Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Why Would Matthew Use Mark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    In his The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Craig Keener points out that there's been a bit of a re-evaluation on Matthew's use of Greco-Roman rhetoric. That, while the author wrote in Greek, in the style of Greek biography, and was influenced by Greco-Roman rhetoric, Greco-Roman rhetoric is not dominant in his gospel, especially when compared to Luke and Paul. So, for instance, Keener demonstrates that Jesus' speeches in Matthew do not resemble typical Greco-Roman speeches. And when comparing the Gospel of Matthew with the writings of Paul, Paul abounds in Greco-Roman rhetorical devices, Matthew...not so much. Rather, there seems to be a move towards recognizing Matthew's style much more in the vein of Jewish Sage rhetoric.
    Even granting this point for the sake of argument, though, Matthew would still have needed an expensive education in Greek grammar and writing, which-- again-- it is not likely he would have received in his youth, given the background described for him in the NT. Whether or not he utilized a Hellenistic rhetorical flair, he most certainly wrote in a quality of Greek which would not have been expected of a native Aramaic-speaking Galilean.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by psstein View Post
      Assuming Markan priority, Matthew replicates 90% of Mark's Greek, so scholars generally say that Matthew is literarily dependent on Mark.

      Generally speaking, the dates of the gospels are as follows:

      Mark: 63-75
      Matthew: 75-85
      Luke: 75-85 (there's been an increasing tendency to date it to the 90s or to the early second century recently)
      John: 90-110

      The dates of the synoptic Gospels are relatively arbitrary. There's not much preventing them from being as early as the 40s or as late as the late 80s/early 90s.
      The post 70 A.D. dates for Matthew, Mark and Luke is biased against the belief Jesus actually prophesied the temple's destruction.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
        Even granting this point for the sake of argument, though, Matthew would still have needed an expensive education in Greek grammar and writing, which-- again-- it is not likely he would have received in his youth, given the background described for him in the NT. Whether or not he utilized a Hellenistic rhetorical flair, he most certainly wrote in a quality of Greek which would not have been expected of a native Aramaic-speaking Galilean.
        What about his background in the NT makes you think it's unlikely he would have acquired these things, especially as he is associated with a tax collector?

        Catherine Hezser, Professor of Jewish Studies at London University, points out that a knowledge of Greek would have been paramount for those working with the imperial administration. She writes in Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, "It almost goes without saying that the Jews who collaborated with the Romans in the administrative realm had to be loyal supporters of the foreign government and knowledgeable of Greek, that is, they must have belonged to the most assimilated circles of the Jewish population."

        And Bauckham points out in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,

        Source: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham

        It is true that the extent of literacy in Jewish Palestine is debated and may have been very small, but we should also notice that the followers of Jesus, both during his ministry and in the early Jerusalem church, were drawn from all classes of people. There would undoubtedly be some who could write and more who could read. These would be not only members of the educated elite but also professional scribes and copyists. The old suggestion that, among the Twelve, it would be Matthew the tax collector who would most likely, owing to his profession, be able to write might after all be a sound guess and a clue to the perplexing question of the role he might have played somewhere among the sources of the Gospel of Matthew. We can be fairly confident that some quite sophisticated scribal activity, in the form of intensive work on expounding the biblical prophecies with reference to Jesus and his followers, akin to the learned commentaries produced by the Qumran community, went on at a very early date, presumably in the Jerusalem church, whence its influence can be seen throughout the New Testament writings. The first Christians were not all illiterate peasant laborers and craftsmen, as the form critics supposed, but evidently included people who studied the Scriptures with current exegetical skills and could write works with the literary quality of the letter of James. Leaders who were not themselves literate could employ the services of other believers who were.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by psstein View Post
          Assuming Markan priority, Matthew replicates 90% of Mark's Greek, so scholars generally say that Matthew is literarily dependent on Mark.

          Generally speaking, the dates of the gospels are as follows:

          Mark: 63-75
          Matthew: 75-85
          Luke: 75-85 (there's been an increasing tendency to date it to the 90s or to the early second century recently)
          John: 90-110

          The dates of the synoptic Gospels are relatively arbitrary. There's not much preventing them from being as early as the 40s or as late as the late 80s/early 90s.
          I see. Thanks for answering!

          Do you think 37818 is right on the 70 A.D.+ datings being based on the prophetic statements re the Temple's destruction?
          We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
          - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
          In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
          Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bisto View Post
            I see. Thanks for answering!

            Do you think 37818 is right on the 70 A.D.+ datings being based on the prophetic statements re the Temple's destruction?
            I'm unsure. Prophecies about the destruction of the Temple weren't exactly rare (e.g. Josephus and Jesus ben Ananius). In addition, C.H. Dodd showed that Luke's account of Jerusalem's destruction is more indebted to the Septuagint than to the events of 70 AD. Against those considerations, there's an issue that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants may show knowledge that the Temple has been destroyed or that its destruction is imminent. Moreover, particular considerations in John suggest that the Jewish community and the early Christian community have split from one another.

            It would not surprise me if the gospels dated from the 50s or 60s, nor would it surprise me if Matthew were the first gospel written.

            If the Synoptics are pre-70, then I think it would look something like this (on Markan priority):

            Mark: 50-55
            Matthew: 55-65
            Luke: 65-75
            John: 80-100

            On the other hand, certain correspondences between Matthew and Paul may suggest that Paul was at least familiar with some of the Matthean material (or even the gospel itself, possibly).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by psstein View Post
              I'm unsure. Prophecies about the destruction of the Temple weren't exactly rare (e.g. Josephus and Jesus ben Ananius). In addition, C.H. Dodd showed that Luke's account of Jerusalem's destruction is more indebted to the Septuagint than to the events of 70 AD. Against those considerations, there's an issue that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants may show knowledge that the Temple has been destroyed or that its destruction is imminent. Moreover, particular considerations in John suggest that the Jewish community and the early Christian community have split from one another.

              It would not surprise me if the gospels dated from the 50s or 60s, nor would it surprise me if Matthew were the first gospel written.

              If the Synoptics are pre-70, then I think it would look something like this (on Markan priority):

              Mark: 50-55
              Matthew: 55-65
              Luke: 65-75
              John: 80-100

              On the other hand, certain correspondences between Matthew and Paul may suggest that Paul was at least familiar with some of the Matthean material (or even the gospel itself, possibly).
              A late date for Luke is biased against the authenticity of some of the epistles of the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 5:18 citing Luke 10:7).
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                A late date for Luke is biased against the authenticity of some of the epistles of the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 5:18 citing Luke 10:7).
                The case for 1 Timothy being pseudepigraphal would be rather strong even without a late date for Luke. That's not bias. It's honest scholarship.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  The case for 1 Timothy being pseudepigraphal would be rather strong even without a late date for Luke. That's not bias. It's honest scholarship.
                  I see almost no evidence for the authenticity of any of the pastorals.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    If the historical Matthew is the one who wrote the text, then he must have had an expensive education in Greek rhetoric and grammar, and considering the background described for the man in the NT, it doesn't seem likely that he would have received such education in his youth.
                    Matthew, before being a tax collector, was a Levite. Unlike some of the others who were fishermen.

                    As a Levite he has certainly had Hebrew literacy. As to Greek, it may have been optional, or he may have been of hellenised background. As to rhetoric, it is much the same for all languages. YOu learn Hebrew rhetoric, you then learn Greek grammar, hey presto, you have Greek rhetoric for free.

                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    As such, if Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, he would have needed to undergo an expensive and difficult education while he was an adult in order to do so.
                    Neither expensive nor difficult.

                    If he was an Apostle, once Christians started involving non-Hebrew speakers on large scale, it became a priority for the Church to teach any Apostle Greek who did not already know Greek. So, even if he had not known Greek before becoming an Apostle (unlikely in one whom the Romans entrusted with tax collecting, perhaps), the Church would have paid for his studies.

                    Nor would they have been difficult.

                    Remember, he certainly knew some Greek, but even if not, the syntax is not of the most difficult ones (I think Lysias would have been ashamed to have written anything as simplistic as the syntax of St Matthew) and some coincidence of syntactic features can be counted on in a bilingual culture (i e, his native Aramaic would have involved more similarities to Greek syntax than Classical Hebrew would have done).

                    Plus we have no way to tell exactly how Greek and exactly how foreign St Matthew's text would have sounded to Greek ears of the time. We can just judge by grammatic correction, we can't trust our grasp on idiom totally. Over two millennia Greek ears have heard St Matthew from the pulpit, so asking a Greek would be the least instructive on this point.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by psstein View Post
                      Against those considerations, there's an issue that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants may show knowledge that the Temple has been destroyed or that its destruction is imminent.
                      A knowledge which Christ, being God, had : both as God and as Man.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        The case for 1 Timothy being pseudepigraphal would be rather strong even without a late date for Luke. That's not bias. It's honest scholarship.
                        Would be if you were willing to state Caesar could not have written Bellum Gallicum, since the military organisation of the work is "too advanced for the time of Caesar" ...

                        Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        I see almost no evidence for the authenticity of any of the pastorals.
                        Except, as always, tradition of the Church.
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          For the time being, let's accept the claims of attribution to the Gospels made by the early church.
                          A very good starting point, to stay adhered to until evidence of the contrary be found - I am obviously staying with it.

                          This is also a good reason to accept traditional dates, meaning for Matthew year 37 or 40 for the Greek version and 34 for his own previous Hebrew one.

                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Once we do that, we are reminded that Mark isn't just Mark writing without a source really. Mark is the testimony of Peter. (Interestingly, the church never called this the Gospel of Peter. They could have skipped the middleman, but they didn't. This was the work of Mark.) Why would this matter?
                          One version I have heard* of this is actually that St Peter was comparing the works of Sts Matthew and Luke, reading aloud from both and interspersing with his own comments.

                          This version would obviously rule out Matthew borrowing anything at all from Mark, but explain similarities as Mark (taking down the reading of St Peter, misunderstanding it as St Peter dictating a Gospel) taking down what St Peter read quasi verbatim from St Matthew.

                          * read!

                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          It's because despite Matthew being an apostle, Matthew was not part of the inner circle. Many times in the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus takes with Him Peter, James, and John. These three then directly saw things that Matthew himself did not see. By going to Mark, Matthew could ascertain his information on these events that he did not see.
                          If St Matthew was not of the inner circle, it is very probable he was (with his Levite education) secretary and so would have been adressed as such by the inner circle. If they had a treasurer, that being the traitor, why would they not have a secretary and who better qualified than St Matthew?
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Matthew the disciple was a first hand witness of Jesus (Matthew 9) where as Mark was not ( Mark 2).
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                            14 responses
                            75 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                            6 responses
                            62 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                            1 response
                            23 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                            0 responses
                            22 views
                            2 likes
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                            7 responses
                            63 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Working...
                            X