|
Post by brianwagner on Sept 15, 2015 14:04:20 GMT -6
Is it possible Luke was saying that the eyewitness apostles got together shortly after the resurrection, aided by the Holy Spirit to remember everything Jesus said (Jn 14:26), and composed (Matthew being the scribe) a declaration, a narrative, as stewards of the Word? That narrative was Matthew!
1:1 - πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν - "many have taken in hand to put out a narrative." (Not many putting out many narratives, but many putting out one narrative, since there is no historical evidence of other first century gospels besides Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn). And this one Luke is referring to is before his and John's at least, and traditionally the first.
1:2 - καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν - "just as they delivered (it) to us." (Not "them" as the KJV and others have, but "it" should be assumed, since there is no pronoun, and the antecedent - "narrative" - is singular.)
I even think Matthew was as early as AD 40, and that Paul picked up a copy of it at the Jerusalem council and used it on his second missionary journey, referring to it in the phrases - "that which I also received" and "rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures" (1Cor 15:3-4). In that last phrase, in my view, Matthew is more clearly being referred as "Scriptures" than Jonah, unless one wants to give tremendous credence to allegorical interpretation of OT passages!
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Sept 16, 2015 22:09:40 GMT -6
The early church fathers would likely agree with your summation in part or whole based on Eusebius' well-known quote from Papias. I have always been sympathetic with the assertion that Matthew's Hebrew-language gospel was the first of the gospels with a Greek-language version to follow. Any dating of Matthew is very difficult without the presence of any strong time markers. Your dating before 40 is certainly early. Note the expressions in 27:8 and 28:15, "to this day" and "until this day," respectively, suggesting some reasonable passage of time between the resurrection and the authorship of Matthew. If the resurrection took place in 33 A.D. as I prefer or 30 A.D. as others prefer, it would be hard to know whether 7-10 years would satisfy enough time to warrant the expressions in 27:8 and 28:15. Brian, I like what you have presented, but wouldn't you agree that the flip side is just as reasonable? For example, it is just as reasonable to argue that Paul received a verbal testimony rather than a written testimony & that "according to the Scriptures" refers to the Old Testament given Peter's similar argument in the early preaching portions of Acts. Let me sleep on it.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Sept 18, 2015 9:58:50 GMT -6
Great point! I may have been unclear. I meant AD 40 as the earliest possible, but at least before the Council in Jerusalem in AD 50. "Until this day" could reasonably be said after a 10 year period, at the earliest, in my thinking, but 15-20 years would be a better fit of such a statement for a name of a field and a testimony of soldiers! Luke's testimony of a "narrative" being made by his time (AD 62) is a more significant witness to Matthew, in my thinking, than Eusebius' quote from Papias. And if Carsten Peter Thiede was correct about the Matthew papyrus fragment P64 being from AD 50, that would greatly support such an early date for Matthew also.
The canonicity and hermeneutic implications of seeing "and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" as being from a written gospel being available by that time are valuable, especially in shutting the door on the OT confirmation for this historical detail of Christ's resurrection being confirmed by allegorically understanding Jonah in a way the original readers of Jonah would not have.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Oct 7, 2015 20:20:36 GMT -6
Back from my overseas trip ... Thiede did not assert that P64 was dated to 50 A.D., so perhaps not a strong link in your presentation. Note this excerpt from www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm. "Before we turn to these manuscripts themselves, we need to clarify Thiede’s claim about the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17. Thiede argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated around AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for P. Magd. Gr. 17 would be possible. This date, which was picked up in much of the reporting of Thiede’s findings, is not the date that actually emerges from his paper. Although Thiede is sympathetic to the possibility that the manuscript might have been written prior to AD 70, he repeatedly refers more generally to ‘a first-century date’, or ‘prior to the turn of the century’, and in conclusion to ‘some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem’. All of these phrases suggest a date between AD 70 and AD 100, and this is confirmed in the following comment: I do not give a precise date, but suggest a date in the last third of the first century: The ‘starting point’ is the middle of the century; I allow for a variation of c. 20 years + / - and then opt for the later end, ‘soon after A.D. 70’.[34]" "[34] Quoted from correspondence to the present writer (20th Jan. 1995). In a public lecture for the Hellenic Institute in London on Jan. 28th, Thiede referred repeatedly to ‘a first-century date’."
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Oct 14, 2015 11:45:47 GMT -6
Of course we are talking about a manuscript copy, which points to an earlier archetype manuscript. If the starting point is the middle of century... plus or minus 20 years for this manuscript, a pre-50 date for Matthew is not unreasonable.
I am still interested in your view of Luke's use of the singular "narrative". Do you think it is many producing many (though no early witness to other first century written gospels or Q) or is it many eyewitnesses, servants of the word, who were apostles produced one narrative - Matthew?
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Oct 20, 2015 23:13:56 GMT -6
Been giving your question due thought, but slowed by the presence of house guests.
Is the Gospel of Matthew THE narrative to which Luke makes reference? Are the MANY the apostles who contributed to it with Matthew as scribe? I'm inclined to say "no" to both for the following reasons.
First, there seems to be a distinction in Luke's statement between the "many" who sought to arrange a narrative and the "eyewitnesses and ministers" who delivered the word to Luke and others (orally?). Matthew would certainly fall into the category of eyewitnesses, which again seems to be distinguished from the many who sought to arrange a narrative.
Second, I am not the biblical historian that you are, but I can remember reading in the past about early church teachers (perhaps even part of a movement) who wrote down the stories of the apostles. Perhaps I can research that, but is it not reasonable to understand Luke to be saying that these uninspired, written accounts of the oral testimonies of the apostles were collected by these teachers in an attempt to set forth an orderly narrative, albeit an incomplete narrative, thus prompting Luke to attempt a well-researched and complete narrative?
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Oct 21, 2015 15:29:16 GMT -6
I would be interested in seeing what you can find to confirm early testimony of written first century sources before or other then the gospel accounts we have. There has been much conjecture today of Q, proto-Matthew, proto-Luke, being such sources, but I haven't seen any confirming testimony of these from writers in the first few centuries. Of course, Luke might be such a testimony! But the early testimony has consistently been that Matthew was written before Luke, so it at least would have to be included among the "many narratives", if that is what Luke is saying.
So I see three main grammatical issues. First - Are there other examples, especially from Luke, where πολλοι as a subject takes a anarthrous singular object in a plural distributive understanding? Second - Is the subject of the verb παρέδοσαν (they) the "many" of verse one, especially since clarification of the subject, eyewitnesses, is introduced later in the sentence? And third - Since there is no direct object for παρέδοσαν given (the KJV supplies "them" not even italics), should the direct object be linked to πραγματων (them) or διήγησιν (it) or some plural distributive understanding of διήγησιν (them)?
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Oct 28, 2015 9:37:47 GMT -6
Perhaps I remembered wrong, but here's this to make me think:
David Smith,"The Days of His Flesh"
"Ere the story was written, there was a class of teachers in the primitive Church whose function it was to go about instructing the believers in oral tradition and drilling it into their minds after the fashion of the Rabbinical schools. They were named the Catechisers ... and their scholars the catechumens.... It was a most necessary service at a time when there was no written record and believers were dependent on oral instruction for their knowledge of the Gospel history."
Looking at the word "narrative," I'm not sure now that Luke is even referring to a written account. Could he be saying, "Inasmuch as many [teachers or catechizers] have set in order a narrative [i.e. oral tradition, singular] of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [i.e., the apostles et al] delivered them to us [orally], it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to WRITE [or compile] to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus"?
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Oct 30, 2015 11:57:33 GMT -6
Thanks for the insights. Why the need for "narrative" to be oral tradition, though it may be a possible choice? Matthew certainly knew how to write. :-) And if there has to be a distinction of two groups, one in verse one and one in verse two, though I am not yet convinced, :-), could the first group still be the apostles producing Matthew together, and the second group be other eyewitnesses that Luke investigates before writing his gospel?
The biggest difficulty your supposition poses, that I see, is that it would appear that Luke is unaware of any written gospel before his, making his the first, at least from his perspective. This goes against the later tradition of Papias, preserved by Eusebius, that Matthew was first. And it would be hard to imagine that Luke did not know about Matthew when Luke and Paul were in Jerusalem after the third missionary journey, when Paul was arrested.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Nov 2, 2015 23:43:37 GMT -6
Yes, your point is quite valid. Still working my way through this one. Here are some quotes to throw into the stew.
Scroggie, "But it must not be concluded that no writings appeared in this period [he means 30-50] because we are not in the possession of any.... Also the lost 'Q' document or Sayings of Jesus, used so largely by Matthew and Luke, indicates that there was considerable literary activity in this period, but none of it has survived, except in so far as it has influenced the writers of the canonical Gospels."
Milligan, "It is impossible to doubt that the leading facts of Christ's life and ministry, which had so profoundly stirred the hearts of many, were written down and circulated almost as soon as they took place."
Ramsay, "So far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the general character of preceding and contemporary Greek or Graeco-Asiatic society, the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died."
C. K. Williams, translation (1952), "Many writers have already attempted to draw up a connected account of the events which have taken place among us, as these have been handed down to us by men who were from the earliest days eye-witnesses in the service of the story; therefore, having examined them all carefully from the beginning, I have decided, Theophilus, myself to write a continuous account to your Excellency, in order that you may have trustworthy information about the things that you have been taught."
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Nov 3, 2015 5:25:06 GMT -6
Thanks. Scroggie is a little confusing. None are from this first 20 years, because none survived, but Q must have been from this period... is that what he is saying?
Why they need to postulate Q when you have the Holy Spirit bringing everything Jesus said inerrantly back to the minds of the apostles. Matthew helps them write it all down. Luke uses from Matthew word for word what he wants. And Mark later does a Reader's Digest version for an ADD cosmopolitan Roman audience, using both M & L and recollections from Peter.
John, of course, fills in with some personal accounts and speeches of importance and makes sure the theological application is not missed.
The only reason Mark is seen first, and Q is a theory tenaciously held to, is the rejection of supernatural memory promised to the apostles and the weak dogma of historical criticism that shorter means earlier.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Nov 24, 2015 23:35:27 GMT -6
Brian, it is times like this when I wish there were more forum voices to keep the conversation going, for between sick family members, a church crisis, and some intense mentoring over the last three weeks of a young man in need of direction, I have had little time to keep our dialogue going. But I've taken the last couple of days to get back up to speed. I've looked at the Greek until my eyeballs started drying up. I poked around in some of my books once again. I sharpened my memory on the arguments for and against Q. In the end, at least for now, I find myself wanting to read it as follows: Many (not the twelve, but other writers and followers of Christ) have attempted collectively to produce a comprehensive narrative (perhaps both oral and written) of the things that they learned from eyewitnesses, such as the twelve and others, so I too am attempting such a narrative, particularly since I have gained unique insights from my close association with Paul and others. I don't think your view is unjustified, but it doesn't seem quite as natural to me, though there's nothing in the Greek to definitively argue against it. Honestly had never considered your argument previously, but I can say that it will probably be bouncing around now in my head as a possibility until Jesus comes. - Daniel
P.S. Happy birthday to me!
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Nov 25, 2015 13:12:14 GMT -6
You have built it! More will come! :-) I appreciate our dialogs until they do!
Your evaluation is a safe one among the normal views... and as you can see, I love thinking outside the box, which could be "unsafe" sometimes, I guess. The application, however, from this question, I do think is one of importance, in my view, as we think of canonicity. I would like to hold that apostolicity and self-authentication are the two non-negotiables for canonicity. So since Luke is in Jerusalem for two years while Paul is in prison, I am guessing he would have recognized if any inspired gospels have started floating around already! His words here either confirm his is the first inspired Gospel, in his view, or he doesn't recognize his as being inspired, as well as not recognizing any other inspired gospels as written (or recognized as such) by this time. Or, he recognizes one has already been written. How do you think this passage relates to canonicity for any NT gospel?
I think Luke's evaluation of his own work, using terms like - ἄνωθεν and ἀσφάλειαν could point to his self-confidence in being with apostolic authority. As you may recall, I think Luke saw the resurrected Lord, and I like the traditions that he was one of the 70 (Luke 10) and possibly one of the two at the Emmaus road appearance.
Happy Birthday - May your next year be filled with the joy of the Lord!
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Nov 25, 2015 23:51:29 GMT -6
Perhaps we should return to basics. What date do you propose for Luke? for Matthew? for Mark?
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Nov 26, 2015 7:36:35 GMT -6
Sure, though I wonder what you think about, being once written and presented publicly, if any Gospel by an apostle, or perhaps under their authority, would have been immediately recognized as canonical - with divine authority for the church.
Matthew before Jerusalem council (AD 35-50) - Purpose: to present a written record of Jesus' life and teaching soon after Pentecost to a Jewish audience Luke before or soon after Paul's trial in Rome (AD 58-65) - Purpose: to present confirmation of Paul's gospel for Gentiles as complementary to Matthew, also an apology for Paul's Christianity Mark before or soon after Peter's death in Rome (AD 64-68) - Purpose: to present a quick summary of Peter's gospel for a Roman audience, also an apology for Peter's Christianity
|
|