This is in addition to what the gospels attribute to them. They did what is in the gospels and much more. What we choose to focus on is what is in the gospels because this bring the most spiritual benefit to us.
What does audience have to do with it?
I agree the audience is important. That audience would include Jews and Gentiles.Its about the focus of who is the primary reader, to me at least.
This does not contradict what I am saying at all.today believe three of four gospels were penned before 70AD.
Which makes perfect sense after the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10.This probably explains things better than I could. Notice the focus on the content of the gospel vs. who is the intended reader ...
Audience of Mark's Gospel
Audience of Mark's Gospel
For Whom Was the Gospel According to Mark Written?
...
First, Mark was written in Greek rather than Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world of that time, while Aramaic was the language common to the Jews. Had Mark been interested in addressing Jews specifically, he would have used Aramaic. Furthermore, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for the readers (5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34), something that would have been unnecessary for a Jewish audience in Palestine.
Second, Mark explains Jewish customs (7:3-4). Jews in Palestine, the heart of ancient Judaism, certainly didn’t need Jewish customs explained to them, so at the very least Mark must have expected a sizable non-Jewish audience reading his work. On the other hand, Jewish communities well outside Palestine may not have been familiar enough with all the customs in order to get by without at least some explanations.
That is my basic point.I agree the audience is important. That audience would include Jews and Gentiles.
I understand what you are getting at. But these Galilean Jews were not as sheltered in Jewish culture and language as we may think. Their ancestors reaching back to the days of Alexander interacted with and were under the rule of Hellenistic culture. They obviously did not succumb to it but could not avoid interaction with it.My point is that I do not doubt that somewhere along the way Matthew talked to Greeks, Paul talked to Jews, Peter talked to anyone who would listen, etc. This is in addition to what the gospels attribute to them. They did what is in the gospels and much more. What we choose to focus on is what is in the gospels because this bring the most spiritual benefit to us.
For me these are real people that I could have a real conversation with at any time. The story about Mark for example when he went on a mission trip with Paul and he wanted to go home early. Maybe because he was so young. This created a dispute between Mark and Paul that Luke had to straighten out. Clearly this is a real story about real people. Not a compilation put together after the fact. This was the early rain and this was an exiting time for the church. Now we are in the later rain and some people say this is the best time to be alive. As Charles Dickson said: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair …, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way"Because of this, what is exactly attributed to one of them is not clear to me.
Which makes perfect sense after the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10.
They did quote and allude to the OT in their epistles often to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. They had to. They had to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah by fulfilling the Scriptures.I don't think Peter was talking old testament details with Cornelius or other gentiles, but I have zero doubt that Peter could do so at any time he wanted to discuss this with anyone. He did not focus on such things because the gentiles who he was talking to would have zero idea of what he was getting at.
I agree. I also think that any one of them could do that preaching. They argued with each other, etc. but in the end they were all on the same page.They did quote and allude to the OT in their epistles often to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. They had to. They had to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah by fulfilling the Scriptures.
I understand that "Q" could well have been purely oral, the recited sayings of Jesus, incorporated into the written Gospels ?Personally, I don't think the Q idea holds all that much water since a Q was never found (from what I know).
I think the authors of the synoptic gospels just read each-others work, or they discussed the topics and wrote accordingly to make sure they were all on the same page so to speak. I think of it as a team meeting of sorts (or perhaps in church terms a synod).
A discussion (e.g. Galatians 2:1-2) is easier for me to fathom than a text that we have no copies of given how much attention that even the smallest fragments get today from researchers.
Doesn't Luke say he meticulously consulted numerous sources? One of those was Matthew?@HardHead do you have any evidence (preferably online, not a physical book) that Matthew and Luke had team meetings?
Below are some resources that may be of interest.I agree. I also think that any one of them could do that preaching. They argued with each other, etc. but in the end they were all on the same page.
The quotes are often the same as those of the four books. And why would a theologian quote that which made them of no purpose?Interesting as none of the early church theologians quoted it.