O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2HISTORICAL CONTEXT2.1 IntroductionAs mentioned in the previous chapter there needs to be an examination of thehistorical context in order to understand how the original readers would haveunderstood the teachings of Matthew 6:19-34. In order to uncover the historicalcontext of Matthew this chapter will accomplish two tasks:Firstly, to conduct a historical analysis of the text there would need to be anexploration of the religious, cultural and sociological context of the origin of the text(Lategan 2009:65). Secondly, there would need to be an exploration of the purposeof Matthew (Lategan 2009:65; Smith 2008:172). The outcome of both tasks bothtasks will have pertinence to the chosen area of study.2.2 DateThere is no manuscript evidence which details exactly when Matthew was written(Carter 2000:16). The most common suggestion is that it was written somewherearound 80-90 A.D. (Carter 2000:16). Much of the argument as to when Matthew waswritten depends on relative dating. It is generally accepted that Matthew used Markas a source, and Mark is thought to be written around 60-70 A.D. (Carter 2000:16;DeSilva 2004:238).If Matthew was dependent on Mark, and Mark was written around 65 A.D. thenscholars suggest several years for Mark to have become known enough for Matthew9
to have used it as a source (France 1989:83). It is likely that both Ignatius and theDidache referred to Matthew’s Gospel, meaning this gospel could not have beenwritten after 100 A.D. (Senior 1997:81).Carter (2000:916) notes that Matthew referring to the destruction of the templeproves the book must be written after 70 A.D. as Matthew gives a theologicalinterpretation of why the events happened. The orientation of Matthew towards achurch community and the debate Matthew’s Gospel projects against the Pharisees,suggests that Matthew aims to define the church community as separate to aPharisaic tradition (Johnson 1999:191). The Pharisaic movement is thought tobecome dominant after the fall of the Temple in 70AD.However, the 80-90 A.D. dating view, while common, does not necessarily stand upto reason (DeSilva 2004:238). The reasons for this are as follows: Firstly, there weretensions between the Jewish community and the Christian Jewish community rightafter the time of Christ’s ascension. Thus it does not follow that it was written after70AD during the rise of the Pharisaic tradition. Secondly, Matthew’s reference to thedestruction of Jerusalem could well be attributed to prophecy (France 2009: 906).One could argue that the prophecies make a strong case for a dating before 70 A.D;as (if the prophecies were already fulfilled) one would think there would be somereferences to the fulfillment of these prophecies (France 1989:85). There are alsoreferences in Matthew’s Gospel that suggest that the temple was still in tact.Furthermore, while modern scholars generally accepted that Mark was writtenaround 65 A.D. this in fact may not be true (France 1989:82-83). The early church’sbelief that Matthew was written first would place the Gospel in the early 60’s.Irenaues dates the Gospel in the early 60’s, and there seems to be nothing availableto contradict his belief (France 1989:88).2.3 AuthorshipThe Early church believed that the Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew(France 1989:77). The Orthodox Protestant view holds the same (Lioy 2004:11-12).10
Page 1 and 2: A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF
Page 3 and 4: ACKOWLEDGEMENTSI am eternally grate
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: Introdu
Page 7 and 8: 6.2.5 Discipleship and Community…
Page 9 and 10: sinfulness and pushes people toward
Page 11 and 12: discourses in Matthew, is meant to
Page 13 and 14: Christian disciple and money was an
Page 15: NT text actually did occur and did
Page 19 and 20: almost no evidence outside of the N
Page 21 and 22: addressed.Jesus says things in the
Page 23 and 24: The Jewish community was taxed very
Page 25 and 26: finding the origin and purpose of M
Page 27: instruction for the believing commu
Page 31 and 32: Matthew will have continued pertine
Page 33 and 34: Chapter 3Literary Analysis - Struct
Page 35 and 36: etween 6:19-24 and 7:1-11 that is c
Page 37 and 38: would not have ever found such a li
Page 39 and 40: and 7:7-11 are worth noting:a) Both
Page 41 and 42: appealing. He seems to at times ack
Page 43 and 44: three parts.While the literary appr
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 4Literary Analysis - Matthe
Page 47 and 48: common to a teacher like Jesus woul
Page 49 and 50: treasures would be, but agrees that
Page 51 and 52: Blomberg (1992:123) shows that the
Page 53 and 54: Talbert (2006:122) argues this by r
Page 55 and 56: for God’s kingdom, it is in a bad
Page 57 and 58: The statement that one cannot serve
Page 59 and 60: Chapter FiveLiterary Analysis - Mat
Page 61 and 62: Moses. Even more significant is tha
Page 63 and 64: ightly notes that humans are more v
Page 65 and 66: Secondly, Henry’s argument that o
Page 67 and 68:
Perhaps the point is not to cast So
Page 69 and 70:
The second reason related to this p
Page 71 and 72:
the scriptures that even the great
Page 73 and 74:
more than what one eats and wears.
Page 75 and 76:
CHAPTER SIXTHEOLOGICAL MOTIFS OF MA
Page 77 and 78:
6:19-34 and that this chapter would
Page 79 and 80:
It has now been established that Th
Page 81 and 82:
Kingdom requires its citizens to ha
Page 83 and 84:
“our Father,” i.e. the Father o
Page 85 and 86:
It must be noted that the Father-So
Page 87 and 88:
Matthew 25:31-36 presents Jesus as
Page 89 and 90:
unanimous among scholars. These rea
Page 91 and 92:
Unger and White (1985:171) note tha
Page 93 and 94:
interdependent interpersonal relati
Page 95 and 96:
examples of how a disciple may prov
Page 97 and 98:
Chapter SevenConclusion7.1 Introduc
Page 99 and 100:
the accumulation of wealth over and
Page 101 and 102:
them. The historical analyses highl
Page 103 and 104:
preparedness to give up monetary pu
Page 105 and 106:
e for the benefit of the believing
Page 107 and 108:
captivity to sin. The SOM itself wa
Page 109 and 110:
APPENDIX ONETALBERTS FORMAL DIVISIO
Page 111 and 112:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAchtemeier PJ, Green JB
Page 113 and 114:
Clowney EP 1988. Church. In SB Ferg
Page 115 and 116:
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishi
Page 117 and 118:
Peter Laing Publishing.Lloyd-Jones
Page 119 and 120:
73-97.Smith KG 2008. Academic Writi
show all

O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?