|
|
|
|
|
ProtestantismGospel Personified
»
To follow up my last point on Matthew... I think it's MORE logical, in the face of the mainstream position of Markan priority (and the liberal scholar charge that Matthew would not have utilized Mark), to embrace the following potential scenario: 1. Matthew was the primary or one of the primary rabbinical scribes to Jesus - recording his teachings and key moments in his life. These notes were most likely "Q." 2. As the years went on following Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Matthew probably edited his notes to produce a proto-Matthew in HEBREW. This fits with what Papias and Irenaeus say. Being as they were second-century church leaders, there HAS to be something to what they're saying. They would've known. 3. Matthew probably did not widely circulate his manuscript(s) however, since he along with the other disciples seemed to be expecting a more imminent return of Jesus. 4. When Jesus didn't come back and some of the apostles and early church leaders were dying and/or being martyred, there was a push to put Christianity into writing. This move was taking place, scholars believe, in the 50s and 60s - it was spurred on in part by Paul's letters and the success he was seeing with those. 5. Peter and John Mark, at this point, probably wrote and began to circulate the Gospel of Mark. 6. Peter was then martyred in ca. 64 7. Matthew no longer could go to Peter directly, and he himself was getting up in years. We don't know what his health was like, but I would imagine that he felt some urgency to get his Gospel into circulation. I can very easily see him taking the Gospel of Mark along with his (Matthew's) in-progress work - and producing what we NOW have as the Gospel of Matthew. 8. Luke then follows with his Gospel
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|