"Ancient Testimony to Matthew's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 116-135
It is appropriate to consider ancient sources of information about pieces of ancient literature.
THE COMMON WITNESS TO AUTHORSHIP
p. 117 "The fathers regularly make the following points:
1.) Matthew the tax-collector, otherwise known as Levi, one of the twelve, was the author.
2.) His was the first gospel to be written.
3.) He wrote for Hebrews in the Hebrew language (and in the Hebrew script)."
Wehnam goes on to quote and summarize testimony of Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. He observes that similar testimony continues through the early and later fathers.
THE TRADITION DISCOUNTED
p. 119 "To begin with, the references to Jewish Christian gospels in the fathers and in later writers form a notoriously complex study concerning which no consensus has yet emerged." Church fathers often did not refer to a book specifically by name. They also had a tendency to refer to one book by any of several names. Citations were often made from memory, as paraphrases, so it is sometimes difficult to find the kind of evidence which modern historians would like. pp. 120-121 "But, while it is possible to find arguments that whittle away the whole tradition, it needs to be remembered that these arguments only open up the possibility that all came from a single erroneous source, they constitute no proof." We cannot find an autograph manuscript of any New Testament text, nor could we definitively prove that a purported autograph from the middle of the first century was either truly original or falsified. We are left then with tradition. p. 121 "As far as we know, there was only one tradition known to scholars and historians of the early and medieval church which they considered worth recording, and we need not lightly assume that it all sprang from an erroneous statement of one denigrated Phrygian bishop which obliterated knowledge of the true facts."
THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS
Papias, who lived and worked near the end of the first century and beginning of the second century may well have written his observations about the origin of the Gospels very shortly after the apostolic period, possibly during the lifetime of John. Papias' information about the origin of Matthew's gospel purports to come from John the "presbyter" who may be identified with the apostle or may be identified with a follower of one or more of the apostles. He clearly identifies that Matthew wrote a gospel.
DISCOUNTING THE EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS
p. 125 "Four means have been used to discredit his testimony:
1.) insistence of Matthew's derivation from Mark;
2.) emphasis on the ambivalence of Eusebius;
3.) attempted explanations of how Papias got it wrong;
4.) attempted reinterpretations of Papias.
Matthew's Use of Mark
p. 125 "Modern critical opinion has for a long time been almost unanimous that Papias was wrong - certainly about the first gospel being originally in Hebrew and probably about Matthew being the author. This derives principally from the vast measure of assent given to the theory that our Greek Matthew was based on the Greek Mark. This makes it impossible to believe that Matthew is a translation from a Semitic original, and difficult to believe that it is the work of an eyewitness apostle."
The ambivalence of Eusebius
Eusebius was not enthusiastic of Papias, attributing to him millennarian attitudes and tending to erode impressions of Papias' intelligence. Eusebius takes this to an extreme as he attempts to show that Papias' identification of a separate apostle John and a presbyter John was in error. Yet Papias has said what he has said. p. 128 "Papias claimed (and why should we doubt him?) that he made it his practice to get his information from those who had got it direct from the apostles, a good deal of it before the last of those who had accompanied Jesus were dead, and some of it may well have come from the apostle John himself." p. 128 "There is no alternative tradition about the authorship of Matthew's gospel, as there is in the case of hebrews, nor was there doubt of its apostolic authorship, as htere was in the case, for instance, of 2 Peter."
Attempts to explain how Papias got his ideas wrong
Scholars in the past 150 years have emphasized that the composition of a gospel by one of the apostles seemingly of lesser importance is unlikely. They have also tried to tie Papias' statemtn of what Matthew wrote to something other than a gospel account, something more like a collection of the sayings of Jesus which may have been lost by now.
Attempst to reinterpret Papias' expression Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ
Papias was a rhetorician. It is quite possible that he would have taken the term "in the Hebrew dialect" to mean "following a Hebraic style." Yet Eusebius may well have taken the term to mean "in the Hebrew language," i.e., "in Aramaic." This is a debate which is not easily resolved. There is evidence that Matthew is written in a rather sophisticated style, consistent with a text written in Greek, not translated from Hebrew. Yet there are Hebraic elements evident in the composition. The tax collector Levi would certainly have been someone of adequate education to make good notes and communicate effectively in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. There is therefore no reason to reject any of the possible scenarios of composition.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TITLES
While there was only one written gospel there would be no reason to attach a name to it. As soon as there were two a name would become important. Books in antiquity were generally titled with the name of the author in genitive, for example, "of Plato" followed by a brief title, for example, "Physics." However, the gospels never circulated with titles of this sort. They appear to have assumed the word "gospel" then they were identified by a prepositional phrase, "according to Matthew." This may well have been a scribal practice, typical for putting a label on a scroll to identify the contents readily. The titles are uniform for as long as we have found titles. There is no evidence that any of the gospels ever circulated under any other name. This should bear some weight in a discussion of the origin of a text.
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark
"Building a Synoptic theory: (3) The Relation of {Matthew to Mark" Wenham, pp. 88-115.
p. 88 "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition."
Wenham suggests, on p. 89, "There are three main possibilities as to the relation of the first two gospels: 1.) They are independent; 2.) Matthew used Mark; 3.) Mark used Matthew." In modern scholarship we typically see a view that favors Mark being written first and Matthew depending upon Mark and one or more other sources. There are numerous objections to the primacy of Matthew, even though until fairly recently it was assumed that Matthew was composed first.
p. 91 "It is difficult to believe that Mark would have omitted so much important Matthean material had he known of its existence. . . If it is supposed that Mark was intended as a replacement of Matthew, it has great weight - we should indeed be much the poorer without the great discourses and all Matthew's unique contributions. But whoever suggested that this was the intention?"
p. 91 "Mark's wealth of detail is a prima facie indication of priority . . . Wealth of detail would make it an acceptable supplement, but in itself it has nothing to do with order of production."
p. 92 "Matthew's account of the death of the Baptist requires a knowledge of Mark's account." Yet this is not necessarily the case. "It is perfectly possible that Herod was torn between great annoyance that John had repeatedly denounced his sexual sin in public, and respect for one he knew to be a good man. There is no need for Matthew to have known Mark's gospel, it is sufficient that he should have known the fuller story."
p. 92 "Matthew 27:15-18 has destroyed the logic of Mark 15:6-10."
p. 93 "The claim is that Mark's 'comparatively clear' sequence 'seems' to have a logic which has been blurred by Matthew, whose account lacks 'clear logic'. This appears to be hypercriticism with no real basis. The point of the statement 'For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up' may not be immediately obvious - but this applies equally to both gospels. They are both making the point that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent, and he hoped that the demand of the people would get him out of his predicament."
Judging from the evidence displayed, Wenham is unconvinced that Matthew or Mark was written in dependence on the other. He suggests that it is quite possible that Mark was written with a knowledge of, but not dependence upon, Matthew. He goes on to discuss several reasons this seems to be a valid hypothesis.
p. 94 Matthew looks original. "Whether he assembled recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his work was based on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work. But of course it is not impossible."
p. 95 Matthew looks early and Palestinian. "Matthew's account looks like a vivid record of a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious leaders, rather than a veiled polemic of church against synagogue."
p. 96 "Mark looks like Peter's version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine."
p. 97 "It looks as though Mark is omitting Matthean material at certain points."
p. 101 "Matthean priority provides the better rationale for the differences in order between the two gospels."
p. 109 "Matthew looks as though it may have been originally in a Semitic language."
p. 115 "To sum up our investigation of the internal evidence of the symoptic problem thus far: There seems to be a good case for believing that Matthew, possibly in a Semitic language, was the first gospel; that Mark is substantially the teaching of Peter, who knew Matthew's gospel; and that Luke knew and used both matthew and Mark. However, Mark shows a large measure of independence of Matthew, and Luke shows a large measure of independence of both. These conclusions (which have already to some extent anticipated it) will be seen to fit the external evidence remarkably well."
p. 88 "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition."
Wenham suggests, on p. 89, "There are three main possibilities as to the relation of the first two gospels: 1.) They are independent; 2.) Matthew used Mark; 3.) Mark used Matthew." In modern scholarship we typically see a view that favors Mark being written first and Matthew depending upon Mark and one or more other sources. There are numerous objections to the primacy of Matthew, even though until fairly recently it was assumed that Matthew was composed first.
p. 91 "It is difficult to believe that Mark would have omitted so much important Matthean material had he known of its existence. . . If it is supposed that Mark was intended as a replacement of Matthew, it has great weight - we should indeed be much the poorer without the great discourses and all Matthew's unique contributions. But whoever suggested that this was the intention?"
p. 91 "Mark's wealth of detail is a prima facie indication of priority . . . Wealth of detail would make it an acceptable supplement, but in itself it has nothing to do with order of production."
p. 92 "Matthew's account of the death of the Baptist requires a knowledge of Mark's account." Yet this is not necessarily the case. "It is perfectly possible that Herod was torn between great annoyance that John had repeatedly denounced his sexual sin in public, and respect for one he knew to be a good man. There is no need for Matthew to have known Mark's gospel, it is sufficient that he should have known the fuller story."
p. 92 "Matthew 27:15-18 has destroyed the logic of Mark 15:6-10."
p. 93 "The claim is that Mark's 'comparatively clear' sequence 'seems' to have a logic which has been blurred by Matthew, whose account lacks 'clear logic'. This appears to be hypercriticism with no real basis. The point of the statement 'For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up' may not be immediately obvious - but this applies equally to both gospels. They are both making the point that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent, and he hoped that the demand of the people would get him out of his predicament."
Judging from the evidence displayed, Wenham is unconvinced that Matthew or Mark was written in dependence on the other. He suggests that it is quite possible that Mark was written with a knowledge of, but not dependence upon, Matthew. He goes on to discuss several reasons this seems to be a valid hypothesis.
p. 94 Matthew looks original. "Whether he assembled recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his work was based on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work. But of course it is not impossible."
p. 95 Matthew looks early and Palestinian. "Matthew's account looks like a vivid record of a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious leaders, rather than a veiled polemic of church against synagogue."
p. 96 "Mark looks like Peter's version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine."
p. 97 "It looks as though Mark is omitting Matthean material at certain points."
p. 101 "Matthean priority provides the better rationale for the differences in order between the two gospels."
p. 109 "Matthew looks as though it may have been originally in a Semitic language."
p. 115 "To sum up our investigation of the internal evidence of the symoptic problem thus far: There seems to be a good case for believing that Matthew, possibly in a Semitic language, was the first gospel; that Mark is substantially the teaching of Peter, who knew Matthew's gospel; and that Luke knew and used both matthew and Mark. However, Mark shows a large measure of independence of Matthew, and Luke shows a large measure of independence of both. These conclusions (which have already to some extent anticipated it) will be seen to fit the external evidence remarkably well."
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew
"Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew" Wenham, pp. 40-87
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 2 Day 1 Matthew 26-28, Genesis 1-2
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 26-28 and Genesis 1-2. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 26:1-25 Even as people are plotting to kill Jesus he shows himself as the Lord who does not worry about his death. The sorrow belongs to the one who betrays him.
Matthew 26:26-29 See the covenant language in the institution of the Lord's Supper. Jesus gives himself as the one who is purchasing forgiveness in communion. He presents this as a supernatural meal.
Matthew 26:30-56 Jesus prays, is betrayed, and arrested. We continue to notice Jesus' perfect trust in the Father's providence.
Matthew 26:57-27:26 The arrest and trial of Jesus doesn't go as the people who arrested him expect. The whole situation is more charged with emotion than Herod or Pilate could imagine. We see how Jesus comes to bring division. How does the true Gospel divide our families, friends, and nation?
Matthew 27:27-66 Compare Psalm 22.
Matthew 28:1-20 Jesus in his resurrection appears to his disciples. The authorities try to cover up what happened. See Jesus' promise to be with his people always. See also the way they are to disciple all nations - the spread of the Gospel happens through the very simple means of baptizing and teaching.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 See the step-by-step order of creation. God first creates the heavens and the earth then he fills them. Even in perfection the creation has duties - multiply and fill the earth, and the people are to care for and exercise wise dominion. Think of ways we can care for and exercise dominion over our surroundings.
Genesis 2:4-25 Here we have an account of the creation more from the point of view of God's interactions with the people. See the roles that husband and wife are to have.
Matthew 26:1-25 Even as people are plotting to kill Jesus he shows himself as the Lord who does not worry about his death. The sorrow belongs to the one who betrays him.
Matthew 26:26-29 See the covenant language in the institution of the Lord's Supper. Jesus gives himself as the one who is purchasing forgiveness in communion. He presents this as a supernatural meal.
Matthew 26:30-56 Jesus prays, is betrayed, and arrested. We continue to notice Jesus' perfect trust in the Father's providence.
Matthew 26:57-27:26 The arrest and trial of Jesus doesn't go as the people who arrested him expect. The whole situation is more charged with emotion than Herod or Pilate could imagine. We see how Jesus comes to bring division. How does the true Gospel divide our families, friends, and nation?
Matthew 27:27-66 Compare Psalm 22.
Matthew 28:1-20 Jesus in his resurrection appears to his disciples. The authorities try to cover up what happened. See Jesus' promise to be with his people always. See also the way they are to disciple all nations - the spread of the Gospel happens through the very simple means of baptizing and teaching.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 See the step-by-step order of creation. God first creates the heavens and the earth then he fills them. Even in perfection the creation has duties - multiply and fill the earth, and the people are to care for and exercise wise dominion. Think of ways we can care for and exercise dominion over our surroundings.
Genesis 2:4-25 Here we have an account of the creation more from the point of view of God's interactions with the people. See the roles that husband and wife are to have.
Sermon for 1/8/12 "Jesus Fulfills All Righteousness" Matthew 3
Sermon “Jesus Fulfills All Righteousness” - Matthew 3 audio link http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23575548/120108Matthew3.mp3
Our Lord, open our eyes in this season of Epiphany to see the gift you have poured out on us through the waters of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Our sermon text for today comes from the third chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Since we have entered upon our reading challenge and in the past week some of us have read Matthew chapters 1-25, I thought it best to have a sermon from material we have read recently. Today is the feast of the baptism of Jesus, the first of the miraculous occasions we celebrate during the season of Epiphany, that time of year for realization of Jesus' person and presence.
I'll read from Matthew 3, that evangelist's account of the baptism of Jesus which we read about previously in Mark's Gospel. Hear the word of God with me.
(Matthew 3, NIV 1984)
1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
“A voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”
4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Thanks be to God.
Jesus fulfills all righteousness. This is one of the focuses I expect you've seen as you've been reading through Matthew this week. Jesus does something and the evangelist says that he does it to fulfill a prophecy. Jesus is presented in the Scripture, and especially in Matthew's Gospel, as the fulfiller of all God's promises. He is the one who has come to keep our part of the covenants of God, as well as keeping God's part. Thus he is the one who can place his righteousness, his obedience, his mercy and his grace upon us. And here Jesus has John baptize him to fulfill all righteousness.
What could he mean by this? There are a few directions we need to look at Jesus' statement in order to unpack it adequately. First, we want to see how Jesus understands baptism. Second, we want to know who needs baptism, and finally we can see what Jesus was accomplishing in his own baptism.
First, how does Jesus understand baptism? Jesus in fact talks about baptism rather little. He gives baptism but he doesn't teach about it very much. It seems to be more something that Jesus does, or that his followers do, than something that Jesus teaches. Yet John talks about Jesus' baptism being a baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul talks about baptism as a sign of death, even a very real passing through death. In fact, the apostles consistently talk about baptism as a washing of sin, that which regenerates people, that which gives them a clean conscience. In Matthew 28, which shows up in our next reading challenge day, we will see that Jesus commands his apostles to “disciple all nations by baptizing them...and teaching them...” (Matthew 28:19-20).
The Bible teaches that in baptism we are washed from sin. We are cleansed. How can water do this? Our catechism points out that water cannot do this but when joined with the promises of the Word of God it can accomplish God's will. This is why I always try to baptize after the sermon and the confession of the creed in a church service. The Word of God accomplishes everything. I don't accomplish it. All I do in baptism is read the Scripture, pray, and get someone wet. Actually, it's usually two or three people who get wet. But the Holy Spirit washes you from sin in baptism. That's why a baptismal date is something of importance to many people. That's why we give you a baptismal certificate. When I baptize someone I give the person a candle signifying Jesus, the light of the world. I also give a cross, if possible one that is good enough quality that it can be worn throughout life. If I have sealed you with Christ's death and resurrection in the waters of baptism I have placed Christ on you. You can bear the cross then, remembering that Jesus has imposed his forgiveness upon you.
Baptism is a bath of forgiveness. Who needs this forgiveness? We, along with the vast majority of Christianity throughout the ages, baptize people of any age. We confess that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, not one. We all need forgiveness. So we all need baptism. If that baptism is a gift of God, a washing from sin which comes from him, it is not our own work. My confirmands are working with Ephesians 3:8-9 this week, one of those verses I can't quite quote in any one translation because I've worked with it in so many different ones. But here we go – see if I'm on the right track. It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, that not of yourselves, this thing is a gift of God. It is not of our own works, so nobody can boast. I think I captured it. This baptism which saves us is given to us. It is not our work of confession. It is God's work of redemption. It's the work we all need, young people, old people, every kind of person needs the salvation of God, given to us, not earned by us. I haven't gone around checking our records that carefully yet. But if there is anyone here, adult or child, who has not been baptized, Jesus' grace and forgiveness is there in the water for you also. Let's get it done.
Baptism is a bath of forgiveness. All people need that forgiveness of Christ. But why is Jesus baptized? He doesn't need his forgiveness. He has no sin to wash away. He is not only a partaker of God's covenant promises, he is the one who established God's covenant promises. So why is Jesus baptized? How does it fulfill all righteousness?
Some people, including some of the early Church fathers whose work I value a great deal, have suggested that in the waters of baptism Jesus, who could have no sin washed away from him, received the corruption of sin himself, taking all our sins upon himself, purifying the waters of baptism. It makes a really good sermon, one which could probably turn into quite a series of tent-meetings. Do people do that around here? They do where I came from. But I'm a little dubious about the idea. If we say that Jesus took on our sins in his baptism that would suggest he is not the sinless lamb of God when he is living and dying on our behalf. That would be a big problem, because we need a sinless savior. So I think we want to put that idea aside. But it is out there.
Here's what seems more likely. Jesus in his baptism fulfilled all righteousness by walking down the very path that his followers will walk down. He is baptized into death and is raised from the watery grave. The Holy Spirit descends upon him. He then walks through life as we walk once we are people who have been cleansed from sin, except that he doesn't enter into sin. He fulfills all righteousness as he walks through our life toward our death. He is the one who has been through the water ahead of us. He is the one who has dealt with all the challenges of this life before we had the chance to do so. He is the one who feels our weakness and who walks with us, promising that in his resurrection he will never leave us or forsake us. And as I remind people on their deathbeds, they are not going anywhere without Jesus. He has been there as well, and has overcome the grave, just as each of us who dies in Christ will do. Jesus, in his baptism and in his baptismal life, death, and resurrection, fulfills all righteousness for us, going ahead of us, being our forerunner.
Do you wonder if Jesus has loved you enough to forgive you? He baptized you into his death and raised you into his life. Do you wonder if Jesus will be with you as you endure trials this week? He baptized you and placed his perfect life upon you. Do you wonder if you will survive the struggles of your job situation, your family, even your own sin which has torn your family apart? Jesus baptized you into his death, but he is no longer dead. You also can be dead to sin and alive to Christ, walking in the newness of life which he has granted. Let us pray.
Our Lord, may this day, the day we celebrate your baptism, be the day we see ourselves walking in the light of your resurrection. As you have died for us, may we also die to sin. As you live for us, may we live to you. Raise us to newness of eternal life, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Our Lord, open our eyes in this season of Epiphany to see the gift you have poured out on us through the waters of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Our sermon text for today comes from the third chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Since we have entered upon our reading challenge and in the past week some of us have read Matthew chapters 1-25, I thought it best to have a sermon from material we have read recently. Today is the feast of the baptism of Jesus, the first of the miraculous occasions we celebrate during the season of Epiphany, that time of year for realization of Jesus' person and presence.
I'll read from Matthew 3, that evangelist's account of the baptism of Jesus which we read about previously in Mark's Gospel. Hear the word of God with me.
(Matthew 3, NIV 1984)
1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
“A voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”
4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Thanks be to God.
Jesus fulfills all righteousness. This is one of the focuses I expect you've seen as you've been reading through Matthew this week. Jesus does something and the evangelist says that he does it to fulfill a prophecy. Jesus is presented in the Scripture, and especially in Matthew's Gospel, as the fulfiller of all God's promises. He is the one who has come to keep our part of the covenants of God, as well as keeping God's part. Thus he is the one who can place his righteousness, his obedience, his mercy and his grace upon us. And here Jesus has John baptize him to fulfill all righteousness.
What could he mean by this? There are a few directions we need to look at Jesus' statement in order to unpack it adequately. First, we want to see how Jesus understands baptism. Second, we want to know who needs baptism, and finally we can see what Jesus was accomplishing in his own baptism.
First, how does Jesus understand baptism? Jesus in fact talks about baptism rather little. He gives baptism but he doesn't teach about it very much. It seems to be more something that Jesus does, or that his followers do, than something that Jesus teaches. Yet John talks about Jesus' baptism being a baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul talks about baptism as a sign of death, even a very real passing through death. In fact, the apostles consistently talk about baptism as a washing of sin, that which regenerates people, that which gives them a clean conscience. In Matthew 28, which shows up in our next reading challenge day, we will see that Jesus commands his apostles to “disciple all nations by baptizing them...and teaching them...” (Matthew 28:19-20).
The Bible teaches that in baptism we are washed from sin. We are cleansed. How can water do this? Our catechism points out that water cannot do this but when joined with the promises of the Word of God it can accomplish God's will. This is why I always try to baptize after the sermon and the confession of the creed in a church service. The Word of God accomplishes everything. I don't accomplish it. All I do in baptism is read the Scripture, pray, and get someone wet. Actually, it's usually two or three people who get wet. But the Holy Spirit washes you from sin in baptism. That's why a baptismal date is something of importance to many people. That's why we give you a baptismal certificate. When I baptize someone I give the person a candle signifying Jesus, the light of the world. I also give a cross, if possible one that is good enough quality that it can be worn throughout life. If I have sealed you with Christ's death and resurrection in the waters of baptism I have placed Christ on you. You can bear the cross then, remembering that Jesus has imposed his forgiveness upon you.
Baptism is a bath of forgiveness. Who needs this forgiveness? We, along with the vast majority of Christianity throughout the ages, baptize people of any age. We confess that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, not one. We all need forgiveness. So we all need baptism. If that baptism is a gift of God, a washing from sin which comes from him, it is not our own work. My confirmands are working with Ephesians 3:8-9 this week, one of those verses I can't quite quote in any one translation because I've worked with it in so many different ones. But here we go – see if I'm on the right track. It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, that not of yourselves, this thing is a gift of God. It is not of our own works, so nobody can boast. I think I captured it. This baptism which saves us is given to us. It is not our work of confession. It is God's work of redemption. It's the work we all need, young people, old people, every kind of person needs the salvation of God, given to us, not earned by us. I haven't gone around checking our records that carefully yet. But if there is anyone here, adult or child, who has not been baptized, Jesus' grace and forgiveness is there in the water for you also. Let's get it done.
Baptism is a bath of forgiveness. All people need that forgiveness of Christ. But why is Jesus baptized? He doesn't need his forgiveness. He has no sin to wash away. He is not only a partaker of God's covenant promises, he is the one who established God's covenant promises. So why is Jesus baptized? How does it fulfill all righteousness?
Some people, including some of the early Church fathers whose work I value a great deal, have suggested that in the waters of baptism Jesus, who could have no sin washed away from him, received the corruption of sin himself, taking all our sins upon himself, purifying the waters of baptism. It makes a really good sermon, one which could probably turn into quite a series of tent-meetings. Do people do that around here? They do where I came from. But I'm a little dubious about the idea. If we say that Jesus took on our sins in his baptism that would suggest he is not the sinless lamb of God when he is living and dying on our behalf. That would be a big problem, because we need a sinless savior. So I think we want to put that idea aside. But it is out there.
Here's what seems more likely. Jesus in his baptism fulfilled all righteousness by walking down the very path that his followers will walk down. He is baptized into death and is raised from the watery grave. The Holy Spirit descends upon him. He then walks through life as we walk once we are people who have been cleansed from sin, except that he doesn't enter into sin. He fulfills all righteousness as he walks through our life toward our death. He is the one who has been through the water ahead of us. He is the one who has dealt with all the challenges of this life before we had the chance to do so. He is the one who feels our weakness and who walks with us, promising that in his resurrection he will never leave us or forsake us. And as I remind people on their deathbeds, they are not going anywhere without Jesus. He has been there as well, and has overcome the grave, just as each of us who dies in Christ will do. Jesus, in his baptism and in his baptismal life, death, and resurrection, fulfills all righteousness for us, going ahead of us, being our forerunner.
Do you wonder if Jesus has loved you enough to forgive you? He baptized you into his death and raised you into his life. Do you wonder if Jesus will be with you as you endure trials this week? He baptized you and placed his perfect life upon you. Do you wonder if you will survive the struggles of your job situation, your family, even your own sin which has torn your family apart? Jesus baptized you into his death, but he is no longer dead. You also can be dead to sin and alive to Christ, walking in the newness of life which he has granted. Let us pray.
Our Lord, may this day, the day we celebrate your baptism, be the day we see ourselves walking in the light of your resurrection. As you have died for us, may we also die to sin. As you live for us, may we live to you. Raise us to newness of eternal life, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 1 Day 5 Matthew 21-25
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 21-25. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 21:1-22 Jesus comes into Jerusalem as a king, but not a conquering king. Consider how he is received and what his desires seem to be.
Matthew 21:23-22:33 Jesus, confronted by detractors, again begins to speak and act in parables. Pick a few of the parables and consider what Jesus' main thrust is with each one you pick. How are they received rightly by faith? How are they received by the people to whom Jesus is speaking?
Matthew 22:34-23:39 Jesus continues to push his detractors and their view of what God's priorities are. See Jesus' priority for his people very plainly revealed in 23:37-39.
Matthew 24:1-25:46 Consider the signs of the end of the world as well as what Jesus has revealed as his goals. How do these chapters bring comfort or discomfort?
Matthew 21:1-22 Jesus comes into Jerusalem as a king, but not a conquering king. Consider how he is received and what his desires seem to be.
Matthew 21:23-22:33 Jesus, confronted by detractors, again begins to speak and act in parables. Pick a few of the parables and consider what Jesus' main thrust is with each one you pick. How are they received rightly by faith? How are they received by the people to whom Jesus is speaking?
Matthew 22:34-23:39 Jesus continues to push his detractors and their view of what God's priorities are. See Jesus' priority for his people very plainly revealed in 23:37-39.
Matthew 24:1-25:46 Consider the signs of the end of the world as well as what Jesus has revealed as his goals. How do these chapters bring comfort or discomfort?
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 1 Day 4 Matthew 16-20
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 16-20. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 16 - Jesus responds with rather oblique statements about his work. Notice he always does this when speaking to people who approach him with questions which are not genuine questions of belief. When Jesus questions Peter, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet Peter then turns around and attempts to hinder Jesus in his plan of dying for the sin of the world. This idea of Jesus losing his life so we can gain ours and our then following him to lose our life in him as well is very foreign to us.
Matthew 17 - Jesus shows himself not only as the one who is transfigured but the one who transfigures other people. In the narrative about the temple tax Jesus observes that he is not subject to the tax because he is above it, but that he provides for the payment of obligations through his own supernatural means.
Matthew 18-20 Look at these chapters together as a striking example of Jesus' desire that people should be brought to him in repentance and faith, receiving his healing and restoration. We can all stand to look frequently at where we fit into the various situations presented in these chapters. May the Lord bring us each to daily repentance and trust.
Matthew 16 - Jesus responds with rather oblique statements about his work. Notice he always does this when speaking to people who approach him with questions which are not genuine questions of belief. When Jesus questions Peter, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet Peter then turns around and attempts to hinder Jesus in his plan of dying for the sin of the world. This idea of Jesus losing his life so we can gain ours and our then following him to lose our life in him as well is very foreign to us.
Matthew 17 - Jesus shows himself not only as the one who is transfigured but the one who transfigures other people. In the narrative about the temple tax Jesus observes that he is not subject to the tax because he is above it, but that he provides for the payment of obligations through his own supernatural means.
Matthew 18-20 Look at these chapters together as a striking example of Jesus' desire that people should be brought to him in repentance and faith, receiving his healing and restoration. We can all stand to look frequently at where we fit into the various situations presented in these chapters. May the Lord bring us each to daily repentance and trust.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 1 Day 3 Matthew 11-15
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 11-15. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 11 - Jesus gives comfort and assurance of his identity to the messengers of John the Baptizer as well as to those who believe in him. At the same time he announces condemnation to those who do not repent and trust in him.
Matthew 12:1-21 - Jesus shows himself to be the Lord who can use the Sabbath for the good of mankind, including providing food and healing. He shows himself to be the gentle healer foretold in Isaiah.
Matthew 12:22-50 - Jesus continues to show his authority by casting out a demon. He is accused of having Satanic influence, but denies it, observing that Satan does not cast out Satan. When asked for a sign of his divine nature he refuses, pointing out that the proper response to him is to trust him and receive what he is doing by faith.
Matthew 13 - Jesus tells a number of parables, some of which he explains. When reading parables, always look for the element which stretches your imagination. For instance, look at the effectiveness of the Word of God in the parable of the sower. Pick a parable or two and consider how Jesus is illustrating his nature and kingdom to those who believe on him. See how those who do not believe on him find his parables senseless.
Matthew 14-15 - Look at Jesus' reputation. He is a matter of discussion to Herod and his court, to the Pharisees and scribes, and to people in general. He engages in parabolic actions - the active equivalent of parables which would be spoken. Notice how he himself provides bread of life for many people. Notice how he passes through the water without harm, bringing life and hope to his disciples who are stranded in the water. See how he consistently calls people to faith in God demonstrated by their actions rather than putting actions first and leaving the possibility of their signifying faith open.
Matthew 11 - Jesus gives comfort and assurance of his identity to the messengers of John the Baptizer as well as to those who believe in him. At the same time he announces condemnation to those who do not repent and trust in him.
Matthew 12:1-21 - Jesus shows himself to be the Lord who can use the Sabbath for the good of mankind, including providing food and healing. He shows himself to be the gentle healer foretold in Isaiah.
Matthew 12:22-50 - Jesus continues to show his authority by casting out a demon. He is accused of having Satanic influence, but denies it, observing that Satan does not cast out Satan. When asked for a sign of his divine nature he refuses, pointing out that the proper response to him is to trust him and receive what he is doing by faith.
Matthew 13 - Jesus tells a number of parables, some of which he explains. When reading parables, always look for the element which stretches your imagination. For instance, look at the effectiveness of the Word of God in the parable of the sower. Pick a parable or two and consider how Jesus is illustrating his nature and kingdom to those who believe on him. See how those who do not believe on him find his parables senseless.
Matthew 14-15 - Look at Jesus' reputation. He is a matter of discussion to Herod and his court, to the Pharisees and scribes, and to people in general. He engages in parabolic actions - the active equivalent of parables which would be spoken. Notice how he himself provides bread of life for many people. Notice how he passes through the water without harm, bringing life and hope to his disciples who are stranded in the water. See how he consistently calls people to faith in God demonstrated by their actions rather than putting actions first and leaving the possibility of their signifying faith open.
Monday, January 2, 2012
"Matthew"
"Matthew" Carson & Moo pp. 134-168
CONTENTS
The discussion of the outline of a book of the Bible has always seemed curious to me. Carson & Moo are no exception in this chapter. They review various means of outlining the book, seeing that some authors have identified geographic frameworks, some have looked at christological development, and some have looked at a series of multiple discourses. It strikes me that we do best to observe important features of a text but not worry too much about what framework the author had in mind if it is not patently obvious.
AUTHOR
Authorship of books of the Bible is a difficult issue. After all, many of the texts in Scripture have no internal ascription. Scholars of a more liberal bent will frequently suggest that false claims to authorship were rampant in antiquity so where we have a claim to authorship in the Bible we should assume it is false. It does appear that the Gospels had the names of the evangelists attached to them prior to A.D. 140 and that the identification of authors may well have been present from very early on. After all, we don't seem to have any question about which Gospel is attributed to which author, as might have happened if there were a lengthy period of doubt. There are suggestions that Matthew may have originally been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, this claim may have been misplaced, as it may also be a claim made about another writing from the apostolic age. The place of authorship is not known. It would seem from the text that it was written in a place where there was both a significant Jewish cultural foundation and a substantial number of Gentiles who would not be completely familiar with Jewish customs.
DATE
Many scholars consider that Matthew was influenced by Mark, dating Matthew at A.D. 80 or later. Yet a number of scholars are now dating all the synoptics prior to 70 and suggesting that Mark may not have had primacy. The early church fathers viewed Matthew as the first of the evangelists to write.
DESTINATION
We should hesitate to assume that the gospels were written to incite conversion to Christ. They seem aimed at those who believe on Jesus and need ongoing encouragement in their faith. Matthew seems to be aimed at a predominantly Jewish audience. Yet he explains many of the Jewish customs, which may indicate that he intended the gospel to be useful to Gentiles as well.
PURPOSE
Matthew does not state why he wrote the Gospel. There are many different themes in the text. So it's difficult to say what his purpose was. We do see among the primary themes a description of events in the life of Jesus, as well as a good deal of Old Testament justification for the actions of Jesus. Jesus is clearly presented as the Messiah promised by God, the one who is rejected by Jewish leaders, and the one who is bringing in his eschatalogical kingdom, reigning over and protecting all who trust him.
TEXT
The text of Matthew is well attested. There are places where attempts to harmonize Matthew with other Gospels will be frustrating. Yet the text itself is stable and understandable.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Matthew was universally accepted in antiquity except by Marcion, who rejected all things which seemed Jewish. The book's canonical status has never been seriously questioned.
MATTHEW IN RECENT STUDIES
Matthew's Gospel tended to be ingnored by English-language scholars until the latter part of the 20th Century. In recent years there have been more major commentaries. Text-critical studies have been fairly common until recently, as scholars wish to see how the text may have been pasted together from various other sources. But in recent years more commentators have been looking at the text as a cohesive whole.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF MATTHEW
Matthew contributes to the canon especially in his preservation of "large blocks of Jesus' teaching" (p. 163), by giving us the story of the incarnation from Joseph's point of view, by emphasizing Jesus' life and work as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, by viewing Jesus as the one who fulfills the law of God, by looking forward to the relationship between Israel and the Church, and by emphasizing roles of Jesus such as "Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Servant of the Lord" (p. 164) etc.
CONTENTS
The discussion of the outline of a book of the Bible has always seemed curious to me. Carson & Moo are no exception in this chapter. They review various means of outlining the book, seeing that some authors have identified geographic frameworks, some have looked at christological development, and some have looked at a series of multiple discourses. It strikes me that we do best to observe important features of a text but not worry too much about what framework the author had in mind if it is not patently obvious.
AUTHOR
Authorship of books of the Bible is a difficult issue. After all, many of the texts in Scripture have no internal ascription. Scholars of a more liberal bent will frequently suggest that false claims to authorship were rampant in antiquity so where we have a claim to authorship in the Bible we should assume it is false. It does appear that the Gospels had the names of the evangelists attached to them prior to A.D. 140 and that the identification of authors may well have been present from very early on. After all, we don't seem to have any question about which Gospel is attributed to which author, as might have happened if there were a lengthy period of doubt. There are suggestions that Matthew may have originally been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, this claim may have been misplaced, as it may also be a claim made about another writing from the apostolic age. The place of authorship is not known. It would seem from the text that it was written in a place where there was both a significant Jewish cultural foundation and a substantial number of Gentiles who would not be completely familiar with Jewish customs.
DATE
Many scholars consider that Matthew was influenced by Mark, dating Matthew at A.D. 80 or later. Yet a number of scholars are now dating all the synoptics prior to 70 and suggesting that Mark may not have had primacy. The early church fathers viewed Matthew as the first of the evangelists to write.
DESTINATION
We should hesitate to assume that the gospels were written to incite conversion to Christ. They seem aimed at those who believe on Jesus and need ongoing encouragement in their faith. Matthew seems to be aimed at a predominantly Jewish audience. Yet he explains many of the Jewish customs, which may indicate that he intended the gospel to be useful to Gentiles as well.
PURPOSE
Matthew does not state why he wrote the Gospel. There are many different themes in the text. So it's difficult to say what his purpose was. We do see among the primary themes a description of events in the life of Jesus, as well as a good deal of Old Testament justification for the actions of Jesus. Jesus is clearly presented as the Messiah promised by God, the one who is rejected by Jewish leaders, and the one who is bringing in his eschatalogical kingdom, reigning over and protecting all who trust him.
TEXT
The text of Matthew is well attested. There are places where attempts to harmonize Matthew with other Gospels will be frustrating. Yet the text itself is stable and understandable.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Matthew was universally accepted in antiquity except by Marcion, who rejected all things which seemed Jewish. The book's canonical status has never been seriously questioned.
MATTHEW IN RECENT STUDIES
Matthew's Gospel tended to be ingnored by English-language scholars until the latter part of the 20th Century. In recent years there have been more major commentaries. Text-critical studies have been fairly common until recently, as scholars wish to see how the text may have been pasted together from various other sources. But in recent years more commentators have been looking at the text as a cohesive whole.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF MATTHEW
Matthew contributes to the canon especially in his preservation of "large blocks of Jesus' teaching" (p. 163), by giving us the story of the incarnation from Joseph's point of view, by emphasizing Jesus' life and work as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, by viewing Jesus as the one who fulfills the law of God, by looking forward to the relationship between Israel and the Church, and by emphasizing roles of Jesus such as "Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Servant of the Lord" (p. 164) etc.
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 1 Day 2 Matthew 5-10
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 5-10. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 5:1-12 Notice the change from the third person "blessed are the XXXXX" to the second person "blessed are you."
Matthew 5:13-16 Consider the properties of salt and light. What might Jesus be suggesting our lives show as natural characteristics?
Matthew 5:17-20 See how Jesus is setting himself up as the one who fulfills God's Law. Yet he presses his hearers to be as perfect as he is.
Matthew 5:21-6:4 Some people say this is a reiteration of the Ten Commandments. Is it? What could Jesus' purpose be in discussing these particular issues as he does?
Matthew 6:5-15 In some traditions the Lord's Prayer is prayed quite regularly because it is the way Jesus taught his disciples to pray. In other traditions, the introduction which says not to pile up meaningless words in prayer is cited and the Lord's Prayer is used as the framework of a good way to pray but it is not prayed in the words Jesus gave. Which point of view would you defend? How and why?
Matthew 6:16-34 Jesus reminds us again and again that our lives are a matter of trust in him, not in ourselves.
Matthew 7:1-29 Jesus talks about judging but even as he tells us not to judge he shows us how to judge rightly. What does he mean by judging? Who is the ultimate and righteous judge?
Matthew 8:1-17 Jesus shows his mercy and power and praises those who trust that he is able to help them. He shows himself as the one who is a healer in accord with the prophecy.
Matthew 8:18-34 Jesus shows himself to be the one who moves his followers from a point of unbelief to belief, from one type of life to another.
Matthew 9:1-38 Jesus shows himself to be the one who changes lives in ways that no normal teacher can change them. He exercises power over even life and death.
Matthew 10:1-42 Jesus selects twelve disciples and empowers them, sending them to work healing and peace where they go. His disciples are his beloved people upon whom he will put his protective hand despite the hardships they will face.
Matthew 5:1-12 Notice the change from the third person "blessed are the XXXXX" to the second person "blessed are you."
Matthew 5:13-16 Consider the properties of salt and light. What might Jesus be suggesting our lives show as natural characteristics?
Matthew 5:17-20 See how Jesus is setting himself up as the one who fulfills God's Law. Yet he presses his hearers to be as perfect as he is.
Matthew 5:21-6:4 Some people say this is a reiteration of the Ten Commandments. Is it? What could Jesus' purpose be in discussing these particular issues as he does?
Matthew 6:5-15 In some traditions the Lord's Prayer is prayed quite regularly because it is the way Jesus taught his disciples to pray. In other traditions, the introduction which says not to pile up meaningless words in prayer is cited and the Lord's Prayer is used as the framework of a good way to pray but it is not prayed in the words Jesus gave. Which point of view would you defend? How and why?
Matthew 6:16-34 Jesus reminds us again and again that our lives are a matter of trust in him, not in ourselves.
Matthew 7:1-29 Jesus talks about judging but even as he tells us not to judge he shows us how to judge rightly. What does he mean by judging? Who is the ultimate and righteous judge?
Matthew 8:1-17 Jesus shows his mercy and power and praises those who trust that he is able to help them. He shows himself as the one who is a healer in accord with the prophecy.
Matthew 8:18-34 Jesus shows himself to be the one who moves his followers from a point of unbelief to belief, from one type of life to another.
Matthew 9:1-38 Jesus shows himself to be the one who changes lives in ways that no normal teacher can change them. He exercises power over even life and death.
Matthew 10:1-42 Jesus selects twelve disciples and empowers them, sending them to work healing and peace where they go. His disciples are his beloved people upon whom he will put his protective hand despite the hardships they will face.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 1 Day 1 Matthew 1-4
Our reading challenge for the day is Matthew chapters 1-4. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Matthew 1:1-17 lays out the lineage of Jesus, the child of Abraham, the child of David, the one through whom Abraham is a blessing to the whole world.
Matthew 1:18-2:23 shows that Jesus' birth was surrounded by supernatural events which served to demonstrate that he was the Messiah, which protected him from harm, and which fulfilled numerous prophecies.
Matthew 3:1-17 rejoins Jesus as a young adult, being baptized by John. See how baptism is described and the prophecy John gives about the baptism which is received from Jesus.
Matthew 4:1-11 shows Jesus as the one who resists all the sorts of temptations Satan throws at us.
Matthew 4:12-25 shows Jesus as the one who proclaims the kingdom of God. He calls disciples to himself and circulates the region preaching and healing. This shows Jesus' priorities.
Matthew 1:1-17 lays out the lineage of Jesus, the child of Abraham, the child of David, the one through whom Abraham is a blessing to the whole world.
Matthew 1:18-2:23 shows that Jesus' birth was surrounded by supernatural events which served to demonstrate that he was the Messiah, which protected him from harm, and which fulfilled numerous prophecies.
Matthew 3:1-17 rejoins Jesus as a young adult, being baptized by John. See how baptism is described and the prophecy John gives about the baptism which is received from Jesus.
Matthew 4:1-11 shows Jesus as the one who resists all the sorts of temptations Satan throws at us.
Matthew 4:12-25 shows Jesus as the one who proclaims the kingdom of God. He calls disciples to himself and circulates the region preaching and healing. This shows Jesus' priorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)