crit test 2

- Jesus is messiah
- he has inaugurated the kingdom which will be consummated at the end of age. The Jewish system/nation had failed.
- Gentile mission is legitimate

teacher, messiah, and son of david

triadic and mini-strutures

Papias

he identifies Matthew as a writer of scripture. This is the only book that Matthew writes. What he does not do is tell us what book he wrote. this would be a problem if there were other books with the same name. Since this is not the case it is ok to think that he was referring to the gospel of Matthew

1. gospel of Matthew- but if Papias was talking about Matt he would have said his oracle.
2. A saying source like Q- this could have been Papias' way of saying that Matt knew about these and took them and arranged them.
3. Papis is not referring to the Hebrew language, but rather to Hebrew in a literary fashion (thus he arranged the gospel along the Jewish-christian line)
4. Papias was wrong

Irenaeus

(it is the Hebrew dialect (Aramaic), or this is the Hebrew or Palestinian dialect of Greek),

He tells us that Matthew wrote for the Jews/Jewish Christians and that he wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome.

early 60s

o In the latter part of the 60s Peter and Paul both die. Peter before Paul and Paul died in 67 or 68.

Matthew originally penned his account in Hebrew.

Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine

• The author was familiar with geography2:23) (he mentions the district of city of Galilee and the city of Nazareth), Jewish customs (1:18-19)(the betrothal which was not commonly practiced universally), Jewish history (Tetrarch, was familiar with the limited commission), evang. for Jews, and concern for the OT law (he said Jesus did not come to abolish the law)

• Matthew is more critical of the Jewish leaders than Mark or Luke (cf. 3:7, 16:6, 11-12; Ch. 23) Perhaps because association with tax collectors criticized. (another reason for this is because Matthew was there)
• Frequently mentioning of numbers (three, five, seven) and money (unique familiarity) are appropriate for a tax collector. (We see a great deal of numbers in this text and this leads to Matthew he is an accountant. Just like in Luke there are a great deal of medical terms that would make it more likely to be Luke)
• Only Matthew calls Levi Matthew. In lists of apostles he’s called Mathew- this is humble reference (not overblown call narrative)

• Why would an apostle use a non-apostle as a source?
• Matthew’s high quality Greek. Matthew probably had to be bilingual (many were anyway) to do his job. Also, perhaps affected by amanuensis?

• Non-biographical arrangement of Matthew. Just because Matthew is not as concerned with chronology as Luke does not make it less historical
• These are no real obstacles to Matthean Author.

because of the prophecy of Matthew 24 concerning the fall of Jerusalem but this is based on the assumption that prophecy isn’t predictive.

• If Matthew depends on Mark, it cannot be dated before the mid 50s.
• Matthew and Luke probably didn’t know about the works of the other. They are probably both in the early 60s
• Irenaeus and the need to flee Jerusalem before 67 make sure the early 60s most probably for a date

o Delay of return prompted a written record of the apostles’ doctrine (“early Catholicism”)
o Apostles as eye-witnesses were aging/dying
o Apostolic preaching needed wide distribution
o Apologetic/catechism motivations

• Papias quote supported by majority of witnesses including Irenaeus, the Muratorian canon (most likely), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome

• The tradition is strong that Peter died by the hands of Nero (Ad 54-68). Likely in 64/65 (before Paul)
• The Papias quote indicates Mark wrote these things down while Peter was still alive. Clement of Alexandria later confirms this (he says Mark wrote from Rome for the Christians in Rome)

Marcion, the Muratorian canon, ani-Marcionite prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome all argue/accept Luke was the author

o The unity of authorship of Luke-Acts
o Evidence that the author was a traveling companion of Paul (“we sections” – real?)
o Other incidental evidence

• Both books are dedicated to Theophilus (lover of God – person, symbolic, group rep?). It’s both (theol.) historical and apologetic
• Acts refers to the first treatise to Theophilus (1:1), which many believe is the Gospel
• The books have similar language and style
• Common themes/interests. Especially the we passages
• Acts naturally follows Luke.

• Paul’s associations in his prison epistles include Luke
• Luke is not mentioned during the epistles written on the second and tird journeys (Thess, Cor, Romans, Gal?), which are not parts of the “we-section” period
• Luke and Mark were in close contact with one another according to Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24 (in Rome?). Was he a “God-fearer”?
• Paul refers to Luke as “the beloved physician” Col 4:14. The differences between Luke and Paul are further evidence for its authenticity. What forger would make this up?

• Since Luke depends on Mark he cannot be dated before the mid-50s. It doesn’t appear he knew about Matthew (written around the same time
• Must be written before Acts before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment around 62. So, to fit with Matthew, between Mark and Acts, Luke would have been written around 61-62.

He is mentioned separately form the “men of the circumcision” in Colossians 4. Also, Acts 16:11-17 may indicate that Luke was not arrested with Paul and Silas because he was not Jewish. See especially Acts 16:20-21. Why else would the shift form first-person (we) to third person (they) have happened 16:17.

He may have been from Troas for the we sections in Acts begin there. Guthrie suggests Luke was from Philippi since he supposes the we sections begin there

• “The Memorandum of Luke” (Tertullian)
• “The Acts of all the Apostles” (Muratorian Canon)
• “The Acts of the Apostles” (Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus)
• “The acts of the Holy Spirit”?

• There is almost universal apostolic patristic evidence that Luke wrote the book of Acts
• There is the assertion in the Codex D – throughout that there is an anti sematic strain

• Chronology of the gospels are very different (assuming they wanted to put them in some sort of order)
• Apparent contradictions between the gospels

o There are situations were sections seem to be in the exact same order
o Geographical sequence could be different or similar
o There could be some small things diff
o In Greek there were no parenthesis and no commas and no periods. But in the transcripts there are areas where it is obvious that the author was entering in something about the situation and sometimes both the gospels have the same parenthetical things in it (this is good evidence for Q)
o You can just say that the reason they are all so similar is because the Holy Spirit had a hand in their writing. But if you say that then you have to ask why are there so many differences?

• Fragmentary hypothesis
• The “Ur-Gospel” theory
• Oral sources
• Theories of interdependence or utilization• B. H. Streeter’s Four-Source Theory

o The q hypothesis is just an extension of this – if the q document is out there then it is a collection of stories not a narrative. – You have a lot of different stories in circulation.
o The floating of all the fragment material could be the reason there are so many differences and similarities. If you have material then they would use it

o There may have existed some gospel account that was first written in Aramaic (it could be Mark)
o This doesn’t really help that much

o There is somewhere out there at the time when these gospels were being formed a body of oral tradition that was so fixed that it could have been drawn on.
o There may have been the body of oral material. And anytime you have oral material you have some room for differences. The core content is the same but some details may be included/excluded depending on who you are hearing it from.
o IF there is an oral gospel then this could explain why some of the gospels are out of order.

o The reasons these were popular- the cannon was already laid out and they wanted to find a way to prioritize Matthew.
o They also may have tried to prioritize Matt because they wanted to say the apostles were the only people who had any authority to write these type things and if Matt is first then Mark, Luke and John would have looked at Matt’s material and therefore he had the authority

o Deposits four documents that would have been in existence before Matt and Luke wrote theirs. The M (rudimentary version of Matthew) document, Mark, Q, L (rudimentary version of Luke).
o You can find references to fragments of all kinds of records or aspects of the life of Jesus

o Who would have the gall to take the gospel account and take some of it out. It seems presumptuous for someone to take out a piece of something that is inspired.
• If Mark knew that he was being guided by the Holy Spirit then maybe he didn’t have to worry about looking at other sources
o Why would Mark omit so much teaching material when he constantly emphasizes that the reason Jesus came was to teach? One writer said, “given Mark it is easy to see why Matthew was written, given Matthew it is hard to see why Mark was needed.”
• Mark doesn’t write really any new teaching different from Matthew

• The argument from length
• Argument from grammar- the development of grammar skills
• Argument from difficulty
• Argument from verbal agreements and order
• Argument form literary agreements
• Argument from redaction
• Argument from Mark’s historical/theological candor – he is very early on and he provides a picture of certain of these characters. Later on in Christianity they begin to exonerate these people and would not want to say anything bad about them. The fact that he did shows that he was earlier

• (In these Mark is already out there)
• There are two things going: first there is the common material between Matthew and Luke- some of this can come from Mark and possibly Q. And there are words that are in Matthew but not Mark and Luke that is not in Mark.
• There is a possibility that Luke used some of Mark (still have to explain why Luke is like Matt). This could be that Matt was already out and that Mark used Matt.
• If Luke uses Matt then he does his own editing
• There are sections in the sermon on the Mount that Luke doesn’t use Matt same context of what people believed he got form Q
• In the Sermon on the Mount (people believe that Matt got it from Q) so why would Luke have edited Matt version of Q differently.
• Both of the knew about Mark but Luke also was in existence and Matt knew about that or perhaps both Matt and Luke used common source oral or written.
What is Q?

• Given the nature of the material that is in the three gospels people believe that these were not oral traditions but as a written tradition.
• Is it possible that Q existed then some suggested Q was the gospel of Thomas. During that period of time the gospel of Thomas came into existence (but I think the gospel of Thomas is too late but the people who believe that believe that the other gospels were not finalized until much later).