Word Pictures in the New Testament - David Cox
Word Pictures in the New Testament - David Cox Word Pictures in the New Testament - David Cox
Word Pictures in the NT [TOC]. http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/TOC.RWP.HTML (6 of 6) [28/08/2004 09:02:34 a.m.]
Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: Introduction]. [Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the _Logia_ of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic _Logia_ along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic _Logia_ and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark's work on a par with his own. But Mark's book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published _An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel_. We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author. If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between A.D. 50 to 60, then Matthew's book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that A.D. 60 is as good as any. In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Mt 9:9; 10:3) though Mark (Mr 2:14) and Luke (Lu 5:27) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/MT.INT.html (1 of 4) [28/08/2004 09:02:37 a.m.] Word Pictures in the New Testament (Matthew: Introduction)
- Page 1 and 2: Word Pictures in the NT [TOC]. Matt
- Page 3 and 4: Word Pictures in the NT [TOC]. Acts
- Page 5: Word Pictures in the NT [TOC]. Ephe
- Page 9 and 10: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: I
- Page 11 and 12: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 13 and 14: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 15 and 16: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 17 and 18: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 19 and 20: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 21 and 22: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 23 and 24: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 25 and 26: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 27 and 28: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 29 and 30: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 31 and 32: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 33 and 34: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 35 and 36: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 37 and 38: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 39 and 40: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 41 and 42: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 43 and 44: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 45 and 46: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 47 and 48: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 49 and 50: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 51 and 52: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 53 and 54: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
- Page 55 and 56: Word Pictures in the NT [Matthew: C
<strong>Word</strong> <strong>Pictures</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> NT [Mat<strong>the</strong>w: Introduction].<br />
[Table of Contents]<br />
[Previous] [Next]<br />
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW<br />
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION<br />
The pass<strong>in</strong>g years do not make it any pla<strong>in</strong>er who actually<br />
wrote our Greek Mat<strong>the</strong>w. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius,<br />
that Mat<strong>the</strong>w wrote <strong>the</strong> _Logia_ of Jesus <strong>in</strong> Hebrew (Aramaic). Is<br />
our present Mat<strong>the</strong>w a translation of <strong>the</strong> Aramaic _Logia_ along<br />
with Mark and o<strong>the</strong>r sources as most modern scholars th<strong>in</strong>k? If so,<br />
was <strong>the</strong> writer <strong>the</strong> Apostle Mat<strong>the</strong>w or some o<strong>the</strong>r disciple? There<br />
is at present no way to reach a clear decision <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> light of<br />
<strong>the</strong> known facts. There is no real reason why <strong>the</strong> Apostle Mat<strong>the</strong>w<br />
could not have written both <strong>the</strong> Aramaic _Logia_ and our Greek<br />
Mat<strong>the</strong>w, unless one is unwill<strong>in</strong>g to believe that he would make<br />
use of Mark's work on a par with his own. But Mark's book rests<br />
primarily on <strong>the</strong> preach<strong>in</strong>g of Simon Peter. Scholfield has<br />
recently (1927) published _An Old Hebrew Text of St. Mat<strong>the</strong>w's<br />
Gospel_. We know quite too little of <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Synoptic<br />
Gospels to say dogmatically that <strong>the</strong> Apostle Mat<strong>the</strong>w was not <strong>in</strong><br />
any real sense <strong>the</strong> author.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> book is genu<strong>in</strong>e, as I believe, <strong>the</strong> date becomes a<br />
matter of <strong>in</strong>terest. Here aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is noth<strong>in</strong>g absolutely<br />
decisive save that it is later than <strong>the</strong> Gospel accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mark<br />
which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between<br />
A.D. 50 to 60, <strong>the</strong>n Mat<strong>the</strong>w's book may be between 60 and 70,<br />
though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certa<strong>in</strong><br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r Luke wrote after Mat<strong>the</strong>w or not, though that is quite<br />
possible. There is no def<strong>in</strong>ite use of Mat<strong>the</strong>w by Luke that has<br />
been shown. One guess is as good as ano<strong>the</strong>r and each decides by<br />
his own predilections. My own guess is that A.D. 60 is as good as<br />
any.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Gospel itself we f<strong>in</strong>d Mat<strong>the</strong>w <strong>the</strong> publican (Mt<br />
9:9; 10:3) though Mark (Mr 2:14) and Luke (Lu 5:27) call him<br />
Levi <strong>the</strong> publican. Evidently <strong>the</strong>refore he had two names like John<br />
Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so<br />
disreputable a bus<strong>in</strong>ess to follow him. He was apparently not a<br />
disciple of John <strong>the</strong> Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to<br />
http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/MT.INT.html (1 of 4) [28/08/2004 09:02:37 a.m.]<br />
<strong>Word</strong> <strong>Pictures</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Testament</strong><br />
(Mat<strong>the</strong>w: Introduction)