From: Adrian Teo (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 15:02:45 EDT
> On the tradition of the authorship of Matthew's gospel they take the
> patristic evidence very seriously and argue against various
> arguments that
> dismiss it too quickly. Although they do not conclude the
> apostle Matthew
> wrote the gospel, they do conclude that the author was a Jew.
> The discussion of all these points in Allison and Davies is
> worth reading for
> anyone interested, as they are thorough and completely scholarly.
> My own take on the evidence is the same as a number of NT
> scholars (e.g.
> Plummer, Manson) that the patristic statements go back originally to a
> tradition about Q, or a collection of the sayings of Christ,
> rather than to
> the entire gospel of Matthew as we have it today.
So, you are saying that the fathers were referring to a collection of
sayings of Jesus taht they attributed to the Apostle Matthew and
written in Hebrew, which is a different version from the Greek. And
then the current Greek version that we have is drawn from that (and
hence attributed to Matthew also) but also borrowing from Mark and
possibly Luke. This is certainly plausible, but I need to ask what
about oral traditions? Why do scholars seem to downplay the
signifance of shared oral traditions? Couldn't Mark and the edited
Greek Matthew draw from the same oral tradition that finds its source
in the Apostle Matthew?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 20:13:53 EDT