Why is Scripture true?

[Erich]

The time that it becomes apparent is mostly in a survival situation. Where the ones with a certain “mutation” or gene variation is better suited to survive a given circumstance. If this variation gives the organism an edge on survival, the organisms without the variation dies. This happens over a very long period of time.

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

Only thing is that your still basing statements to prove Mr. Invisible on unproven assumptions.

There are a lot of loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (google [loopholes in evolutionary theory of origin of life] for a list of 42,200 hits). Here’s a summary:

1. There is almost universal agreement among specialists that Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen —‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.
2. The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidised minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million years older than the earliest life.
3. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals.
4. All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller/Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.
5. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form. Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins. Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.
6. No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup.
7. Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them.
8. Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.
9. Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents.
10. Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).
11. Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable.
12. Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘lefthanded’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes.
13. Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes.
14. The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize.
15. The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g: the Nobel prize-winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine.

 

[PennitentMan]

Erich, I’ll say it again, You are going off topic in a serious way. Now you are talking “first cause” and trying to debunk evolution? Stick to the topic, or start a new thread. I’m sure many of us will oblige you.

But I’ll mention a few notes just to satisfy:
I.D. is based on a medieval Catholic philosopher’s musings that still doesn’t have any proof to back up his claims. It’s mere speculation.
The fact is that the existence of the universe, and the nature of things in it, provide no evidence whatsoever for or against anything beyond, before, or transcending the universe. Speculation about things that can’t possibly be confirmed or verified is idle fantasizing; it isn’t science. Belief in such things is religion, not science.

And I’m sure quite a few scientists would disagree with you on debunking of evolution and the origin of life.
140 years? It’s a drop in the ocean when you consider how long the earth has been around. Of course they are not going to make all these discoveries all at once. Didn’t they just find another one of your “transitional fossils” recently? Heehee. Give it time.
They are studying Abiogenesis and are in the process of exploring and researching. You list only the bad points, but progress is being made. Things take time.

Once again I have to repeat that science, unlike religion doesn’t claim to know everything. Christians are instant-gratification kinds of people. Their why always needs an answer…and if there isn’t one right then, it must be “god”.
Oh it must be god. Yeah, sure.

Stick to the topic please…but I guess we have killed that one already.

 

[Erich]

Erich, I’ll say it again, You are going off topic in a serious way.

I’m going off topic? You’re the one who, in post #51, stated,

I guess this sidelined the thread a little, deviated from “is it true and reliable” to “who wrote what first”.

yet you’re the one who (in posts 21 and 29) mischaracterized what was said about the Bible, historical truth, etc. (to recap, “we can be sure we have an authentic text (and not, for example, a forgery), and we can work from it with confidence. We can conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be – God – or he was crazy. We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. If Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. Consequently, his claims concerning himself – including his claim to be God – have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.” … not “the Bible is accurate (or ancient), therefore it is historical”)

and you’re the one who, in post 33, BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE the theory about the “missing gospel Q” theory and the theory (unsubstantiated by anything written by anyone in the first millennium and three quarters of the Church) that Luke’s gospel was written before Matthew’s and Mark’s!

BTW, you’re also the one who (in post 39) discounts what first-century “hostile” sources have said about Jesus, because the people who wrote about what these hostile sources have said are not “contemporary writings," and who (in post 49) discounts Catholic and Christian sources because they’re somehow “not impartial”.

You certainly seem to be taking a “Jesus Seminar approach” to any/every point brought up in this thread that has as its underlying source something written in the first few centuries of the Church (e.g. Jesus is reported to have said X about himself or about what he will do, so the saying X is probably not authentic precisely because Jesus is reported to be the one to have said it); you dismiss as illogical anything having to do with “Mr. Invisible” as you call Him, yet when I point out not one, not two, but 15 problems with your “science correct, religion incorrect” view of the world, you are quick to respond “they’re still working out all the kinks, things take time.”

Christian faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. There is an abundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity. Conversely, it is impossible to be an atheist without a substantial amount of faith. For example, you say “(t)hey are studying Abiogenesis” … well, it certainly takes a lot more faith to believe that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention, than it does to believe that living things can change over time.

Or, as Geisler and Turek put it, that a “one-celled animal known as an amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation.” We now know there is incredible complexity in “the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba (a creature so small, several hundred could be lined up in an inch). The message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” And “we must emphasize that these 1,000 encyclopedias do not consist of random letters but of letters in a very specific order – just like real encyclopedias.”

 

[PennitentMan]

I’m going off topic?

with I.D. and Evolution in a Scriptural truth thread, yes.

You’re the one who, in post #51, stated,
snip
yet you’re the one who
snip
and you’re the one who
snip
BTW, you’re also the one who
Snip

And round and round we go…rehashing the facts don’t make them more true…

You certainly seem to be taking a “Jesus Seminar approach” to any/every point brought up in this thread that has as its underlying source something written in the first few centuries of the Church

To show how illogical the whole approach is, basing things on unconfirmed and third, fourth and tenth-hand passed down stories.

you dismiss as illogical anything having to do with “Mr. Invisible” as you call Him, yet when I point out not one, not two, but 15 problems with your “science correct, religion incorrect” view of the world, you are quick to respond “they’re still working out all the kinks, things take time.”

It’s not problems, it’s just things they haven’t managed yet. I’ll say again. It takes time, but at least we get tangible and proven evidence as a result. Christianity wants all the answers now and label it god when they can’t get the answers through conventional means.

Christian faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. There is an abundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity. Conversely, it is impossible to be an atheist without a substantial amount of faith. For example, you say “(t)hey are studying Abiogenesis” … well, it certainly takes a lot more faith to believe that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention, than it does to believe that living things can change over time.

But there you miss-understand atheism I don’t believe it, claiming as christinas would do about 200 year old events that they KNOW it for 100% fact; No, it’s just the best explanation we have so far.

 

[PennitentMan]

I’m going home now from work, see ya later

 

[Erich]

To show how illogical the whole approach is, basing things on unconfirmed and third, fourth and tenth-hand passed down stories.

And therein lies your bias. Unconfirmed by whom? By you? Of course, I fully expect that you would not confirm anything that conflicts with your view of the way things ought to be

The gospels of Mark and Luke have handed on the traditions taught by Peter and Paul when they were still alive. In this way, Peter and Paul authorized the work of Mark and Luke. In similar fashion the late-first-century, early-second-century quotations / independent writings of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Theophilus, Polycrates, Clement, etc. would have been authorized by those other Apostles (or their close companions) who were still alive at the time.

Don’t you think these early authors (as well as any other of the second-century folks who lived and wrote during a time when the elderly members of their respective communities would remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited those same communities) would have been “run out of town on a rail” if they taught or wrote anything that could not be confirmed as authentic teachings of the Apostles?

Was Abraham Lincoln a real person or a fictional character? No one living today could have had a chance to see him and to judge directly, yet there probably isn’t anyone who doubts his existence. After all, we have photographs, stuff he actually wrote down, and stuff he said that we only know about today because other people wrote it down.

What about George Washington? Consider the following scenario: the Union’s last veteran of the Civil War, Albert Woolson, died 8/2/1956 at the age of at least 106 (you might be old enough to have been alive in 1956; for all I know, you might have actually known Albert). Well, Albert was already at least 19 years old when Daniel Bakeman, the last Revolutionary War veteran, died in 1869. It is not out of the realm of possibility for Albert to have actually known Daniel, nor is it out of the realm of possibility for Daniel to have actually known Washington. Think about that… as few as two people separating you from George Washington, who himself was born in 1732. That was 277 years ago… about the same span of time between the birth of Christ and the birth of Eusebius.

Eusebius (who played a part in the 325 Council of Nicea) wrote his ten-volume history of the church between 303 and 325, which summed up the accumulated historical knowledge of the early Christian world. Eusebius had a great advantage over the researchers of today in that he had a great number of books in front of him which have since been lost. Fortunately he normally quoted what earlier historians, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others had written, rather than provide paraphrases.

No one is basing anything on “unconfirmed third, fourth and tenth-hand passed down stories.”

 

[PennitentMan]

And therein lies your bias

If by ‘bias’ you mean a quest for proven truth, sure.

The gospels of Mark and Luke have handed on the traditions taught by Peter and Paul when they were still alive.

Please prove this statement.

In this way, Peter and Paul authorized the work of Mark and Luke. In similar fashion the late-first-century, early-second-century quotations / independent writings of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Theophilus, Polycrates, Clement, etc. would have been authorized by those other Apostles (or their close companions) who were still alive at the time.

Scolarly dating shows this to be highly unlikely.
.
.
.
You know, I’m going to stop right here.
This is just a repeat and I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

 

[Erich]

Scolarly dating shows this to be highly unlikely.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… please prove this statement

The Markan Priory theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was written between 65-80 AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 90-110 AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written between 95-140 AD.

Yet, Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 140 AD for Luke, and as few as only 40 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 110 AD for Matthew), records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:
"So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

In particular (assuming Matthew was written as late as 110 and Luke was written as late as 140), the authors of the gospels themselves (or, at least, their pupils, if the authors themselves were no longer living) did not dispute his evidence. So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)

The whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on the presumption that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out in the author’s room and composed by him in his best Greek style. If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation.

(I can of course guess that you’re not going to accept this evidence, on the basis of someone else’s “proven truth”… but clearly it is the Markan Priory theory which is highly unlikely.)

 

[sadie66]

Read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism- it gives an excellent explanation of why we believe in scripture/ Jesus. In a nutshell, we begin by looking at scripture as purely historical. From what we know about Jesus (from scripture and other writings) we know that He was either a madman or who He claimed to be (the Son of God). Since no other madman in history has behaved like Jesus- we can conclude that He is who He says He is. If He is God, then He is truth. He told us that He founded a Church- that would infallibly teach truth. That Church decided on the canon of scripture and tells us that it is inspired by God and true.
But, read the book- it is great and not difficult to read!

 

[PennitentMan]

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… please prove this statement

The Markan Priory theory holds that .
.snip.
.

Yet, Clement of Alexandria,

etc, etc.

Once again you are only providing postulations and theories and people writing based on other’s postulations. No research, no liguistical analisies, nothing, just theories.

We’re done here.

 

[Erich]

No research, no liguistical analisies, nothing, just theories.

As if a linguistic analysis which supports Markan Priory is itself anything but a theory

But, if it’s a linguistic analysis you want, then let’s take a look at the Gospel of Matthew (and assume, as Markan Priory assumes, that it was written between 90-110 AD), shall we?

Matthew in 16: 1-12 attacks the Pharisees and Sadducees four times in a long passage. In the related passage in Mark 8: 11–27, we see the mention of the Pharisees reduced and there is no mention of the Sadducees. If Matthew had written second, why would he double the references to the Pharisees and insert the phrase and the Sadducees four times? Remember that by AD 85 the Sadducees had ceased to exist.

Why would Matthew (17: 24-7) in 85 AD be preoccupied with the half- shekel Temple tax which had ceased to exist fifteen years earlier?

Comparing the two stories in Matthew 15: 1-2 and 15: 21, with Mark 7: 2-4 and 7: 28, we see Mark finding it necessary to explain the act of washing and the nationality of a Canaanite. If Matthew was writing in 85 AD for a mainly Gentile readership, and basing his Gospel on Mark`s Gospel, why did he leave out the helpful explanations provided by Mark?

Matthews Gospel is full of examples claiming Christ fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies (e.g. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9). He reports the rending of the Temple veil (27: 51), yet does not record the fulfilment of Christs biggest prophesy – The destruction of the Temple.

According to Matthew 12: 38-42, Christ said the story of Jonas would be a sign to a disbelieving Jewish generation. The point of the story (see Jonas chapters 1and 2) is that the pagans would flock to be righteous while the chosen people would keep their hard hearts. The three-day whale incident is ancillary to the main story. If Matthew had written towards the end of the century when the Gentiles were flooding into the Church, he would have been able to show the full fulfilment of the prophecy ((CTH 42)).

These are all signs of Matthew writing pre-70 AD.

Orchard has pointed out that the letters of Paul to the Thessalonians, written in the 50s, show the influence of Matthews Gospel. Orchard comments: “We find the same teaching, the same metaphors and similes and the same key words, some exceedingly rare”. Apart from two in 4: 16, the words are used in the same order. The order is not so close in the second Epistle, but even here the words all appear in chapter 24 and the beginning of chapter 25. Other powerful supporting reminiscences of Matthew are to be found in Galatians 1: 12, 16, and 1 Cor. 7: 1ff and 9: 14 ((RO 119-120)). For a fuller description of these relationships see Biblica 19 (1938): 19-42`. This is further evidence of Matthew writing prior to the 50s AD.

 

[Erich]

Here, on the other hand, are indications the background of the Gospel of Matthew was Palestine and Jerusalem as it existed prior to 70 AD.

The new Christian community was formulating its position with regard to the Hebrew Scriptures, The Law, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Temple sacrifices, purification rites, the Sabbath, admission to the community, internal discipline, fasts, prayers, marriage, divorce and celibacy, as well its attitude to the Samaritans and Gentiles. As we read through the chapters and verses of Matthew we see this taking place. This is what gives this gospel such a Jewish flavour and points to it being written at this time and place. There are many examples which indicate a Palestinian background:

5: 19 Fulfilment of the law.
5: 23-24 Bringing gifts to the altar.
5: 35 Swearing by Jerusalem.
10: 6 and 15: 24 The lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15: 22 The Samaritan woman.
24: 21 The Sabbath.
19: 28 The twelve tribes.
23: 16-22 Swearing by the Temple and the altar.
23: 27 White-washed tombs.

Luke and Mark/Peter addressing mainly Gentile audiences omit these subjects.

The Jews lived by The Law and Matthew was very conscious of it. He uses the words Just, Justice, Lawlessness, worthy, judgement fifty times, while Luke uses them twenty four times and Mark only twice ((NCCHS 710B)). We can see here a sign of a progressive moving away from the Palestinian environment.

Matthew assumes his readers are familiar with the views and customs of the Scribes, Pharisees, Herodians and Sadducees. He never explains who they are, which would be expected if he had a mixed Gentile-Jewish audience towards the end of the first century ((RO 233)). He is busy solving the problems of Christian Jews, while ignoring those of the Gentiles who, by 85 AD, were pouring into the Church. Major theological concepts in Matthew`s Gospel presume an audience possessing a good understanding of the Old Testament. The Gospel uses concepts foreign to Greek thought such as:

9: 14-15 Nuptial Tent. 17: 10-13 Bridegroom. 22: 7 Marriage Feast.

The Greeks, thanks to Aristotle, had a word for species, but the Hebrews lacked this concept. They used expressions such as: Son of Man, Son of Ox, Son of Crow etc. Tresmontant examined this in detail ((CTH 30-45, 87, 131)).

Matthew writes of the Sabbath (24: 19-20), yet the corresponding passages in Luke 21: 23 and Mark 13:17 omit it. Again we see the Church drawing further away from her Jewish roots.

 

[Erich]

Here is linguistic evidence of the Gospel of Matthew being first written in Hebrew.

Eusebius quoting Papias wrote, “Matthew collected the oracles [logia or sayings] in the Hebrew language/style”. ((EH 3: 39.16)). Quoting Irenaeus Eusebius wrote, ”Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue/ dialect”. ((EH. 5: 8, 2)). Kirsopp Lake in a footnote to his translation explains that the word also indicates that Matthews Gospel also had a spoken form. Markans reject the evidence of Eusebius as unreliable because it challenges their theory. Most Markans assert that it is not possible to back-translate Matthews Greek Gospel into Hebrew. Yet they have no evidence for this assertion. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1912 stated that this assertion did not undermine the words of Eusebius.

In recent years two Frenchmen have thrown more light on this question. Jean Carmignac, a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, spent eleven years from 1943 translating The Book of Chronicles. Then from 1954-63 he was engaged in translating manuscripts from the Qumran caves, otherwise known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. Although his work was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, he noticed several interesting connections with the New.

So in 1963 he attempted to translate a Greek Gospel back into the form of Hebrew used at Qumran. Carmignac was absolutely dumbfounded to find how easy it proved to be. Realising his translation would meet with ferocious criticism from Markan priorists, he searched in the old monastic libraries of Europe to see if the translation had been attempted previously. In this way he also hoped to correct and improve his own work. Although he lacked the time to make a thorough search, he soon found sixty translations of Gospels or portions of them. Some were by Rabbis who had become Christians and others by Rabbis wishing to dispute with Christians.

Carmignac had not completed the writing of his scholarly findings but was aging. So his friends persuaded him to write a small book for the general public, which appeared in 1987. He not only wrote that Matthew`s Gospel was the first to be written, but that it was in Hebrew. He could also see a Hebrew substratum in the other two synoptic Gospels.

According to him, the order of composition was a Hebrew Matthew followed by a Greek Luke, and then by a Greek Mark. In order to conform to Markan priority, he presumed there must have been an earlier Hebrew version of Mark, which Mark later translated. If we ignore this presumption, his work dovetails with the Clementine tradition of Matthew-Luke-Mark. He dates Greek Mark as before 70 AD, so Matthew and Luke also before that date.

In 1953 Claude Tresmontant, a French Hebrew scholar, published a book dedicated to Hebrew thought. He then worked for many years to produce a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. While doing this he was overwhelmed by how easy it was to back-translate the Gospels into Hebrew. In his 1980 Le Christ Hebreu [English translation 1989], he explained in detail the Hebrew basis for the Gospels. He formed the opinion that Matthew in both Hebrew and Greek could be dated as having been written soon after the Resurrection, Luke between 40-60 AD, with Mark 50-60 AD. ((CTH 324)). While not confirming the Clementine order, it allowed its possibility.

Tresmontant detected a Hebrew substructure to Marks Gospel. At first sight this appears to conflict with the normally accepted view that Mark recorded Peter speaking in Greek. But, according to Orchard, over 90% of the talks by Peter consisted of him quoting from Matthew and Luke. So the Hebrew substructure of these quotations would automatically be carried into his talks. The additions made by Peter would also possess a strong Semitic tone because Peter was a native Aramaic speaker. J Kurzinger has shown that the word of Papias regarding Matthews Gospel would be best rendered as style. ((RO 128-9)). This would be a good description of a Greek document written with a Hebrew substructure.

When discussing Semitisms in the Gospels, Carmignac and Tresmontant accepted that many could be explained as a Greek author borrowing familiar Hebrew words. It would have been easy for the translator to carry over some Hebrew words. But the Hebrew sub-structure pointed out by Carmagnac and Tresmontant is of a different kind.

(cont’d)

 

[Erich]

(cont’d)

Hebrew likes wordplay and takes great pleasure in using similar sounds to assist memorisation. In Matthew 3: 9 we read of stones and children. In Greek and English there is no linguistic connection to assist memorisation. But in Hebrew it reads as abanim, and banim ((CTH 64)). In Matthew 9:16 the tear (qera) becomes worse (ra). In Matthew 13: 6 shemesh (sun) is linked phonetically to the word for root (shoresh). In Matthew 21:12, shulehanot (tables) is similar to shulehanim (changers). ((JC 29)).

Hebrew Matthew in 26: 38 probably used the words imdu (stay) and immadi (with me). The word immadi was translated into Greek, and therefore into English versions. This is acceptable in English but superfluous in the Greek language ((JC 30)). It is interesting that Peter, reading a Greek copy of Matthew and speaking in Greek, omits it (Mark 14: 34). We may ask Markan priorists why Matthew, if writing in Greek at the end of the first century, adds a superfluous Greek word.

Translators and copyists are liable to make small errors, and these show when we compare the Gospels. It is necessary to point out here that the use of small dots or dashes in Hebrew are not aids to pronunciation, as they are in some languages. In Hebrew they signified completely different letters. Many apparent discrepancies between the Gospels may be explained if we accept that Matthews Gospel was originally in Hebrew. In Matthew 22: 19 we read show me a coin, while Mark 12:15 has bring me a denarius`. But in Hebrew a coin is HBW and a denarius is HRW.

In Hebrew only a small difference distinguishes B and R from one another, so could easily have been misread when being translated into Greek ((JC 32)).

Matthew 13:17 has, the just or righteous men, but Luke 10: 24 has kings. As the just corresponds to WYSRYM and kings to WSRYM, and as the symbols for W and Y are very close, we are able to see how easy it would have been to read W in place of WY. Misreading the word king for just in Greek would be unimaginable ((JC 33)).

Earlier, we noted that some Hebrew theological concepts present in Matthew’s Gospel would be alien to Greek thought. Here we may note some of the more common Hebrew words and expressions used by Matthew but not by Greeks: Beelzebub, Woe, Flesh and Blood, deliver into the hands, hardness of heart, to set one`s face. Why would a Greek use these if not translating from the Hebrew? These words are not used by Luke or Mark ((CTH 67-71, 90-92 and 112)).

Tresmontant has pointed out that a Hebrew-Greek Lexicon had to be produced when the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). He holds the opinion that the Christians used the same lexicon in New Testament times. On both occasions the translators were worried about losing the full meaning, so tended to transcribe word for word, even though this could produce a Greek which did not flow well.

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and at least sixty Rabbis, is that the Gospel according to Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The examples supplied here are just a few of the many provided by the two French authors. This is in full accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus, which say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were gained amongst those who could speak Greek only.

Although these two Frenchmen firmly agreed that the Synoptic Gospels were written pre-70 AD, they did not take a stand on the sequence in which they were composed. But it is interesting that Tresmontant refers to them in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark four times on one page of his writings ((CTG 14)). As they have shown that Papias and Ireneaus were correct to report that Matthew`s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, confidence in the other information these historians provide, is greatly increased.

In 47 AD Western sailors learnt how to utilise the monsoons so as to sail from Egypt to southern India in less than 100 days. According to Indian records, Thomas the Apostle landed at Malankara, Kerala in 52 AD ((SGP 5)). After establishing seven churches he moved to Coramandel on the east coast where he was martyred in 68 AD. Irenaeus records that Pantaenus, director from 180-192 of the Alexandrian School of Sacred Learning, paid a visit to India in 190 and was shown a copy of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew characters. Pantaenus said the Apostle Bartholomew had taken it to India ((EH 5: 10)). Thomas was called Mar Toma [Lord or Bishop Thomas] so Pantaenus, who knew Hebrew but not the local Indian languages, may have misheard this as Bar Tolmai, the Hebrew name for Bartholomew ((SGP 19)). Whether this copy of the Gospel according to Matthew had belonged to Thomas or Bartholomew, Panteanus had seen it and it was in Hebrew. .
Yet Markans claim it was written to an isolated Greek speaking community after both Thomas and Bartholomew were dead.

In his De Viris Illustribus, Jerome claims that Matthew wrote in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of the Jews and it was translated into Greek. He writes that: “the Hebrew itself is preserved even now in the library at Caesarea …”. He also says that he: “was given the opportunity of transcribing this volume by the Nazarenes who use it in Beroea, a city of Syria”. He adds that Matthew, when quoting from the Old Testament, had used Hebrew Scriptures not the Greek Septuagint. ((RO 203 and DVI, chapters 3 and 7)).

The doubt regarding the use of Hebrew by Matthew is due to the view put forward by J.A. von Widmanstadt in 1555. Without firm evidence he asserted that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus ((JC 83)). Many books still repeat this error yet Luke reports that Paul used Hebrew when speaking to a Jewish mob (Acts 21: 40 and 22: 2). The Dead Sea Scrolls have now confirmed that Hebrew was not a dead language at the time of Christ ((JC 65)).

 

[PennitentMan]

Hey Erich.
For starters, Catholics seem to agree that Mark was first:

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm

“Markan Priority” - For most of Christian history, people thought that Matthew was the first and oldest Gospel, and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest Gospel (at least in the final version, as we have it today), and that Matthew and Luke are later expansions of Mark. Why?
Mark’s Gospel contains several grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical difficulties (minor errors) that are not found in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew was first, it is harder to understand how Mark could have introduced these errors; but if Mark was first, it is easy to see how Matthew and/or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark’s minor mistakes.
Mark’s Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26-29; 14:51-52) or make Jesus look crazy (3:19-21), magical (7:32-37), or weak (8:22-26). If Matthew was first, it is harder to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easy to understand why both Matthew and Luke omitted them.
Mark’s basic chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two Synoptics; but the material found in both Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders in these two Gospels. If Matthew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why Luke would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Matthew and Mark, but substantially rearranged all the other material found in Matthew but not in Mark. If Mark was first, however, then it is easy to explain how Matthew and Luke inserted the extra material they have in common (from the Q source?) into Mark’s overall outline, although in significantly different ways.

And then, let’s look at some alternate (and seemingly the more popular) school of thought on gospel dating:

Certain conclusions may be reached by a comparative study of the Gospels themselves. We are not long before we see that the Gospels fall naturally into two groups, the first three on one side, and the fourth Gospel by itself on the other. We shall revert to the problem of the fourth Gospel later, but for the present we must look at the other three, which are called the ‘Synoptic’ Gospels because they lent themselves to a synoptic arrangement, a form in which the three may be studied together.’ It requires no very detailed study to discover that these three have a considerable amount of material in common. We find, for example, that the substance of 606 out of the 661 verses of Mark appears in Matthew, and that some 350 of Mark’s verses reappear with little material change in Luke. Or, to put it another way, out of the 1,068 verses of Matthew, about 500 contain material also found in Mark; of the 1,149 verses of Luke, about 350 are paralleled in Mark. Altogether, there are only 31 verses in Mark which have no parallel either in Matthew or Luke.
When we compare Matthew and Luke by themselves, we find that these two have about 250 verses containing common material not paralleled in Mark. This common material is cast in language which is sometimes practically identical in Matthew and Luke, and sometimes shows considerable divergence. We are then left with some 300 verses in Matthew containing narratives and discourses peculiar to that Gospel, and about 550 verses in Luke containing matter not found in the other Gospels.
These are facts which are easily ascertained; speculation enters when we try to explain them. Sometimes the material common to two or more of the Synoptists is so verbally identical that the identity can hardly be accidental. In this country the explanation commonly given last century was that the identity or similarity of language was due to the fact that the evangelists reproduced the language of the primitive oral gospel which was proclaimed in the early days of the Church. This is the view put forward, for example, in Alford’s Greek Testament and in Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. This theory later fell into disfavour, as it was realised that many of the phenomena could be more adequately explained by postulating documentary sources; but there was and is a great deal to be said for it, and it has reappeared in our own day in a somewhat different form m the approach known as Form Criticism.

cont…

 

[PennitentMan]

2 Form Criticism aims at recovering the oral ‘forms’ or ‘patterns’ or ‘moulds’ in which the apostolic preaching and teaching were originally cast, even before the circulation of such documentary sources as may lie behind our Gospels. This method of approach has become popular since 1918, and its value has been exaggerated m some quarters, but one or two conclusions of importance emerge from it. One is that the hypothesis of documentary sources by itself is as inadequate to account for all the facts as was the ‘oral theory’ in the form propounded by Alford and Westcott; indeed, much of the recent popularity of Form Criticism may be due to dissatisfaction with the meagre results of a century’s diligent pursuit of Source Criticism.
Another important point which is emphasised by Form Criticism is the universal tendency in ancient times to stereotype the ‘forms’ in which religious preaching and teaching were east. This tendency can be widely traced in the ancient Gentile and Jewish world, and it is also manifest in our gospel material. In the days of the apostles there was a largely stereotyped preaching of the deeds and words of Jesus, originally in Aramaic but soon in Greek as well; and this preaching or oral tradition lies behind our Synoptic Gospels and their documentary sources.
We do not like stereotyped oral or literary styles; we prefer variety. But there are occasions on which a stereotyped style is insisted upon even in modern life. When, for example, a police officer gives evidence in court, he does not adorn his narrative with the graces of oratory, but adheres as closely as he can to a prescribed and stereotyped ‘form’. The object of this is that the evidence he give’ may conform as closely as possible to the actual course of events which he describes. What his narrative lacks in artistic finish, it gains in accuracy. The stereotyped style of many of the Gospel narratives and discourses serves the same end; it is a guarantee of their substantial accuracy. It frequently happens that, because of this preservation of a definite ‘form’, the reports of similar incidents or similar sayings will be given in much the same language and constructed on much the same framework. But we must not infer from this similarity of language and framework that two similar narratives are duplicate accounts of one and the same event, or that two similar parables (e.g. the wedding feast of Matthew xxii. 2 ff. and the great supper of Luke xiv. 16 ff.) are necessarily variant versions of one and the same parable, any more than we should conclude that, because a police officer describes two street accidents in almost identical language, he is really giving two variant accounts of one and the same street accident.
But perhaps the most important result to which Form Criticism points is that, no matter how far back we may press our researches into the roots of the gospel story, no matter how we classify the gospel material, we never arrive at a nonsupernatural Jesus. The classification of our gospel material according to ‘form’ is by no means the most convenient or illuminating classification, but it adds a new method of grouping the material to others already known, and we are then able to see that this fresh classification yields the same result as the others, the classifications, e.g., by source or by subjectmatter. All parts of the gospel record are shown by these various groupings to be pervaded by a consistent picture of .Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God; all agree in emphasising the messianic significance of all that He said and did, and we can find no alternative picture, no matter how thoroughly we scrutinise and analyse successive strata of the Gospels. Thus Form Criticism has added its contribution to the overthrow of the hope once fondly held that by getting back to the most primitive stage of gospel tradition we might recover a purely human Jesus, who simply taught the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.
The Gospel of Mark, because it was shorter than the others, and contained little that could not be found in them, was unduly neglected in ancient times. Augustine, for example, says that Mark seems to have followed Matthew ‘as his lackey and abbreviator, so to speak’.’ But anyone who studies a synopsis of the Gospels where the common material is arranged in parallel columns will see that for the most part it is Matthew and not Mark who abridges. Mark, of course, omits more than half the material which appears in Matthew; but for the material which they have in common Mark is usually fuller than Matthew. Closer study of the linguistic and literary details of the Gospels in more recent times has led many scholars to the conclusion that Mark was actually the oldest of our Synoptic Gospels in their final form, and that it was a source of both Matthew and Luke. This ‘Markan hypothesis’ as it is called, was adumbrated in the eighteenth century, but we, first set on a stable basis by Carl Lachmann in 1835, when he showed that the common order of the three Synoptists is the order of Mark, since Mark and Matthew sometimes agree in order against Luke, and Mark and Luke still more frequently against Matthew, while Matthew and Luke never agree in order against Mark. Mark thus seems in this respect to be the norm from which the other two occasionally deviate. To this must be added the fact that most of the Markan subject matter reappears in Matthew and Luke, with a considerable part of the actual language of Mark preserved, and that on grounds of literary criticism the differences in the presentation of common material between Mark on the one hand and Matthew and Luke on the other seem to be more easily accounted for by the priority of Mark than by the priority of Matthew or Luke. But while the Markan hypothesis is still the remnant hypothesis, it has been assailed by writers of great scholarship and ability.

cont…

 

[PennitentMan]

3
Thus the Great German scholar Theodor von Zahn held that Matthew first composed his Gospel in Aramaic, that our Greek Mark was then composed in partial dependence on the Aramaic Matthew, and that the Aramaic Matthew was then turned into Greek with the aid of the Greek Mark. Less complicated than Zahn’s account is the view expressed by the Roman Catholic writers Dom John Chapman, Matthew, Mark and Luke (1937), and Dom B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew’s Gospel (1951), which turns the Markan hypothesis on its head and argues for the dependence of the Greek Mark and Luke on the Greek Matthew.
The strength of the Markan hypothesis cannot be conveyed in a sentence or two; the evidence is cumulative, and can best be appreciated by studying a good synopsis (preferably Greek, but much of the evidence is apparent even in an uptodate English translation), where the three Gospels have their parallel passages arranged alongside each other in a form free from prejudice in favour of any one hypothesis. Along with such a synopsis, Greek students should examine the linguistic data as marshalled by Sir John Hawkins in his Hora Synoptica (2nd edition, 1909).
It is not so surprising as might at first appear to find Mark, or something very like it, used as a source by the other two Synoptists, when we consider what Mark really is. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (iii. 39), preserves for us a few sentences in which Papias tells us the account of the origin of this Gospel which he received from one whom he refers to as ‘the Elder’:
‘Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he [Peter] mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them.’
This account has received illumination from a new angle of recent years. Some Form Critics, attempting to get behind the second Gospel, have envisaged it as consisting amply of independent stories and sayings which had been transmitted orally in the primitive Church, joined together by a sort of editorial cement in the form of generalising summaries which have no historical value. But an examination of these ‘generalising summaries’ reveals that, far from being editorial inventions, they may be put together to form a consecutive outline of the gospel narrative.’ Now, in some of the early summaries of the Christian preaching or ‘Kerygma’ in Acts, we find similar outlines or partial outlines of the gospel story.’ These outlines in the Acts and Epistles cover the period from the preaching of John the Baptist to the resurrection of Christ, with more detailed emphasis on the passion story. But this is exactly the scope of the second Gospel, where, however, the outline is filled in with illustrative incidents in the life of Christ such as would naturally be used in preaching. It appears, then, that Mark is, generally speaking, a statement of the gospel story as it was related in the earliest days of the Church, and, in view of Papias’ description of Mark as Peter’s interpreter, it is noteworthy that Peter is the chief preacher of the gospel in the early chapters of Acts.
Further confirmation of the Petrine authority behind Mark was supplied in a series of acute linguistic studies by C. H. Turner, entitled ‘Marcan Usage’, in the journal of Theological Studies for 1924 and 1925, showing, among other things, how Mark’s use of pronouns in narratives involving Peter seems time after time to reflect a reminiscence by that apostle in the first person. The reader can receive from such passages ‘a vivid impression of the testimony that lies behind the Gospel: thus in i. 29, “we came into our house with James and John, and my wife’s mother was ill in bed with a fever, and at once we tell him about her” .
There is, to be sure, much more in Mark’s Gospel than Peter’s account of the ministry of Jesus. Mark probably includes some reminiscences of his own. He was in all probability the young man who had a narrow escape when Jesus was arrested (Mk. xiv. 51 f.), and for some of the details of the passion narrative he may have drawn upon his own recollection of what he had seen on that occasion. There is a tradition that his parents’ house (cf. Acts X11. 12) was the one in which the Last Supper was held.
The view that Mark underlies the other Synoptic Gospels is not so very different in essence from the older view that the common element in the three is the oral preaching current in the early Church; Mark is, by and large, that oral preaching written down. But the form in which the oral preaching underlies Matthew and Luke is the form given to it by Mark, who not only acted as Peter’s interpreter (presumably translating Peter’s Galilean Aramaic into Greek), but incorporated in his Gospel the substance of the preaching as he heard it from Peter’s lips. There is no lack of evidence in his Gospel that much of the material originally existed in Aramaic; his Greek in places preserves the Aramaic idiom quite unmistakably.
Mark’s Gospel appears to have been written in the first instance for the Christian community of Rome, in the early sixties of the first century, but it quickly enjoyed a very wide circulation throughout the Church.

cont…

 

[PennitentMan]

1. The gospel as preached in those early days emphasised what Jesus did rather than what He said. The proclamation which led to the conversion of Jews and Gentiles was the good news that by His death and triumph He had procured remission of sins and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers But when they became Christians they had much more to learn, and in particular the teaching of Jesus. Now it is striking that the greater part of the non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke consists of sayings of Jesus. This has led to the conjecture of another early document on which both Matthew and Luke drew for their common nonMarkan material, the document usually referred to as ‘Q’, and envisaged as a collection of sayings of Jesus.’ Whatever may be the truth about such a document, it will be convenient to use ‘Q’ as a symbol denoting this non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke. There is evidence in the Greek of this ‘Q’ material that it has been translated from Aramaic, and possibly from an Aramaic document, not merely from an Aramaic oral tradition. Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palatine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and His apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it ‘Hebrew’, thus not distinguishing in name between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias: ‘Matthew compiled the Logia in the “Hebrew” speech *, and every one translated them as best he could.’ Various suggestions have been made as to the meaning of this term ‘Logia’, which literally means ‘oracles’; but the most probable explanation is that it refers to a collection of our Lord’s sayings. It is used in the New Testament of the oracles communicated through the Old Testament prophets, and Jesus was regarded by His followers as ‘a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.’ Now, when an attempt is made to isolate the document underlying the ‘Q’ material in Matthew and Luke, it appears to have been constructed very much on the lines of one of the prophetical books of the Old Testament. These books commonly contain an account of the prophet’s call to his distinctive ministry, with a record of his oracles set in a narrative framework, but no mention of the prophet’s death. So this document, when reconstructed on the evidence provided by Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, is seen to begin with an account of Jesus’ baptism by John and His temptation in the wilderness, which formed the prelude to His Galilean ministry, followed by groups of His sayings set in a minimum of narrative framework, but it evidently did not tell the story of His passion. His teaching is set forth in four main groupings, which may be entitled: (a) Jesus and John the Baptist; (b) Jesus and His disciples; (c) Jesus and His opponents; (d) Jesus and the future.’
   It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Papias was referring to just such a work as this when he said that Matthew compiled the Logia. His further statement, that the Logia were compiled in the ‘Hebrew speech’, accords with the internal evidence that an Aramaic substratum underlies the ‘Q’ material in Matthew and Luke. And when he adds that every man translated these Logia as best he could, this suggests that several Greek versions of them were current, which partly explains some of the differences in the sayings of Jesus common to the first and third Gospels; for in many places where the Greek of these Gospels differs, it can be shown that one and the same Aramaic original underlies the variant Greek renderings.
   Another interesting fact which comes to light when we try to reconstruct the original Aramaic in which our Lord’s sayings in all the Gospels were spoken is that very many of these sayings exhibit poetical features. Even in a translation we can see how full they are of parallelism, which is so constant a mark of Old Testament poetry. When they are turned into Aramaic, however, they are seen to be marked by regular poetical rhythm, and even, at times, rhyme. This has been demonstrated in particular by the late Professor C. F. Burney in The Poetry of our Lord (1925). A discourse that follows a recognisable pattern is more easily memorised, and if Jesus wished His teaching to be memorised His use of poetry is easily explained. Besides, Jesus was recognised by His contemporaries as a prophet, and prophets in Old Testament days were accustomed to utter their oracles in poetical form. Where this form has been preserved, we have a further assurance that His teaching has been handed down to us as it was originally given.
   So, just as we have found reason to see the authority of contemporary evidence behind the gospel narrative as preserved by Mark, the sayings of our Lord appear to be supported by similar trustworthy authority. But, in addition to the discourses in Matthew which have some parallel in Luke, there are others occurring in the first Gospel only, which may conveniently be denoted by the letter ‘M’. These ‘M’ sayings have been envisaged as coming from another collection of the sayings of Jesus, largely parallel to the collection represented by ‘Q’, but compiled and preserved in the conservative Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem, whereas the ‘Q’ material more probably served the requirements of the Hellenistic Christians who left Jerusalem after Stephen’s death to spread the gospel and plant churches in the provinces adjoining Palestine, and notably in Syrian Antioch.

cont…*

 

[PennitentMan]

1. If we are right in naming the Matthaean Logia as the source from which the ‘Q’ material was drawn, this compilation must have taken shape at an early point in primitive Christian history. Certainly it would be most helpful for new converts, and especially Gentile converts, to have such a compendium of the teaching of Jesus. It may well have been in existence by AD 50. Some scholars have suggested that even Mark shows some traces of it in his Gospel, but this is uncertain.
   The Gospel of Matthew seems to have appeared in the neighbourhood of Syrian Antioch some time after AD 70. It represents the substance of the apostolic preaching as recorded by Mark, expanded by the incorporation of other narrative material, and combined with a Greek version of the Matthaean Logia together with sayings of Jesus derived from other quarters. All this material has been arranged so as to serve the purpose of a manual for teaching and administration within the Church. The sayings of Jesus are arranged so as to form five great discourses, dealing respectively with (a) the law of the kingdom of God (chapters v to vii), (b) the preaching of the kingdom (x. 5-42), (c) the growth of the kingdom (xiii. 3-52), (d) the fellowship of the kingdom (chapter xviii), and (e) the consummation of the kingdom (chapter xxivxxv). The narrative of the ministry of Jesus is so arranged that each section leads on naturally to the discourse which follows it. The whole is prefaced by a prologue describing the nativity of the King (chapters iii) and concluded by an epilogue relating the passion and triumph of the King (chapters xxvi-xxviii).
   The fivefold structure of this Gospel is probably modelled on the fivefold structure of the Old Testament law; it is presented as the Christian Torah (which means 'direction or ‘instruction’ rather than ‘law’ in the more restricted sense). The Evangelist is also at pains to show how the story of Jesus represents the fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures, and in places he even implies that the experiences of Jesus recapitulate the experiences of the people of Israel in Old Testament times. Thus, just as the children of Israel went down into Egypt in their national infancy and came out of it at the Exodus, so Jesus in His infancy must also go down to Egypt and come out of it, that the words spoken of them in Hosea xi. I might be fulfilled in His experience, too: ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son’ (Mt. ii. 15).
   While some of the sayings of Jesus found in Luke are almost verbally identical with their Matthaen counterparts (cf. Lk. x. 21 f. with Mt. xi. 25-27), and others are reasonably similar, some show considerable differences, and it is unnecessary to suppose that for these last the first and third evangelists depended on one and the same documentary source. It is unlikely, for example, that the Matthaean and Lucan versions of the Beatituds are drawn from one document (ct. Mt. v. 3 ff. with Lk. vi. 20 ff.). We have Luke’s own statement that many had undertaken to draw up a narrative of the gospel history (Lk. i. I), and it is unnecessarily narrowing the field to suppose that all the nonMarkan material common in one form or another to Matthew and Luke must have been derived from one written source. To all appearances Luke was acquainted at a fairly early date with the Matthaean Logia, evidently in one or more of its Greek versions. But he had other sources of information, and to them in particular he was indebted for those narratives and parables which give his Gospel its special charm and beauty. To this material peculiar to Luke we may conveniently assign the symbol ‘L’.
   Early tradition asserts that Luke was a native of Antioch. If so, he had opportunities of learning many things from the founders of the Antiochene church, the first Gentile church (Acts xi. 19ff.); he may even have met Peter, who once paid a visit there (Gal. ii.11ff.). He shows a special interest in the Herod family: was this due to his acquaintance with Manaen, fosterbrother of Herod Antipas and one of the teacher in the church of Antioch (Acts xiii. 1)? Then he must have learned much from Paul. Though Paul had not been a follower of Jesus before the crucifixion, yet he must have made it his business after his conversion to learn as much about Him as he could (see chapter vi). What did Peter and Paul talk about during the fortnight they spent together in Jerusalem about AD 35 (Gal. i. 18)? As Professor Dodd puts it, 'we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather." It was a golden opportunity for Paul to learn the details of the story of Jesus from one whose knowledge of that story was unsurpassed.
   Again, Luke seems to have spent two years in or near Palestine during Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem and detention in Caesarea (cf. Acts xxiv. 27). These years afforded him unique opportunities of increasing his knowledge of the story of Jesus and of the early Church. On one occasion at least, he is known to have met James, the brother of Jesus; ant he may have seized other opportunities of making the acquaintance of members of the holy family. Some of his special material reflects an oral Aramaic tradition, which Luke received from various Palestinian informants, while other parts of it were evidently derived from Christian Hellenists. In particular, there is reason to believe that much of the information which Luke used for the third Gospel and Acts was derived from Philip and his family in Cesearea (cf. Acts xxi. 8 f ). Eusebius tells us on the authority of Papias and other early writers that at a later date Philip’s four prophetic daughters were famed in the Church as authorities for the history of its earliest days.

cont…

 

[PennitentMan]

1. The account of the nativities of John the Baptist and Jesus in the first two chapters of the Gospel has been describcd as the most archaic passage in the New Testament; it breathes the atmosphere of a humble and holy Palestinian community which cherished ardent hopes of the early fulfilment of God’s ancient promises to His people Israel, and saw in the birth of these two children a sign that their hopes were about to be realized. To this community belonged Mary and Joseph, with the parents of John the Baptist, and Simeon and Anna, who greeted the presentation of the infant Christ in the temple at Jerusalem, and later on Joseph of Arimathaea, ‘who was looking for the kingdom of God’ (Lk. xxiii. 51).
   After Paul’s two years of detention in Caesarea, Luke went with him to Rome, and there we find him in Paul’s company along with Mark about the year 60 (Col. iv.10, 14; Phm. 24). His contact with Mark there is sufficient to account for his evident indebtedness to Mark’s narrative. This summary of the way in which the shirt Gospel may have been built up 15 based on biblical evidence, and it accords very well with the internal data, evaluated by literary criticism which suggests that Luke first enlarged his version of the Mattha an Logia by acting the information he acquired from various sources, especially in Palatine. This first draft, ‘Q’ + ‘L’, has been called ‘ProtoLuke’,’ though there is no evidence that it was ever published separately. It was subsequently amplified by the insertion at appropriate points of blocks of material derived from Mark, especially where the Markan material did not overlap the material already collected, and thus our third Gospel was produced. Luke tells us in the preface to his Gospel that he had followed the whole course of events accurately from the beginning, and he evidently did this by having recourse to the best authorities he could find’ and then arranging his material after the manner of a trained historian."
   Luke’s arrival with Paul in Rome suggests itself as a fitting occasion for Luke’s taking in hand to draw up his orderly and reliable account of Christian beginnings. If the official and cultured classes of Rome knew anything of Christianity before, they probably dismissed it as a disreputable eastern cult; but the presence in the city of a Roman citizen, who had appealed to Caesar for a fair hearing in a case which involved the whole question of the character and aims of Christianity, made it necessary for some members of these classes to examine Christianity seriously. The ‘most excellent Theophilus’, to whom Luke dedicated his twofold history, was possibly one of those who were charged with investigating the situation, and such a work as Luke’s, even in a preliminary draft, would have been an invaluable document in the case.
   We must never fall into the error of thinking that when we have come to a conclusion about the sources of a literary work we have learned all that needs to be known about it. Source Criticism is merely a preliminary piece of spadework. Who would think that we have said all that is to be said about one of Shakespeare’s historical plays when we have discovered what its sources were? So also, whatever their sources were, the Gospels are there before our eyes, each an individual literary work with its own characteristic viewpoint which has in large measure controlled the choice and presentation of the subject matter. In attempting to discover how they were composed, we must beware of regarding them as scissors and paste compilations.
   Each of them was written in the first instance for a definite constituency, with the object of presenting Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God and Saviour. Mark entitles his work ‘the beginning of the good news of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God’, and towards the end we find a Roman centurion confessing at the foot of the cross, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God’ (Mk. xv. 39). We may imagine how effective this testimony must have been in Rome, where this Gospel was first published. Luke, the Gentile physician, inheriting the traditions of Greek historical writing, composes his work after diligent research in order that his readers may know the secure basis of the account of Christian origins which they have received, and withal infuses into it such a spirit of broad human sympathy that many have been constrained to pronounce his Gospel, with Ernest Renan, ‘the most beautiful book in the world’. Matthew’s Gospel occupies by right its place at the head of the New Testament canon; what other book could so fittingly form the link between the Old and New Testaments as that which proclaims itself, in language reminiscent of the first book of the Old Testament canon, 'The book of the generation of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,? Although it has been called the most Jewish of the Gospels, yet it is devoid of any national particularism or religious exclusiveness, for this is the Gospel which ends with the rejected but vindicated King of Israel’s commission to His servants: ‘Go and make disciples of all the nations’ (Mt. xxviii. 19).
   The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord’s teaching while His words were actually being uttered. The oral sources go back to the very beginning of Christian history. We are, in fact, practically all the way through in touch with the evidence of eyewitnesses. The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of this firsthand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion.
   Cont…