THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (Part 8)
However it is best to recognize that Matthew is later than Mark and probably reflects the discussion which took place between Christianity and Judaism after AD 70. No arguments make it necessary to date it after 85 AD, and it is best to think of it as emerging around 85 AD, at a time when the Jewish people were reorganizing themselves after the collapse of their state in AD 70.The Gospel Of Matthew
Where was it written?
Just as it has been difficult to date for Matthew, so there has been division about the place of its origin. The most likely place suggested is Syria. There Christianity was meeting Judaism and Hellenism, and the “omnibus” character of Matthew, that is, its inclusion of so many different points of view, reflects a situation in which the Gospel had to cope with many influences. In particular, it confronted the challenge of a Judaism that was being forced to reassert and reorganize itself. Matthaean Christianity and the Rabbinic Judaism which developed at Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD were parallel and interacting movements.
Matthew as the Gospel of the New Law
Scholars pointed out that apart from the Prologue ( Matthew 1, 2), and the Epilogue Matthew 26 - 28), the remainder of the material in the Gospel falls into five “books”, each of which is terminated by a formula, which occurs in almost identical forms. (See Outline). These were compared with the Pentateuch. Matthew, it has been argued was a converted Rabbi, a Christian Legalist. Each of the “five books” begins with an introductory narrative and closes with a stereotyped formula linking its discourse to the next succeeding narrative section. In this view the intention of Matthew is to organize the Gospel of Church, the New Israel, in the same way as the Law of the Old Israel was arranged, that is, in a fivefold manner. It has been suggested that this Pentateuchal approach may be reading too much into this Gospel for it was customary among Jewish writers to arrange their subject into five books. But the real telling arguments, “Can we really expect the author of Matthew to place the Passion of Jesus and his Resurrection to a mere addenda and is outside the main body of Matthew’s work? Note, however, one aspect of this Pentateuchal approach is valid for Matthew was concerned with presenting the moral teaching of Jesus as the Law of the Messiah, that is, as the true interpretation of the old Law. (See Matthew 5: 17 - 20)
(to be continued)