{"id":479,"date":"2020-04-05T16:42:47","date_gmt":"2020-04-05T22:42:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/?p=479"},"modified":"2021-09-04T22:50:38","modified_gmt":"2021-09-05T04:50:38","slug":"the-credibility-of-matthew-pt-1-introductory-notes-and-farrer-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/the-credibility-of-matthew-pt-1-introductory-notes-and-farrer-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Credibility of Matthew Part 1, Introduction & Farrer Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Credibility of Matthew, Part 1<\/h2>

Matthew has a number of issues that calls its credibility into question. First, introductory notes about Matthew are provided relating to the source material, authorship, and structure. The Farrer theory provides additional rational for holding Matthew with increased skepticism considering the likelihood that Luke excluded much of the content from Matthew. Major contradictions of Matthew with other Gospel accounts are shown in the following section. Most of the contradictions in the New Testament are Matthew conflicting with Mark, Luke, and John. Other issues with Matthew are described in terms of problematic passages and inconsistent language including passages used for Judaizing Christians and used by Muslim apologists. Finally, evidence is provided against the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 that indicates the trinitarian baptismal formula was added later and is not original to Matthew.<\/p>

Introductory Notes About Matthew:<\/h3>

The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark was written and likely before 70 A.D.[1]<\/a>\u00a0(the year of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem). Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark for much of its content since 95% of the Gospel of Mark is found within Matthew and 53% of the text is verbatim (word-for word) from Mark. The Gospel is attributed to Matthew because of the presumption that some of the unique source material may had come from Matthew (a disciple of Jesus who was previously a tax collector) although most of the source material is from the Gospel of Mark as many see it is an embellishment upon Mark. What is clear is that Matthew is the combination of source materials rather than that of a single disciple or source. The attribution on the Gospel \u201caccording to Matthew\u201d was added latter. Evidence of Church father\u2019s attribution to Matthew extends to the second century.<\/p>

Matthew is not structured like a chronological historical narrative. Rather, Matthew has alternating blocks of teaching and blocks of activity. Matthew is an artificial construction embodying a devised literary structure with six major blocks of teaching. The author is likely a Jewish follower of Jesus that was not comfortable using the word \u201cGod\u201d. For example, the author circumvents using the word \u201cGod\u201d by employing the phrase \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d numerous times as opposed to \u201cKingdom of God\u201d as is used in Mark and Luke. Matthew also raises some issues that only early Jewish Christians would be concerned with. Some scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic) and was later translated into Greek. It is possible that there were versions of Matthew both in Hebrew (or Aramaic) in addition to the Greek. These versions may have varied with respect to each other. The earliest complete copy of Matthew that remains is from the fourth century.<\/p>

Farrer Theory as a basis for increased skepticism toward Matthew:<\/h3>

The Farrer hypothesis (also known as the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis) is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then the author of the Gospel of Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source material. This was advocated by English biblical scholars including Austin Farrer, who wrote\u00a0On Dispensing With Q<\/em>\u00a0in 1955[2]<\/a>, and by other scholars including Michael Golder and Mark Goodacre.[3]<\/a>\u00a0The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for hypothetical source \u201cQ\u201d to be created by academics. Advocates of the Farrer theory provide strong evidence that Luke used both the previous gospels (Mark and Matthew) and that Matthew predates Luke.[4]<\/a><\/p>

\u00a0The insistence on a missing source \u201cQ\u201d stems largely from an assumption that the author of Luke would not have excluded so much of Matthew if he had access to it as a source. However, the author of Luke recognized that there were many narratives before him. His prologue suggests the need, based on his close review of the witnesses, to provide an orderly account for the purposes of providing certainty about the things taught. This implies is that Luke excludes much of Matthew because Matthew largely got things wrong. Another objection to the Farrer Theory is that Luke is more abbreviated in some passages than Matthew and therefore Luke reflects a more primitive text. However if Luke intends to provide a concise and orderly account, it is more likely the case that Luke edited out \u201cthe fluff\u201d from the passages in Matthew based on what he believed was most creditable and substantiated attestation of the evidence within his possession. The author of Luke\u2019s expresses this motivation in his prologue:<\/p>

Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)<\/td>1<\/span>\u00a0Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,\u00a02<\/span>\u00a0just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,\u00a03<\/span>\u00a0it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,\u00a04<\/span>\u00a0that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>

\u00a0Primary arguments for believing that the author of Luke had access to both Mark and Matthew prior to authoring Luke are as follows:<\/p>