Did Luke have access to the complete Matthew?

[redleghunter]

Its not hard to believe at all. How they wrote it down and for what audience is another matter entirely.

What does audience have to do with it?

 

[HardHead]

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.

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.

 

[HardHead]

What does audience have to do with it?

Its about the focus of who is the primary reader, to me at least.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

All four gospel accounts have their differences as well. Which is what you would expect from having multiple eyewitness accounts. If they all matched I would be suspicious.

Spending 3+ years together you are going to get a lot of overlap. They all witnessed the 5000 and 4000 fed. Not hard to figure out why the same event would be mentioned.

They all were with Jesus after His resurrection for 40 days. We can infer many things were discussed.

And Jesus did say in Luke 24:

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.48“You are witnesses of these things.49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

[HardHead]

What does audience have to do with it?

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.

 

[redleghunter]

Its about the focus of who is the primary reader, to me at least.

I agree the audience is important. That audience would include Jews and Gentiles.

 

[HardHead]

today believe three of four gospels were penned before 70AD.

This does not contradict what I am saying at all.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Which makes perfect sense after the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10.

 

[HardHead]

I agree the audience is important. That audience would include Jews and Gentiles.

That is my basic point.

All of them could deliver the message to anyone they met. I have no doubt of that.

They chose one to talk to Jews, the other to talk to Romans, etc. They took on the role as needed.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

Nazareth, where Jesus grew up was very close to the Decapolis which were Hellenistic cities. Joseph and Jesus just may have made things for these Gentiles.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because of this, what is exactly attributed to one of them is not clear to me.

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"

 

[HardHead]

Which makes perfect sense after the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10.

Exactly. 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.

My personal belief is that what they described in Acts is less than 10% of what they did on a daily basis in their struggles.

Those guys had skills that were incredible. In my mind, I don't limit any of them to a particular set of sayings as if they were repeating a script. They certainly had a main message (as the gospels clearly say) but they could deal with anything as it came up.

By this I mean that if someone asked Mark about what happened at the nativity, he could easily tell them Luke's story with no difficulty at all, etc. He would probably not say, 'wait three weeks for my friend Luke to walk here so he can tell you'. Mark, or Luke or Peter, or Paul would just preach it on the spot.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

 

[HardHead]

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 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.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

I understand that "Q" could well have been purely oral, the recited sayings of Jesus, incorporated into the written Gospels ?

 

[Erik Nelson]

@HardHead do you have any evidence (preferably online, not a physical book) that Matthew and Luke had team meetings?

Doesn't Luke say he meticulously consulted numerous sources? One of those was Matthew?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic

 

[Sanoy]

Don't forget that Luke seems to clearly fill in the details left out of Matthew.

For example Matthew 26:68 where they struck Jesus and asked him to prophecy who hit him, and Luke 22:64 where we learn the reason, that Jesus was blindfolded.

Luke also fills in why Joseph received an angelic vision to go to Israel in Matthew 2:20, and then later a vision to go to Galilee which is left unexplained in Matthew and explained in great detail in Luke.

@Erik Nelson Also brings up a critical point. First verse of Luke. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled " So Luke is without a doubt aware of other Gospels out there. With acts being estimated to cost over a thousand dollars to commission, Luke is going to make sure that every ounce of his paper is worthwhile to the purpose rather than redundant. If you are going around investigating sources you are going to investigate these undertakings as well and Matthew is already a veteran at ~15 years.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Below are some resources that may be of interest.


JEDP
Answering the Documentary Hypothesis | CARM.org

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2002/06...f-the-graf-wellhausen-documentary-hypothesis/

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/

Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Menu

New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download

The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity

New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

Timeline of New Testament Books - New Testament Charts (Bible History Online)

Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel

Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels

NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

When Was the New Testament Completed?

Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf

Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus

Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events

Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jewish Talmud and Death of Jesus: The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ

Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)

The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9fragments.

 

[timothyu]

Interesting as none of the early church theologians quoted it.

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?