O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...
O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ... O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...
This view is largely rejected by modern scholars for two reasons. Firstly mostmodern scholars assume a dating too late to be written by Mathew (France1989:77). Secondly, it is assumed that the Gospel is something other than a followerof Christ from Galilee would have fashioned.Davies (1993:1) would fall into the camp of scholars who believe the apostleMatthew did not write the gospel in question. He believes that the Gospel wasattributed to Matthew as author only late in the second century and for the purposeof apostolic authority. He also says that there is no external evidence for believingMatthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name.However, as noted in section 2.1, such a late dating may not be the case. Further,the move to a late dating and thus a move away from Matthew as author is based onthe assumption that the book could not have been written by an eye witness of theevents (Derickson 2003:87). However, the early church Fathers all attributed thework to Matthew (p.97). These men were decent scholars who would have basedtheir belief on “widespread testimony and not isolated personal theories.”France (1989:79) believes that it is reasonable to accept Matthew as the author asthere are factors in the text that would reflect the work of the “tax-collector apostle.”While it cannot be proved, there is also no reason to believe that the early churchmerely guessed that Matthew was the author or that is was a pseudonym (p.78).Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that the apostle Matthew is the author of thegospel.Of interest to the main problem of this thesis is that “Matthew was a tax collector,who left everything in his life for Jesus (Green 2000:25).” The significance ofMatthew as a tax collector and the consequent standing in the Jewish community willbe in other areas of this thesis.2.4 Origin2.4.1 Matthew’s communityThe attempt to find out who the original readers of Matthew were, is difficult. There is11
almost no evidence outside of the New Testament text to suggest who they couldhave been (Long 1997:1). The text itself offers little help in uncovering their identity.The best one can do is to make an “educated guess.”The traditional view is that the Gospel originated in Palestine (Guthrie 1976:28). TheJewish emphasis of the text makes a case for a Jewish-Christian Community. Thus itis assumed that Matthew was written where a significant number of Jews inPalestine were living (France 1989:91).Matthew’s primary audience would be Jewish Christians (Keener 1999:49; Long1997:2). This view is common to scholars and widely accepted based on the amountof Jewish specific and OT references found in the Gospel of Matthew. This howeverdoes not mean that Gentile Christians are excluded but rather that Gentiles wouldhave realised they were adopting a Jewish faith (Keener 1999:49). There is someevidence in the text of Gentile Christians being addressed (Wilkins 2001:39).Written to a primarily Jewish Christian Audience, it is doubtful that the audience wasstill active in synagogue life, as the gospel refers to synagogues as “theirsynagogues” and often paints Jewish religious authorities in a negative light (Long1997:2). This could be because they had walked out of participating in synagoguelife or that they were forced out. As people with a Jewish heritage the ergonomics oftheir worship life would have been shaped around the synagogue.Being outside of the synagogue would have left these Jewish Christians working outthe tension of being away from their Jewish heritage and working out life asChristians (Long 1997:2). Long poses the question they would have asked well,‘How do we incorporate our Jewish customs and legacy into the new reality of theChristian faith?’ Thus pertinence for this thesis is that it would have been acommunity largely Jewish, and as such, rooted in OT and Jewish Tradition.2.4.2 Matthew’s Geographical LocationThe suggested sites of Matthew’s origin include Jerusalem, Palestine, CaesareaMaritima, Phoenicia and Alexandria (Davies & Allison 1998:138). At this point it12
- 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 and 16: NT text actually did occur and did
- Page 17: to have used it as a source (France
- 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
almost no evidence outside of the New Testament text to suggest who they couldhave been (Long 1997:1). The text itself offers little help in uncovering their identity.The best one can do is to make an “educated guess.”The traditional view is that the Gospel originated in Palestine (Guthrie 1976:28). TheJewish emphasis of the text makes a case for a Jewish-Christian Community. Thus itis assumed that Matthew was written where a significant number of Jews inPalestine were living (France 1989:91).Matthew’s primary audience would be Jewish Christians (Keener 1999:49; Long1997:2). This view is common to scholars and widely accepted based on the amountof Jewish specific and OT references found in the Gospel of Matthew. This howeverdoes not mean that Gentile Christians are excluded but rather that Gentiles wouldhave realised they were adopting a Jewish faith (Keener 1999:49). There is someevidence in the text of Gentile Christians being addressed (Wilkins 2001:39).Written to a primarily Jewish Christian Audience, it is doubtful that the audience wasstill active in synagogue life, as the gospel refers to synagogues as “theirsynagogues” and often paints Jewish religious authorities in a negative light (Long1997:2). This could be because they had walked out of participating in synagoguelife or that they were forced out. As people with a Jewish heritage the ergonomics oftheir worship life would have been shaped around the synagogue.Being outside of the synagogue would have left these Jewish Christians working outthe tension of being away from their Jewish heritage and working out life asChristians (Long 1997:2). Long poses the question they would have asked well,‘How do we incorporate our Jewish customs and legacy into the new reality of theChristian faith?’ Thus pertinence for this thesis is that it would have been acommunity largely Jewish, and as such, rooted in OT and Jewish Tradition.2.4.2 Matthew’s Geographical LocationThe suggested sites of Matthew’s origin include Jerusalem, Palestine, CaesareaMaritima, Phoenicia and Alexandria (Davies & Allison 1998:138). At this point it12
Change language