Support for authenticity of book of Matthew comes from an unlikely place

http://www.spiritdaily.com ^ | Jun. 07, 2003 | Neil Altman

[attagirl]

Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003

Support for authenticity of book of Matthew comes from an unlikely place By NEIL ALTMAN Special to The Star

Buried in ancient texts of Jewish historical works are fragments of evidence that appear to show the first book of the New Testament actually was written by one of Jesus' apostles.

One of these texts also challenges a long-held assertion that no ancient text except the Bible mentions Jesus' birth.

Taken together, the information lends support to the claims of some Christian scholars that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel bearing his name, a Gospel that more than the three others emphasized Jesus' Jewish roots.

"One of the reasons that people have not come to grips with the Jewishness of Jesus is that it makes the accounts of the Gospels plausible," Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary, said in an interview this week. "For the Jewish or Christian believer, it helps them better understand who Jesus was, what he stood for and what to do with this Gospel."

Since the 1800s groups of scholars have argued that Jesus might have been a real person, but that he wasn't the son of God, that he didn't perform miracles and that the four Gospels are mostly myths composed by people who assigned to Jesus godlike powers.

More recently the scholarship has taken the form of the Jesus Seminar, a group of about 200 academics who have been studying the Gospels since the mid-1980s. The seminar created a media splash a decade ago when it publicly announced its conclusions that Jesus said only 18 percent of what's conventionally attributed to him in the New Testament. The Gospels, they concluded, are not historically reliable.

But as scholars of Judaism continue to research the history of early Christianity, they are uncovering evidence that appears to show the Gospels of the New Testament may be more reliable than some thought.

Matthew as parody

In the New Testament, none of the authors of the Gospels identifies himself as the writer. The names -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- belong to followers of Jesus who early church leaders believe wrote the texts.

Until the 1800s Gospel authorship was rarely, if ever, questioned. Then scholars in Germany shook up conventional belief by questioning the authorship and challenging commonly accepted dates for when the Gospels were written.

One of the first Gospels to be doubted was Matthew. Church tradition said it was written by Matthew, a tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus, a witness to events. Conservative Christian clergy and scholars said they believe the book of Matthew was written between A.D. 40 and 60, within Matthew's lifetime.

But other scholars concluded the Gospel wasn't written any earlier than A.D. 85, perhaps as late as A.D. 135, long after Matthew's death. If the author wasn't a witness, the thinking goes, the Gospel becomes less credible.

So to scholars the dating is important.

In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.

Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."

The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier.

The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late date of A.D. 85-90 or later," said Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.

"That is very significant and very important," said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in Georgia, because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did."

Blomberg said a close study of the parody's wording indicates it was based on an existing text. If that text was Matthew, the Gospel existed much earlier than some scholars believe.

Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.

"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it," Blomberg said.

Praise and pronouncements

Among the challenges to Christianity was the charge that Jews had rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted Jesus as the Messiah. But even one of the most revered Jewish texts, the Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to A.D. 500, suggests otherwise.

In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.

In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries."

Those words from the Mishnah appear to correspond to New Testament accounts that many Jews, including Pharisees and "a great company of priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

The Talmud mentions that the Romans hanged Jesus from a tree, while in another text section the Talmud does something done nowhere else but the New Testament -- mentions Jesus' birth.

English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, wrote that rabbinical writings mention that Jesus' mother, Mary, was "descended from princes and rulers."

Despite the noble lineage, Herford noted, the Talmudic text referred to Jesus as "Ben Pandira," roughly translated as "son of a virgin," which was considered an epithet.

"While the Jesus Seminar was making radical pronouncements (among them that Jesus was not the Son of God) and courting the media," Blomberg said, "what is less well-known to the public is the study in which scholars have been growing in their appreciation of Jesus' Jewish roots."

He said, "These things have never been presented in any popular forms of consumption to the American public."

Neil Altman is a writer who lives in Pennsylvania and specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. His others works have appeared The Times of London, the Toronto Star and The Washington Post.

David Crowder, an investigative reporter with the El Paso Times, and Bill Norton, of The Star, contributed to this story.

[attagirl]

A very interesting article for your information in this Age of Disinformation

[attagirl]

ping

[Gamecock]

Noted and bookmarked

[Maximilian]

Great article. I've seen other scholarly evidence as well for a dating as early as 50 AD.

[attagirl]

Next time someone tries to tell you the Gospels were written long after Jesus left earth...

[NYer]

Despite the noble lineage, Herford noted, the Talmudic text referred to Jesus as "Ben Pandira," roughly translated as "son of a virgin," which was considered an epithet.

A truly informative article and a worthy read.

[JesseShurun]

It is thought by scholars that Mark did indeed write first, and there was "a sayings source" (either written or oral) on which Matthew and Luke drew. B.H. Streeter proposed a 4 Document Hypothesis and a Proto-Luke Theory.

In the latter, he proposes that Luke combined Q and his special source about AD 60 (Proto-Luke) and around AD 80 expanded Q and L in compiling his gospel. "L" is the unique material in the Gospel of Luke. It accounts for between one-third and one half of the gospel. Much of the distinctive content and theology of Luke is found in "L". Whether it should be thought of as a lost written document or a collected body of oral and or written traditions has not been decided. According to a two-document hypothesis, Luke followed Mark's order except in the passion narrative, and included most of his material and then added Q and L traditions.

Streeter claims that the passion narrative was composed by Luke and is found to contain extracts from Mark. Others say that Luke inserted material into Mark. No one can be entirely certain what the truth is. From the Four Document Theory, it appears that we have Mark and Q in Matthew and Luke, "M" (all the material in Matthew which is unparalleled in Mark or Luke, generally agreed to be a pre-Matthean written source)from Jerusalem AD 65, Mark written in Rome AD 65, Matthew written in Jerusalem or Antioch AD 85, Q written in Antioch AD 50 and Luke written in Caesarea AD 80-85.

Per Ralph Martin, the beauty of the Proto-Luke theory is that it links with the Fourth Gospel and with the passion, and witnesses to the existence of reliable traditions of the life of Jesus which are not found in Mark. It ties in with Pauline theology, especially in the account of the Last Supper and strengthens the idea of Jesus' command to repeat the celebration in memory of Him. It suggests the existence of an authority comparable with Mark, yet presents a more fleshed-out Jesus. Last, the Christology expressed proclaims Jesus in the theologically significant terms as son and servant and has a soteriology, or an idea of spiritual salvation, based on Q, which reflects early Palestinian beliefs.

What matters in the Gospels is that the Evangelists should have gotten across to their audiences what Jesus said, and what was meant, by what He said. The theme of the Story, the Christology, the Purpose, the sayings are what the Evangelists cherished, not just the historical framework. They put it all together into meaning, The message is what matters. Their aim, in the end, was theological and that theological purpose was presented through the historical materials at their disposal.

[livius]

Very interesting article. Biblical scholars are such a mess. One of the parishes I lived in in NYC had a pastor who was a well-known Biblical scholar. I think, deep down inside, he was a believer (based on my experience of occasionally going to Confession to him). But he began everything in his homilies with, "It is commonly misunderstood..." [fill in blanks - that Jesus rose from the dead, raised the dead, healed the sick, or even existed...].

[Texas_Jarhead]

interesting. thanks for posting.

[narses]

You deserve an "attagirl" for posting this. A MUST READ for the Catholic Caucus, at least in mho.

[rmlew]

Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."
So a single "scholar" has a theory and writes a book.
How many revisionists scholars are at work in American universities? How manty are in Israeli ones?

I've read scholars suggest that the Book of Daniel is a crude description of an alien visitation.

The fact is that Jesse (Yeshu)ben Pandera (son of soldier named Pandera, not an "alma") was not Yehoshua ben Yosef.
If Judah ha Nassi cleansed the Talmud of refferences to Christianity and left this passage, it doesn't refer to Jesus.

[Domestic Church]

"The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier."

I think Gamaliel was St. Paul's teacher.

[Cicero]

The theory that the Gospel of Mark was written earliest was first proposed by a small group of German religion professors who were given their chairs at the instigation of Bismark, as part of his Kulturkampf campaign against the Catholic Church during the 1870s. (One of the best known responses to this vicious campaign is Gerard Manley Hopkins's greatest poem, "The Wreck of the Deutschland."

Bismark badly wanted to "modernize" Germany, which had earlier lagged behind the rest of Europe; this involved attacking and discrediting Christianity. He went after the Catholics first as the greater danger to his program, and was fairly tolerant of the Lutherans by comparison.

One of the chief reasons he wanted to discredit the priority of Matthew was this verse: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Some of the more liberal Protestant scholars of the time were willing to cooperate with Bismark, because this verse was not terribly popular among Protestants, either. If it could be declared a late addition, then it would have less authority. And of course the principle reason for wanting to date all the gospels late is to suggest that the early Church was run by power-drunk people who distorted the original story for their own purposes.

Since Luke and John repeat stories that are also in Matthew but not in Mark, scholars had to invent a lost manuscript called Q or Quelle (i.e., stories) to account for their containing materials from a gospel written later than they were. Thus the Higher Criticism, sometimes known as Scientific Bible Criticism, was born.

One of my interests is the science (if it can be so called) of textual bibliography. Frankly, most literary scholars would not for a minute accept the bogus and complicated hypotheses that had to be invented in order to proclaim Mark to be the earliest gospel. I actually know a Professor at NYU who wrote his dissertation on the hypothesized manuscript Q--a manuscript that no one has ever seen and that almost certainly never existed.

Whatever one makes of all this, it should be clearly understood that there is NO SUCH THING as scientific Bible criticism. Most of what goes under that name is a farrago of conjectures, no more authoritative than the silly doings of the Jesus Seminar. The compelling forces behind the movement are the various political agendas of the parties concerned: German nationalists and modernizers, atheists, enemies of Christianity, liberal Protestants, dissident Catholics, and so forth. They all have their own agendas, and somehow or other they all find the evidence that supports what they want to find.

Thanks for posting this. I don't know if it will stand up, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. The overwhelming probability is that Matthew was the earliest written of the four gospels.

[attagirl]

Thank you for your comments. They go a long way in explaining things. I knew that I'd read that it was now believed by some that Matthew was indeed the first gospel. But you connected the dots. St. Matthew seems to be a man who raises lots of hackles in our politically correct times. And all that Q stuff puts me in mind of the other inventions that had to be made to support evolution in the light of no real fossil evidence.

Yes--I thought it was an important article. Please ping others.

[attagirl]

Hi, RM! i understand that Talmuds complete with the redactions can now be obtained. Are you interested?

[attagirl]

I wonder if that's the same Gamaliel who said that if the new way is of man it will not last, but if it is of God it will? Doesn't sound as if he followed his own advice.

But wait

I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia--

The Jewish accounts make him die a Pharisee, and state that: "When he died, the honour of the Torah (the law) ceased, and purity and piety became extinct." At an early date, ecclesiastical tradition has supposed that Gamaliel embraced the Christian Faith, and remained a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of helping secretly his fellow-Christians (cf. Recognitions of Clement, I, lxv, lxvi). According to Photius, he was baptized by St. Peter and St. John, together with his son and with Nicodemus. His body, miraculously discovered in the fifth century, is said to be preserved at Pisa, in Italy.

And, yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia identies him as one and the same rabbi who taught St. Paul

[Cicero]

We should remember that when Saul held people's coats so they could stone Stephen, and when he headed for Damascus to persecute the Christians, he was not a wicked man--he was doing what he thought right according to his religious lights. So his conversion was simply a matter of turning his zeal in a new direction.

The Jews stoned Stephen and executed Jesus because they judged them to be blasphemers. Paul's conversion amounted to the realization, through divine intervention, that Jesus really was the Messiah and the Son of God Whom He claimed to be--which, if not true, was clearly blasphemy.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks for all the informative background. I've always loved the gospel of Mark.

Someone said that if Matthew and Luke were slideshows of Christ's life, Mark was a moving picture.

[rmlew]

I don't read of speak Aramaic. My Hebrew is quite limited. It is not something that I am proud of.

[attagirl]

there must be translations (?)