The Didache is Unreliable

What is the Didache

Didache means “Teaching” and is also known as The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. The date of its original work, its authorship, and provenance are unknown, although most modern scholars date it to the first century (90-120 AD) 

Why is it unreliable?

The chief textual witness to the text of the Didache is an eleventh-century Greek parchment manuscript known as Codex Hierosolymitanus or Codex H, (1056 AD). It is highly probable that the Didache was modified during the approximately 950 years from when it originated as compared to Codex H. 

Even in the early part of the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that "the so-called Teachings of the Apostles… was spurious" (Eusebius History 3:25)

In Didache 9, which deals with communion, the writer says, “But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus”

The Didache 7 states, “But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice (three times) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The internal evidence points to Didache 7 as an interpolation, or later addition. Shortly after saying baptism should be performed in the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Didache states the absolute necessity of being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (the same Greek word as in Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). This represents an obvious contradiction and gives validity to the argument that Didache 7 is an interpolation.

The Didache is also silent on repentance and the symbolic death into Christ, which is a key to understanding baptism.

Although there are some interesting contents within the Didache that were likely written in the early second century, it is evident that later interpolations and editions to the Didache cause uncertainty about the veracity of any of its contents.

Quotes from Scholarship:

“the document was tampered with by later insertions… the document does not go back to the apostolic times … Furthermore, such a collection of ecclesiastical ordinances presupposes a period of stabilization of some duration. Scattered details indicate that the apostolic age is no longer contemporary, but has passed into history.” (Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol. 1, Page 36)

“The Didache, an early second-century Christian composition, is also clearly composite, consisting of a “Two Ways” section (chaps. 1-6), a liturgical manual (7-10), instructions on the reception of traveling prophets (11-15), and a brief apocalypse (16). Marked divergences in style and content as well as the presence of doubtless and obvious interpolations, make plain the fact that the Didache was not cut from whole cloth. The dominant view today is that the document was composed on the basis of several independent, preredactional units which were assembled by either one or two redactors (Neiderwimmer 1989:64-70, ET 1998:42-52). Comparison of the “Two Ways” section with several other “Two Ways” documents suggests that Didache 1-6 is itself the result of multistage editing. The document began with rather haphazard organization (cf. Barnabas 18-20), but was reorganized in a source common to the Didache, the Doctrina apostolorum, and the Apostolic Church Order …” (John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, pp. 134-135)

For more on baptism being originally in the name of Jesus, see https://baptisminjesusname.com

Matthew Caters to the Rich

 Matthew Caters to the Rich

G. D. Kilpatrick has argued that Matthew was compiled for use in a wealthy urban Jewish Church and showed that Matthew tends to modify its source material in the direction of making it more relevant to the rich. (G. D. Kirkpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, pp. 124-5) 

 

Matthew exhibits technical competence in its editing. In some places, it appears that Matthew has softened derogatory references to the rich, including Matt 6:19 vs. Luke 11:33 and Matt 11:7-11 and Luke 7:24-28. 

 

The Beelzebul controversy of Luke 11:17-23, Mark 3:23-30 and Matt 12:25-37 is an example where Matthew's close editing reflects his attitude toward wealth. Luke's reading is more authentic than Matthew's in the material they share. For example, the instance of  'by the finger of God' is generally regarded as prior to 'by the spirit of God'. With respect to the rich, the crucial difference in the examination is that Matthew has a preference for Mark's parable of the Strong man over Luke's (Compare Luke 11:21-22, Mark 3:27, and Matt 12:29). Considering that Matthew has Lukan verses immediately before and after the implementation of the Strong Man from Mark, suggest that the author knew the Lukan parable as well. Wealth is apparently the reason he chooses to follow Mark. The parable in Luke describes Beelzebul as a strong rich man who guards his palace and possessions in peace until a stronger one seizes his armor and distributes the spoil. The parable in Luke would be perceived as equating riches with evil, but the Marcan version of the strong man would avoid this association. 

 

Matt 25:31-46 contains a parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Since it appears to demand charity for the poor, and both threaten hell for refusal, it would also seem that the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus of Luke 16:19-31 would also warrant a place in Matthew since it has the same theme of charity and threat of hell. The likely reason for the omission of the parable in Matthew is that judgment falls harshly on the excessively wealthy man, while sympathy is given to the poor man. The parable of the Sheep and the Goats is much more fitting for Matthew, since the judgment has nothing to do with the distinction between the rich and the poor. 

 

In conclusion, West observed…

 

“Matthew calls for charity, but he shuns pericopes which equate possessions with evil or which take it for granted that the rich are wicked.” (H.P. West Jr., “A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew,” New Test. Stud. 14, p.87)

 

The view of Matthew with respect to possessions can be discerned from the editorial actions of the author in consideration of the following passages. 

 

• Matt 5:3,6 vs. Luke 6:20-21
• Matt 5:46-47 vs. Luke 6:32-36
• Matt 6:19-21 vs. Luke 7:33-34
• Matt 10:37-38 vs. Luke 14:26-27
• Matt 11:7-11 vs. Luke 7:24-28
• Matt 12:25-27 vs. Luke 11:17-23 and Mark 3:23-30
• Matthew omits Luke 12:13-15
• Matthew omits Luke 12:16-21
• Matthew omits Luke 14:7-14
• Matthew omits Luke 14:28-33
• Matthew omits Luke 16:14-15
• Matthew omits Luke 16:19-31
• Matthew omits Luke 18:9-14
• Matt 19:16-22 vs. Luke 18:18-23 and Mark 10:17-22
• Matt 19:23-40 vs. Luke 18:24-30 and Mark 10:23-31
• Matt 24:45-51 vs. Luke 12:42-6
• Matt 25:14-30 vs. Luke 19:11-27
• Matt 26:6-13 vs. Mark 14:3-9 and Luke 7:36-50

Some might question if the author of Matthew saw and omitted the peculiar Lukan material. They might attribute the material from a documentary source of a separate tradition from the source common to Matthew and Luke.  However, such a source would be hard to imagine, considering what that collection of material that source would necessarily exhibit. It would be an absurd collection unlike anything else known. The collection would contain virtually no independent sayings and comprise mostly striking parables. All of its material would display a particular interest in making moral examples out of persons without Jewish status, or at every opportunity, would attack the rich and their possessions. It is far more reasonable to see Primitive Luke as a source common to Matthew and Luke than to presume distinct sources to account for the materials common to Matthew and for those materials particular to Luke. 

Matthew's poor attitude toward non-Jews

 

Matthew's poor attitude toward non-Jews 

Matthew's editorial behavior in light of Mark and Primitive Luke gives us an indication of the authors' attitude toward non-Jews.

 

Scholars have been puzzled by Matthew's omission of the pericope of the Strange Exorcist of Luke 9:49-50 and Mark 9:38-41. This omission provides an important clue of Matthew's preference to exclude passages in which lawless persons, or persons without status under the Law, become good examples. As Matthew clearly is a Judaizing document and the author held strict ideas of Law.

 

Matthew omits the saying common to Mark and Luke 'he that is not against us is for us' of Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40, but he includes a related saying in Luke' he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters' of Luke 9:23 and Matt 12:30. It is also evident that Matthew has inverted the saying of Mark 9:41, 'whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ' to read in Matt 10:42, 'whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple. 

 

These examples of the editorial character of Matthew represent strict legal formal demands.  This perspective attitude can likely account for the addition of Matt 22:11-14 of the parable of the Wedding Garment to the parable of the Great Banquet exhibited in Luke 14:16-24 and Matt 22:1-10. The wedding garment of Matthew symbolizes righteousness, and it presents that as the criteria for entering the kingdom. Matthew puts the highest embodiment of the Law over all other factors, including the interpolation of Matt 5:19 that those who would relax the least of these commandments would be least in the Kingdom.

 

Thus, Matthew adds various anti-charismatic verses, including Matt 7:13-23.  Matthew's anti-charismatic tendencies are exhibited further in Matt 6:7-8 and elsewhere in chapter 6 where the author portrays Jesus as prescribing that prayer, fasting, and giving should be done in secret. 

 

In using those outside the Law as negative examples, the author of Matthew typically demonstrates his rejection of them. According to Matthew, believers are not to be like Gentiles (Matt 6:7-8) and those who are to be regarded no better than tax collectors (Matt 5:46-47)

 

Despite Mark making no reference to Samaritans and Gentiles, Matthew's comments establish a clear anti-gentile pattern. Matt 15:24, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' is an obvious insertion into a pericope taken from Mark. This attitude is even more explicit in the saying of Matt 10:5-6, 'Do not take the gentile road, and do not enter a Samaritan city, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

 

It is unlikely the case that both anti-Samaritan and pro-Samaritan pericopes in the Gospels are both authentic. Jesus either refused to deal with Samaritans and commanded his disciples to do the same (as the Later tradition of Matthew attests) or Jesus dealt with them and allowed his disciples to do so (according to the more primitive traditions of Luke and Mark). Only Matthew explicitly opposes a mission to outsiders or makes implicit references of an anti-Samaritan or anti-Gentile nature. Although antagonism between Jews and Samaritans is seen in Luke, it features accounts of Jesus deliberately establishing contact with them. Luke has a narrative recalling various meetings as well as an in which the ancient feud is a central part of the context. Few scholars doubt the authenticity of the parable of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10:29-37, the very conception which arises from the fact that the Samaritans had no status under Jewish Law. Yet, this Samaritan had fulfilled the Law. In contrast, Matthew's opposition to the Samaritans is exhibited only in isolated sayings apart from narrative or parables. 

 

It is easy to see how Matthew's anti-Samartian and anti-Gentile sayings could have sprung up in opposition toward ministries incorporating Samaritan and Gentile missions. Matthew emerges from a Jewish sect, as is evident by the editorial omissions and modifications of any Samaritan or Gentile material.

 

Luke and Matthew provide contrasting views regarding justification for tax collectors. The parable of Luke 18:9-14 of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector doesn't fit with the Matthean notion of righteousness under the Law. The easy justification of the tax collector doesn't fit with Matthew's theological agenda. Accordingly, the implication that a humble request of the tax collector, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' would be sufficient for the tax collector to go home justified is counter to the Matthean notion of rigorousness. 

 

Similar elements are featured in the Zacchaeus story of Luke 19:1-10 in which he declares that he will pay back all his fraudulent gains fourfold. Jesus declared  to a long-time chief tax collector, 'Today salvation has come to this house since he also is a son of Abraham.' Jesus' declaration indicates that he is a son of Abraham by faith based on this bare declaration of penitence alone, although he has not actually done any righteous thing according to Matthean standards. Although Matthew allows for sins to be forgiven quickly, it maintains that salvation can only be found in the quest for righteousness under the Law. 

 

Matthew has not, however, eliminated all favorable references to Gentiles, tax collectors, and other immoral people. Whenever it praises them it is for their 'faith'. In various contexts, the Syrophoenician Woman or the Centurion may demonstrate a faith that puts the disciples to shame. Yet according to Matthew, these are outsiders who must gather the crumbs under the Jewish table. For Matthew, it is only Jewish Christians who have inherited the promise. The Gentiles remain outsiders and strangers to the Law, as do most women.

 

The following editorial actions are reflective of Matthew's attitude of an anti-Samaritan and anti-Gentile character. 

 

• Matt 8:5-13 vs. Luke 7:1-10 and Luke 8:28-30
• Matt 9:9-13 vs. Luke 5:27-32 and Mark 2:13-17
• Matthew omits Luke 9:49-50 and Mark 9:38-41
• Matthew omits Luke 9:51-56
• Matthew omits Luke 10:29-37
• Matthew omits Luke 11:5-8
• Matthew omits Luke 16:1-9
• Matthew omits Luke 17:11-19
• Matthew omits Luke 18:1-8
• Matthew omits Luke 18:9-14
• Matthew omits Luke 19:1-10
• Addition of Matt 18:17
• Addition of Matt 21:28-32

Reference: H.P. West Jr., “A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew,” New Test. Stud. 14, p.83-85

For more on issues with Matthew, See https://issueswithmatthew.com

Matthew's Poor Attitude Toward Women

Matthew's Poor Attitude Toward Women

Luke favors women. Matthew diminishes them. A review of Matthew, in contrast to the other more primitive embodiments of the Gospel tradition, reveals that the work product exhibits a low attitude toward women. 

Scholars generally can't explain Matthew's omission from Mark of the Widow's Mite included in Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 12:41-44. This pericope gives us a critical clue for a Matthean pattern on women. 

Luke's interest in women, especially in widows, has been widely recognized. Most don't realize Matthew's restriction of women has a great influence on his editing of Marcan and Lukan material.

Take for example, the Matthean Infancy narrative, in which the angel appears three times to Joseph but never to Mary. According to Matthew, Mary has no words and nothing to ponder in her heart but is only the means of Jesus' birth. According to Matthew she never rises above the humble obscurity of Jewish womanhood. 

Matthew's narrative of the Empty Tomb has parallels in  Luke 24:1-11, Mark 16:1-8 and Matt 28:1-10. Matthew takes away the plaintive question of Mark's women: 'Who will roll away the stone?'

In comparing the parallels of Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12 and Matt 5:31-32, Matthew's sayings on divorce deny women the right to divorce their husbands. This is a right that Mark takes for granted. Matthew allows men to divorce their wives for unchastity and then remarry. However, Mark gives no ground for anyone to remarry after a divorce. Matthew has radically altered a reported saying of Jesus to conform with the practice of his particular Jewish sect of Christianity. 

Matthew changes pericopes which are adapted from Mark. While in Matthew the women keep their place to watch and serve, it tends to minimize personal detail about them. Compare Luke 4:38-39 and Mark 1:29-31 against Matt 8:14-15; Mark 14:3-9 against Matt 26:6-13; Mark 15:40-41 against Matt 27:55-56.

Matthew does retain the Marcan miracle stories of the woman with the haemorrhage and Jairus' Daughter, but in doing so he leaves only the barest evidential details. Compare Luke 8:40-56 and Mark 5:21-43 against Matt 9:18-26.

Also, note that Matthew has edited the Marcan pericope of the Syrophoenician Woman to indicate Jesus' reluctance to help. Compare Mark 7:24-30 with Matt 15:21-28. Jesus does not answer the woman's plea, and he says he was sent only to Israel's lost sheep when the disciples want him to send her away. Only her abject humility as indicated by her willingness to come like a dog eating crumbs under the table induce Jesus to help her. Matthew makes both the Syrophoenician. These limited examples within Matthew allow women to be examples of faith but not of righteousness. Matthean exhibits a distinction between faith and righteousness under the Law.

For example, take the pericope of the Widow's Mite of both Luke 11:1-4 and Mark 12:41-44 which is clearly omitted in Matthew. This was apparently objectionable to Matthew in that the widow has neither served Jesus nor humbled herself before him, but he praises her highly for her deed. Although rabbis rarely would not poor widows or scorned their offerings, many did not consider them capable of righteousness.

Matthew omits several pericopes exhibited in Primitive Lukan material which is motivated by this poor attitude toward women. Such primitive material is even found in Marcions' Gospel. A first example is Luke 10:38-42, where we see Martha wants Jesus to send Mary back to her work, but he defends her decision to sit and listen. Matthew rejected this pericope and none of his women approach the kind of freedom which Jesus grants Mary here. 

The parable of the unjust judge of Luke 18:1-8 also falls outside the patterns in Matthew's use of women. None of Matthews' women are capable of this widow's relentless and assertive demand for justice. It is hard to imagine the Matthean disposition being one of encouraging his people to approach God, as the widow comes to the judge in Luke 18:1-8.  Moreover, there is no Matthean passage in which God's action is compared in any way to the behavior of an immoral person like the reluctant and begrudging judge portrayed in Luke. 

A further example of Matthew omitting primitive Lukan material favorable to women is the parable of the Lost Coin of Luke 15:8-10. The central figure is a poor woman who, in a dark lowly house, searches for a lost coin in the dust. The parable is presumably an analogy to illustrate God's search for lost men. It is consistent with Matthew's motives, that it includes no passages in which God's action is compared to such a humble woman's work.

Two miracle stories in Luke involving women also fall outside the pattern recognizable in Matthew that contains no stories of someone being healed unless he, his relatives, or his friends come humbly to Jesus. As indicated previously, this humble approach is especially noticeable where women are involved.

What also was objectionable to the author of Matthew is the more primitive Lukan stories of the Widow's Son at Nain of Luke 7:11-17 and the Woman Healed on the Sabbath of Luke 13:10-17. Here are two cases where Jesus approaches the woman involved and performs the cure without any prior display of devotion or humility on her part. 

Matthew's editing indicates restrictive criteria for women regarding service and devotion. The author of Matthew likely held typical Jewish views on the place of women, finding some of these Lukan pericopes disturbing. The patterns we recognize in his editing reflect the underlying attitudes and prejudices of Matthew and his Church. The instances of the Widow's Mite and the majority of the primitive Lukan pericopes on women did not fit the pattern of Matthew's editorial selection. Accordingly, a review of Matthew in contrast to the other more primitive embodiments of the Gospel tradition, indicates the work product exhibits a low attitude toward women. 

Luke and Mark favor women. Matthew diminishes them. Below is a list of instances that reflect poorly on Matthean attitude toward women:

• Matt 1:1-2:23 vs. Luke 1:1-2:52, depiction of Mary
• Matt 5:31-32; Matt 19:9 vs. Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12
• Matt 8:14-15 vs. Luke 4:38-39 and Mark 1:29-31
• Matthew omits Luke 7:11-17
• Matthew 9:18-19, 23-26 vs. Luke 8:40-42,49-56 and Mark 5:21-24,35-43
• Matt 9:20-22 Vs Luke 8:43-48 and Mark 5:25-34
• Matthew omits Luke 10:38-42
• Matthew omits Luke 11:27-28
• Matthew omits Luke 13:10-17
• Matthew omits Luke 15:8-10
• Matt 15:21-28 vs. Mark 7:24-30
• Matthew omits Luke 18:1-8
• Matthew omits Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 12:41-44
• Matt 25:1-13
• Matt 26:6-13 vs. Mark 14:3-9 and Luke 7:36-50
• Matt 27:55-56 vs.  Mark 15:40 and Luke 7:1-3
• Matt 28:1-10 vs. Luke 24:1-11 and Mark 16:1-8

Reference: H.P. West Jr., “A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew,” New Test. Stud. 14, p.80-82

For more on issues with Matthew, see https://IssuesWithMatthew.com

An example of Matthean Fatigue using Luke

 

Matthean Fatigue of Matt 3:7-11, The Preaching of John the Baptist

One might postulate that if Matthew was written last in view of Luke, there would be at least one example of Matthean fatigue using Luke. A clear example is the scene of John the Baptist preaching having the parallels of Luke 3:7-16 and Matthew 3:7-11 shown below. Often, Matthew expands on Luke, but in this case, Matthew redacts much of the Lukan material and changes the subjects whom John the Baptist is addressing. The changes result in the problematic implication that John is telling the Pharisees and Sadducees that they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Luke 3:7-16 (ESV)

7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

Matthew 3:7-11 (ESV)

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew revises the text to direct the rebuke to the Pharisees and Sadducees (religious elite), not the crowds (multitudes at large). Another key difference is that the crowds of Luke 3:7 are those who “came out to be baptized by him.” That is, they desired repentance. Matthew 3:7 only indicates that John “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism” (not that they actually came out to be baptized). The revisionist Matthew apparently felt the rage of the Baptist was more appropriately directed at the Pharisees and Sadducees, who weren't necessarily committed to being baptized. Moreover, the author of Matthew also chooses to omit Luke 3:10-15, including the reference to “the people” of Luke 3:11 “who were in expectation.” In removing the context of the crowds who “came to be baptized,” and the people “who were in expectation,” Matthew makes the baptists' words a specific message to the Pharisees and Sadducees who would be poor candidates for receiving repentance and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The problem with the Matthean text is that those who are the least eligible are being told they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. It is much more logical that this would be a general statement to repentant and faith-filled believers than Pharisees and Sadducees who are just bystanders.

Matthean Posteriority, Excerpts from The Myth of the Lost Gospel by Evan Powell

 

Excerpts from The Myth of the Lost Gospel by Evan Powell

Amazon Link: https://amzn.to/3OTPzvW

Hidden Synoptic Patterns

When comparing Matthew and Luke, many have noted that Matthew presents more liturgically refined forms of key traditions such as The Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, and the Great Commission, than versions found in Luke. This pattern suggests that some time had elapsed between the composition of Luke and Matthew, during which these traditions evolved as the Church coalesced into a more institutionalized structure. (p. 25)

In addition to the fact that Matthew contains more sophisticated forms of these traditions, there are other indications that Matthew was published after Mark and Luke. Among them is an intriguing clue from the attributions of authorship... Hengel states: (p.27)

A comparison of the titles shows that the 'non-apostolic' titles must be older than the 'apostolic' titles. Once the names of apostles had come to be used in titles to give a work additional authority, it was hardly possible to choose authors with lesser authority. In the second century, the Gospel of Mark would presumably have been named after Peter and that of Luke after Paul (Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 170)

A third-generation author with no recognized nexus with apostolic authority might well be motivated to publish pseudonymously mostly, thereby imbuing the work with the authority of one of the original twelve. That Matthew is the only one of the three to carry an apostolic title suggests that it may have been a later composition.  (p. 28)

The second noteworthy feature of Matthew is that it contains numerous attempts to reconcile problematic elements in the Jesus story that remain unresolved in Mark and Luke. Matthew methodically corrects and explains aspects of the accounts in Mark and Luke that had led to skepticism and doubt. (p. 28)

Seven categories of tradition manifest a common pattern of distribution among the Synoptics, with Matthew containing the highest concentration of material in all seven categories. Since Luke is the longer of the two Gospels (107% as long as Matthew), this is an unexpected result… This is far too much statistical uniformity to pass off as mere coincidence. (P. 41)

Categories of tradition in Luke as a percent of Matthew:

1. Supernatural Events: Luke has 77% as many references as those in Matthew
2. Eschatological content: Luke has 71% as much as Matthew
3. Ethical sayings: Luke has 73% as many references as those in Matthew
4. Jesus as Christ: Luke has 75% as many references as those in Matthew
5. Jesus as Son of man: Luke has 83% as many references as those in Matthew
6. Kingdom of God: Luke has 75% as many references as those in Matthew
7. God as Father: Luke has 36% as many references as those in Matthew

We find that the community that produced Matthew developed a more refined and expansive interpretation of Jesus' traditions across the entire spectrum of thought. Not only are the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes and the Great Commission presented in more evolved form in Matthew, but the content of Jesus' ethical message is richer., the visions of the end-time events are more extreme, supernatural mythology is more diverse, and the concept of the intimate fatherhood of God is more developed. Collectively, Matthew contains an enrichment of all prominent aspects of the Jesus story, surpassing the material found in Luke, while Luke contains virtual subsets of the material found in Matthew. (p. 42)

Therefore, Matthew presents a more mature expression of the Church's interpretation of Jesus. The statistical distribution of materials between Luke and Matthew, as well as the qualitative enhancements of Matthew over Luke, are consistent with the proposition that Matthew was composed some time after Luke. Moreover, there was an interval of time between the two that would allow for all facets of the Jesus tradition to have evolved into the more sophisticated form that are documented in the Gospel of Matthew. (p. 42-43)

[Some] theories argue that Luke was dependent on Matthew. Yet, the date we have just reviewed is difficult to explain under such a scenario. We must imagine that Luke, in using Matthew as a source, managed to diminish its traditions across the board both qualitatively and quantitatively, while at the same time producing a Gospel that was longer than Matthew by 7%. In the process he eviscerated the Lord's prayer and the Beatitudes; he dismantled the Sermon on the Mount and reformulated it as a more anemic Sermon on the Plain; he diminished the ethical vision of Jesus; he removed most of Matthew's references tot eh intimated fatherhood of God; and finally, he eliminated the decisive command from Matthew's Great Commission to 'go therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and replaced it with a statement that repentance and forgiveness should be preached to all nations, but that the disciples should wait in the city until further notice. (p. 43)

It is difficult to imagine what Luke would have had in mind to have used Matthew in this manner. Yet, as we shall ultimately discover, these are just the first of many editorial eccentricities of which Luke would be guilty were he to have used Matthew as a source. (p. 43)

Matthew the Revisionist

Sometime late in the first century an unknown writer/editor, or perhaps more accurately, a group of editors, undertook to compose what would become the most formidable Gospel ever written. It would contain a richness and diversity of Jesus' traditions exceeding all that had come before it. It was an elegant, formal collection that the Church would sanction as the ultimate definition of the Jesus story. Soon after its composition, the Church would begin to represent the Gospel of Matthew as the first Gospel to have been composed. The Church would eventually place Matthew in the strategically significant first position in the New Testament canon. (p.45)

To imbue this new Gospel with authority, the Church attributed it to the apostle Matthew—an apostle who, other than being listed in Mark and Luke as one of the twelve, was an unknown and ideologically neutral figure in the history of the Jesus movement. As such, Matthew would seem to be a peculiar choice for attribution of authorship. (p. 45) 

Consider that if Matthew did indeed conflate Mark and Luke, it becomes apparent from an evaluation of his text in this light that one of Matthew's objectives was to rewrite the Gospel of Luke from both a theological and historical perspective. Matthew produced a more comprehensive version of the Gospel story, embracing much more of Mark than did Luke: he expanded upon many of Luke's key traditions, but at the same time refocused the Jesus story within Jewish tradition and heritage while eliminating Luke's universalism. Though Matthew is guided by the same ideological and literary objectives in use of Mark and Luke, Mark is the primary source of Matthew's narrative structure, while Luke is a secondary source from which additional materials are drawn and integrated with Mark. (Evan Powell, The Myth of the Lost Gospel, p.90)

Though Matthew has a similar scope in the storyline as does Luke, the author was motivated to produce a thoroughly original Gospel, and one that looked as much unlike Luke as the material would allow. Matthew is often guided by a simple “not-Luke” approach—on occasions where Luke followed Mark, Matthew was not motivated to diverge; whenever Luke diverged from Mark, Matthew felt free to follow Mark more closely. In the triple tradition, Matthew never takes over significant Lukan texts against Mark. In the double tradition, when Matthew is aware of earlier forms of Lukan sayings, he substitutes the earlier forms. When he is not, he edits them or recontextualizes them, or both. When Matthew replicates Luke's material with a high verbal agreement, he always chooses to situate it differently relative to Mark. In most cases, he scans, selects, and reassembles Lukan sayings into radically different narrative contexts. Matthew rejects Luke's infancy and genealogy texts, and replaces them with mythologies that are consistent with his own theological agenda. He discards Luke's resurrection narrative and replaces it with a fulfillment of the Markan foreshadowing that Jesus would rejoin his disciples in Galilee. pp. 93-94

On the other hand, Matthew does not ritualistically avoid every change Luke made… resulting in dozens of minor agreements with Luke against Mark. Of particular, Matthew agrees with Luke's assessment that Mark 11:11 is superfluous; like Luke he omits it and compresses the Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple into the same day. However, these changes notwithstanding, in every important respect Matthew's Gospel was written with the intent to supersede both Mark and Luke in the depth and diversity of their Jesus traditions. (p. 94)

Clearly, Matthew contains a great deal of material that exists in either Mark or Luke or both, and in using these two primary sources it is evident that his objective was to conflate them along with other materials into a more comprehensive Gospel. In the process, Matthew often combined fragments from both Mark and Luke in order to create his own narratives. One example of this is found in The Calling of the Twelve. This sequence of eight verses in Matthew 9:35-10:4 is compiled from material found in chapters 3 and 6 of Mark and chapters 6, 8, 9, and 10 of Luke. (pp. 94-95)

In the Beelzebul Controversy (Luke 11:14-23// Mark 3:22-27//Matt 12:22-30), there is very little verbatim duplication between Mark and Luke. Matthew's text, on the other hand, has been assembled from elements that are virtual verbatim duplications from both Mark and Luke (p. 95)

The key point to be made... is this: The fact that Matthean texts exist that are conflations of material found in Mark and Luke is a phenomenon unique to Matthew. There is no similar array of texts in Luke that appear to have been composed from elements in Mark and Matthew. Yet if Luke had used Mark and Matthew, as Griesbach and Farrer-Goulder advocates maintain, we should be able to detect a similar pattern in Luke, at least to the degree that it is present in Matthew. Furthermore, if Matthew and Luke and independently drawn upon Mark and Q, it is a mystery how Matthew could routinely generate texts that appear to be conflations of Mark and Luke, while Luke could routinely avoid any indication of having conflated Mark and Matthew. The presence of this textural pattern in Matthew, and its corollary absence from Luke, lends additional weight to the theory of Matthean Posteriority, and poses difficulties for all competing solutions to the Synoptic Problem (p.102)

For more on this topic see https://lukeprimacy.com/matthean-posteriority/

Issues with Matthew

 Issues with Matthew

Matthew has a number of issues that calls its credibility into question. First, we look at Lukan Priority as a basis for understanding how Luke is a predecessor of Mark and Matthew is a derivative work of Mark that exhibits ad-hoc numerous changes made by Mark. Paul’s use of Luke and consistency with both Luke and Acts is another indication of Lukan Priority.

See more at https://IssueswithMatthew.com

Lukan Priority and the Jerusalem School

Scholars of the Jerusalem School attest that Luke is most faithful to the Hebraic source material grounding all the Synoptic Gospels. The indication is Lukan priority. The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research is a group of “Jewish and Christian scholars collaborating in the land and language of Jesus; bringing historical, linguistic and critical expertise to bear on the synoptic gospels,” that holds to the Jerusalem school hypothesis, which is a theory against Markan priority. They provide many evidences to suggest that Luke’s version is the most accurate and that Matthew has been too often unduly influenced by Mark, even when he is correcting Mark with his parallel texts. The surprising result of this research is “that of all the Synoptists Luke should prove to be the best in the preservation of earlier texts… the fact that Luke preserves a Greek text which normally retranslates easily to Hebrew and almost always fails to give even a hint of an expression which could be interpreted as the remnant of a Markan non-Hebraism should have led me to suspect that Luke is uninfluenced by Mark and derives his usually excellent translation-text directly from a proto-source.”

The article Lukan Priority and the Jerusalem School goes into the findings of Hebraic scholars. 

Marcan Priority Regarding Matthew Being a Reconstruction of Mark

The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark was written. Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark for much of its content (95% of the Gospel of Mark is found within Matthew and 53% of the text is verbatim (word-for-word) from Mark). Matthew carries over some defective changes made in 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.

Marcan Priority Regarding Matthew Being a Reconstruction of Mark documents how there are Markan Defects exhibited in Matthew. In addition to Lukan priority, the Jerusalem School has demonstrated that Matthew is a derivative work of Mark. Marcan Priority Regarding Matthew Being a Reconstruction of Mark

Matthean Posteriority & Matthew’s use of Luke

This article presents evidence for the author of Matthew having used Luke in the composition of the Gospel of Matthew. The view of Matthew being the last of the three Synoptic gospels and having a dependency on Luke is known as Matthean Posteriority. Posteriority is the state of being later or subsequent. In addition to the Jerusalem School, this view has been advocated by numerous bible scholars over the last few hundred years. Other NT scholars have recognized the merits of Matthean Posteriority. See More: Matthew’s dependence on Luke: Matthean Posteriority Matthean Posteriority & Matthew’s use of Luke

Matthew is a Judaizing Document

Matthew has Judaizing features that are missing from the other gospels. Matthew makes the highest standard of the law imperative, whereas, in Luke, the law is presented as a description of the ideal. According to the Jesus of Matthew, life is entered by keeping the commandments, and perfection is emphasized corresponding to an extreme standard of righteousness. The conclusion and climax of the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, often quoted by Judaizers of Matt 5:17-20, shows especially strong evidence of redactional intrusion. See more: Matthew is a Judaizing Document Matthew is a Judaizing Document

The Sermon on the Mount: The Matthean Jesus Is Not the Historical Jesus

The Matthean Jesus is not the historical Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount, in the First Gospel, is not a speech made by Jesus, but the literary work of the Evangelist who wrote Matthew. Matthew ethicizes and historizes the traditional material in light of a new situation. Regarding the emphasis of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, these verses are largely Matthean compositions.  See more: The Sermon on the Mount : The Matthean Jesus Is Not the Historical Jesus The Sermon on the Mount : The Matthean Jesus Is Not the Historical Jesus

The Many Embellishments of Matthew

The Many Embellishments of Matthew are also documented, corresponding to historical claims and significant statements that are not attested anywhere else in the New Testament, The Many Embellishments of Matthew

Integrity Syndicate—For the restoration of 1st Century Christianity https://integritysyndicate.com

Integrity Syndicate YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntegritySyndicate

Integrity Syndicate Discord: https://discord.gg/wM7HtbeQeX