Who wrote Matthew Pt 1

[Jett Clark]

But we're not debating whether Christ was God manifested in the flesh. That's obvious. What's not obvious is what degree of omniscience Christ had.

Was He sent on a mission which He worked to fulfill? Or did He know each and every exact detail of what was going to happen from day one? What I'm asking is what degree of "man" Christ was. Did God reveal to Him that He was God when He was baptised, or did He know all along? It's difficult to say, because the Markan text doesn't really reveal these things.

 

[ebia]

But we're not debating whether Christ was God manifested in the flesh. That's obvious. What's not obvious is what degree of omniscience Christ had.

Was He sent on a mission which He worked to fulfill? Or did He know each and every exact detail of what was going to happen from day one? What I'm asking is what degree of "man" Christ was. Did God reveal to Him that He was God when He was baptised, or did He know all along? It's difficult to say, because the Markan text doesn't really reveal these things.

FWIW, my opinion is that Tom Wright is on track. Jesus' self knowledge was vocational rather than prepositional. He knew he had a vocation to say, do and be what the scriptures said YHWH would say and do.

It seems very clear from scripture that any "omniscience" was set aside

 

[Jett Clark]

FWIW, my opinion is that Tom Wright is on track. Jesus' self knowledge was vocational rather than prepositional. He knew he had a vocation to say, do and be what the scriptures said YHWH would say and do.

It seems very clear from scripture that any "omniscience" was set aside

This seems obvious to me in a reading of Mark, but less so in a reading of John. John is far too connected to the idea of the "logos." People get so caught up in John 3.16, I think they're really missing out on John 3.13. It wasn't until somebody pointed out to me that Jesus says "no one has ascended into Heaven except [me]," despite Elijah's obvious ascension, that I really began looking at the verse.

It's very Platonic in nature. The Greek shows this a lot better than the English. What we really begin to see is that Jesus is simultaneously on Heaven and Earth. What we read in English is "ascended," but the Greek isn't so sure. The tense in Greek shows it as an action in progress, as if Jesus is currently ascending. That's not possible, though, unless Jesus is "between" Heaven and Earth. That is, He is culling from the wisdom in Heaven while existing on Earth.

To what degree Jesus is omniscient, then, I have a hard time figuring out. The extent of His knowledge is not fully explained, but He is most assuredly more in control than in earlier gospels.

Continuing on the subject of Matthew:

Most certainly, Christ doesn't seem super terribly omniscient in Matthew. He has a penchant for telling the future, but He doesn't read as the all-knowing puppet master that we see in John. Instead, Matthew is more interested in linking Jesus to prophecy. Despite apologetics, we see that the author must have been familiar with Mark, especially due to instances like the aforementioned "riding the colt and the donkey" thing. To my knowledge, it most definitely does read that way. It shows that the author was attempting to link a prior tradition to prophecy in a new way, and in doing so something got messed up.

That, and the whole Q Source thing. If Matthew and Luke (who was not a disciple) were writing independently of one another, they could not have written such startlingly similar work without a reference document. If Matthew was, after all, a disciple, why did he rely on a reference document ahead of his own memory?

After all, I still haven't seen much reason for why we would attribute Matthew to Matthew, except that it's called that. It's up to the text to prove that it was written by Matthew, not the critic to prove that it wasn't.

 

[pshun2404]

I think I would side with Ebia on this one as well (though we may have somewhat different understandings and that is fine). For example the one who came as Messiah/Jesus always was YHVH, the Word (see "the Memra" which in Greek was rendered Logos). This is a pre-Christian idea culminated in the Targums (whether from Babylonian Judaism or Jerusalem Judaism) that when we see or hear God in the OT it is the Word (any anthropomorphisms as well).

For Jesus said no one has seen or heard the Father at any time, the Son declares Him (that is, makes Him manifest). So John opens with a very Rabbinical idea which was that this Jesus was the Word...thus whenever God appeared (in His various forms...such as the Glory or Shekinah or even as a man) it was YHVH the Word, or what we call the Son (still YHVH), but as the Son of Man He laid His majesty aside, and for example does not know the day or the hour when He would return (thus not totally omniscient in one sense)...but yes this was off topic.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

It's up to the text to prove that it was written by Matthew, not the critic to prove that it wasn't.

Not true, if up to the text then you have a problem because every earliest MS of Matthew has the text attributing Matthew as the author,

From the second century kataV Maqqaivon (according to Matthew) is associated with every early Greek version, by the fifth century it becomes eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (the Gospel according to Matthew) and all Byzantine texts call it a{gion eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (the Holy Gospel according to Matthew). In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted far more often than either Mark or Luke by all the pre-Nicene church fathers.

Every early father attributes the text to Matthew, and quotes from it as Matthews gospel, with the exception of Ignatius who quotes from it but mentions no name. Ignatius however also quotes from Luke and some of Paul's letters and also does not mention them by name (but oddly never quotes from Mark). There is never an argument over his authorship or a mention of any other possibility by anyone even close to the time (even their enemies who would have loved any reason to scream fraud).

So since it is the critic who brings charge against the historical evidence and consistent tradition, being the plainiff in this case it is the critic's responsibility to prove his case to the contrary...and in my opinion they do not (and I am well aware that many brothers and sisters are persuaded by their arguments, and this is fine with me).

Despite this, and you have presented good arguments to defend your position, I know neither view is "proof" positive so the Lord bless...

Paul

 

[Jett Clark]

I think I would side with Ebia on this one as well (though we may have somewhat different understandings and that is fine). For example the one who came as Messiah/Jesus always was YHVH, the Word (see "the Memra" which in Greek was rendered Logos). This is a pre-Christian idea culminated in the Targums (whether from Babylonian Judaism or Jerusalem Judaism) that when we see or hear God in the OT it is the Word (any anthropomorphisms as well).

For Jesus said no one has seen or heard the Father at any time, the Son declares Him (that is, makes Him manifest). So John opens with a very Rabbinical idea which was that this Jesus was the Word...thus whenever God appeared (in His various forms...such as the Glory or Shekinah or even as a man) it was YHVH the Word, or what we call the Son (still YHVH), but as the Son of Man He laid His majesty aside, and for example does not know the day or the hour when He would return (thus not totally omniscient in one sense)...but yes this was off topic.

Paul

The problem I see with this is that we don't know to what degree the concept of "memra" was borrowed from "logos." Remember that the idea of the logos is from 600 BCE, which leaves an awful lot of time for Jewish thinking to have been influenced by Greek thinking, as it was by Persian and Babylonian thinking as well. However, "memra" also carries a slightly different connotation and usage from "logos," and Jesus, well, fits both words quite well.

I've struggled with this in the past. While John deals a lot in Jewish thinking, it was also written for Hellenistic Jews. I think the answer might lie somewhere in the middle, with a little bit of influence coming from both sides.

I think you're onto something here, but I'm no scholar.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, and all of those people may have recieved insight into this concept. After all, truth is not reserved for the Bible alone. The Bible does not even tell us that two things plus two things equal four things but this is true anywhere in any time. The Bible tells us what is written therein is true but not that it is the sole possessor of all truth (other than Christ revealed). Peter's lie was certainly not the truth, but it was true that Peter lied.

So I can see that others as well may have contemplated this Memra concept (calling it by different names or defining it somewhat differently) but that does not necessitate one borrowed from the other. The Hebrew experience with this Memra was 'face to face' as a living being. YHVH appeared unto them on many occasions which led to changes in the world that none can compare with.

And yes John is emphasizing this to the diaspora yet unbelieving Jewish people as well as to the Greeks. The Jewish leaders especially knew exactly who he was saying this Jesus was...I believe this was very powerful. He is the Angel of the Lord, the Shiloh, the Man who spoke with Manoah and his wife, who appeared unto Abraham in the tent at Mamre, visited Hagar in the wilderness, wrestled with Jacob at Peniel, spoke to Moses out of the bush that appeared to burn but was not consumed, and appeared as Captain of the Lord's host to Joshua, and much more, But now He has come as the Son of Man to obtain the redemption and achieve the reconciliation and all who will not faithe are condemned. AAll who have rejected the pardon will die in their sins and be judged according to their works alone but all have sinned. Who then would call God a liar or say that He is unable to preseve those He has in His foreknowledge chosen? I also am no scholar...

In Christ

Paul



Paul

 

[Harry3142]

If i am repeating what someone else has already stated, I apologize.

Personally, I believe that Matthew was written long before St. Paul's martyrdom circa 64 AD. According to The Muratorian Fragment the book of Acts was already completed prior to St. Paul's release from his first imprisonment and his journeying to Spain. Since Acts was originally written as an appendix to Luke, and even the most liberal scholars consider Luke to have been the third of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to have been written, that dates Matthew to well within the lifetime of the apostles themselves. You can read the english translation of The Muratorian Fragment here:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

I have heard these reasons given for a late dating of the gospels:

1. Mark was the shortest of them, so it must have been written first.

2. Mark 13:1ff. speaks of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, so it couldn't have been written before 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed by the romans.

The length of a gospel means nothing when there is evidence that all of the synoptic gospels were written in a certain period of time. Mark's length was in all likelihood dictated by the materials at hand when it was written. A person couldn't just walk into a store to buy ink, paper, and other items as we can today. They were considered to be luxury items in a world where the vast majority of people couldn't read or write, so they were expensive.

It also didn't take an Einstein, or even a prophet, to see in Jesus' time what would eventually occur. The romans were well-known for levelling any and all cities, towns and villages that dared to oppose their rule; a city in Galilee had already been razed within Jesus' lifetime. Couple this with the rebels who were constantly trying to throw the romans out of Judea plus the corruption in the leadership of that nation, and the logical conclusion would be that eventually the people would attempt to overthrow their roman rulers, and consequently Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed.

According to evidence itself dated close to the time of Christ, Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as Acts, were all completed prior to 62 AD. St. Paul's epistles, as well as those of the other apostles, were also completed very early in church history. So if they had lied, or even embellished, concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, they would have been exposed quickly and easily.

BTW: Some ultra-liberal scholars have set an extremely late date for the gospels due to their own altering of the events which made up Jesus' lifetime. They have claimed that there was no virgin birth, there were no miracles, and there was no resurrection. Jesus had simply lived out his life, run afoul of the authorities, and been crucified like so many other Jews of his day. But in order for the gospels to be embellished so as to include all of these happenings which the scholars claim never occurred, the gospels could not have been written until at least three generations had transpired between the time that Christ sojourned among us and the gospels were written down. This would automatically 'push them back' to at least 70 AD for the start of their being written.

 

[ebia]

According to The Muratorian Fragment the book of Acts was already completed prior to St. Paul's release from his first imprisonment and his journeying to Spain.

Except I've pointed out to you before that the fragment does not actually say that, does it?

And if they are the only reasons you've seen for Markan priority you need to read more widely.