From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 19:11:00 EDT
>the suggestion that Matthew wrote Matthew and that it was written
>prior to AD 70 within Matthew's lifetime. <
A few years ago, it was claimed that a couple of scraps of Matthew
dated to this time, obviously requiring the composition of Matthew to
be this early. Does anyone know more about this? I have, but have
not read, a book promoting this view, which does not appear to be the
most objective source. I think the dating was paleographic
(handwriting style), which would be hard to make precise enough to be
certain.
> one wonders why Matthew 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.<
Why not use an existing framework instead of making up a new one? If
Mark is correctly identified as closely reflecting Peter's preaching
of the gospel, then the Marcan outline would have been familiar to
most of the early church, including Matthew.
On a similar topic, though addressing differences rather than
similarities, Dorothy Sayers has a review of John as if it were the
Times Book Review section for AD 90. It is in the Whimsical
Christian anthology. The review credits John with seeking to
supplement and clear up previous accounts, rather than repeating what
was already familiar.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:32:34 EDT