Matthew is the one book of the gospels where there is not a consensus that it was written in Greek. Clearly the other three gospels were, but some scholars assert Matthew was likely originally in Hebrew.
We know it can't be written in 100AD, as it is quoted by Clement and parts of the Didache, both of which are dated to the late 90s or 100 at the latest. Which means it was already known. There are two main camps of scholars, those who date it to the late 60s and those who date it to the 80s.
Each gospel had a different target audience. Luke said he was writing to new Christians. Mark was likely writing to Christians in Athens; he had to explain Aramaic words which anyone in Palestine would know. Matthew was writing to a very conservative Jewish audience. He assumed they already knew details of Jewish worship and rituals, as well as prophecies about the Messiah. Thus they knew the Messiah was from the line of David, and set out the genealogy through Joseph to prove it.
@TheLittleDonkey Serious Jews traced lineages back through the father. Even adopted children traced it back through their adopted father for issues as to which tribe you belonged to, etc. It is the male of the family that decided which tribe they tented with, inherited from, etc. So wives (sometimes multiple) and children both adopted and issued, were of the tribe of the husband. So it didn't really matter about whose DNA was in you, you traced your lineage through that adopted father.
@sarabellumm "So wives (sometimes multiple) and children both adopted and issued, were of the tribe of the husband. So it didn't really matter about whose DNA was in you, you traced your lineage through that adopted father. "
So, it's basically made up? And Joseph was adopted by two fathers? And both of King David's sons lead to Jesus? They invented a lineage so that a prophecy could be fulfilled. The problem there is that they invented it twice and put both versions in the bible.
The Luke version is Mary's geneology. We know from other ancient writings (ones actually hostile to Christianity) that Heli was Mary's father. See Chagigah 77:4 in the Gemara. Remember Matthew is talking to Jews, using Jewish customs, taking the linage to Abraham to show Jesus jewishness. Luke is talking to an audience of Gentiles, taking the lineage through Mary back to Adam, showing Jesus humanity. If you read the Luke version carefully it says ("so it was thought") when mentioning Joseph.
@sarabellumm I am familiar with that argument. I raises a whole host of other problems. If you investigate your own reasoning to this, you will realize that your understanding with elaborate excuses for why every chapter of the book seems so odd, stems from your desire to make it fit. If you would look at it from a critical point of view, much like you ask of non-believers to suspend their presumptions, you'll realize how far-fetched the arguments you are used to hear, and repeat, sound.
The differences in the three synoptic gospels are 1 of the strengths of the NT. It gives us three unrelated viewpoints. Different authors writing to different recipients. Each author emphasizes different things, while telling the same story. Mark has Peter's viewpoint, Luke a scholarly viewpoint & Matthew aiming at a Jewish view. If they all recited the same thing, why have 3 gospels? One gives us a tiny detail like Judas kiss, the others either don't know that detail or don't think it important
Pretty good. Yes, boring genealogies! hahahah I might have just shown the chart and highlighted the differences. X begat Y times 40 is a bit testing for patience of even non-Christians I'd say. Good points on the contradictions of the command to avoid genealogies yet Matthew and Luke both contain them for Jesus! But the reason is obvious. The messiah HAD to be the descendant of King David and so POOF! Jesus, via a written genealogy, was made to be such. good vid.
@TruthSurge thank you for your attention! Yes, I switched back and forth of including of just mention it, but I decided that I did want to include the source of it. I does bring to fore the point that all this work in Matthew and Luke actually is in vain, since after all Joseph DIDN'T begat Jesus anyway.
@TheLittleDonkey True. But if they could show that Joseph was a descendant of David, then that would have been good enough for many of them. AND if the virgin birth account was added AFTER the genealogies... then that would make Joseph the REAL father and the virgin birth would come in later and screw up the genealogies. But I don't know for sure which was added first - virgin birth idea or the genealogies. We DO know that NEITHER of them existed in Mark's version.
Matthew is the one book of the gospels where there is not a consensus that it was written in Greek. Clearly the other three gospels were, but some scholars assert Matthew was likely originally in Hebrew.
We know it can't be written in 100AD, as it is quoted by Clement and parts of the Didache, both of which are dated to the late 90s or 100 at the latest. Which means it was already known. There are two main camps of scholars, those who date it to the late 60s and those who date it to the 80s.
sarabellumm 1 year ago
Each gospel had a different target audience. Luke said he was writing to new Christians. Mark was likely writing to Christians in Athens; he had to explain Aramaic words which anyone in Palestine would know. Matthew was writing to a very conservative Jewish audience. He assumed they already knew details of Jewish worship and rituals, as well as prophecies about the Messiah. Thus they knew the Messiah was from the line of David, and set out the genealogy through Joseph to prove it.
sarabellumm 1 year ago
@sarabellumm "Thus they knew the Messiah was from the line of David, and set out the genealogy through Joseph to prove it. "
But he wasn't, Joseph didn't begat Jesus.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
@TheLittleDonkey Serious Jews traced lineages back through the father. Even adopted children traced it back through their adopted father for issues as to which tribe you belonged to, etc. It is the male of the family that decided which tribe they tented with, inherited from, etc. So wives (sometimes multiple) and children both adopted and issued, were of the tribe of the husband. So it didn't really matter about whose DNA was in you, you traced your lineage through that adopted father.
sarabellumm 1 year ago
@sarabellumm "So wives (sometimes multiple) and children both adopted and issued, were of the tribe of the husband. So it didn't really matter about whose DNA was in you, you traced your lineage through that adopted father. "
So, it's basically made up? And Joseph was adopted by two fathers? And both of King David's sons lead to Jesus? They invented a lineage so that a prophecy could be fulfilled. The problem there is that they invented it twice and put both versions in the bible.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
The Luke version is Mary's geneology. We know from other ancient writings (ones actually hostile to Christianity) that Heli was Mary's father. See Chagigah 77:4 in the Gemara. Remember Matthew is talking to Jews, using Jewish customs, taking the linage to Abraham to show Jesus jewishness. Luke is talking to an audience of Gentiles, taking the lineage through Mary back to Adam, showing Jesus humanity. If you read the Luke version carefully it says ("so it was thought") when mentioning Joseph.
sarabellumm 1 year ago
@sarabellumm I am familiar with that argument. I raises a whole host of other problems. If you investigate your own reasoning to this, you will realize that your understanding with elaborate excuses for why every chapter of the book seems so odd, stems from your desire to make it fit. If you would look at it from a critical point of view, much like you ask of non-believers to suspend their presumptions, you'll realize how far-fetched the arguments you are used to hear, and repeat, sound.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
The differences in the three synoptic gospels are 1 of the strengths of the NT. It gives us three unrelated viewpoints. Different authors writing to different recipients. Each author emphasizes different things, while telling the same story. Mark has Peter's viewpoint, Luke a scholarly viewpoint & Matthew aiming at a Jewish view. If they all recited the same thing, why have 3 gospels? One gives us a tiny detail like Judas kiss, the others either don't know that detail or don't think it important
sarabellumm 1 year ago
Pretty good. Yes, boring genealogies! hahahah I might have just shown the chart and highlighted the differences. X begat Y times 40 is a bit testing for patience of even non-Christians I'd say. Good points on the contradictions of the command to avoid genealogies yet Matthew and Luke both contain them for Jesus! But the reason is obvious. The messiah HAD to be the descendant of King David and so POOF! Jesus, via a written genealogy, was made to be such. good vid.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge thank you for your attention! Yes, I switched back and forth of including of just mention it, but I decided that I did want to include the source of it. I does bring to fore the point that all this work in Matthew and Luke actually is in vain, since after all Joseph DIDN'T begat Jesus anyway.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
@TheLittleDonkey True. But if they could show that Joseph was a descendant of David, then that would have been good enough for many of them. AND if the virgin birth account was added AFTER the genealogies... then that would make Joseph the REAL father and the virgin birth would come in later and screw up the genealogies. But I don't know for sure which was added first - virgin birth idea or the genealogies. We DO know that NEITHER of them existed in Mark's version.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge good points! I will remember this when it's time to do Mark
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago