From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 13:01:49 EDT
Terry M. Gray wrote:
>
> Any reason to think that Matthew isn't giving an eyewitness account
> here? Sure, he may be using Mark as source material but if he was
> there to witness the event for himself he could be adding details
> that he saw for himself.
>
> No doubt some of our scholars will have a good laugh with the
> suggestion that Matthew wrote Matthew and that it was written prior
> to AD 70 within Matthew's lifetime. But there is a good body of
> respectable conservative scholarship (scholars who even know the
> meaning of "haggadaic midrash") who would agree with this suggestion.
There is nothing funny about the suggestion but also no
reason to consider it
terribly likely. 1st, there is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew, or
indeed in the NT as
a whole, that ascribes this gospel to the apostle Matthew. There is
tradition going
back to at least the 2d century to that effect but it's questionable
whether it can be
taken back any further. (In fact the only one of the canonical
gospels that claims to
be by an eyewitness is the 4th, & that is not ascribed - at least
directly - to John.)
2d, one wonders why he would have used Mk here as a source if
he had been an
eyewitness. While Mt.14:22-27 is not identical with Mk.6:45-51, it
seems clear from the
use of the same words and phrases that Mt is indeed using Mk's
account as his basic
framework. (In contrast, Jn.6:16-20 is told very differently.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 13:46:10 EDT