Smoodock's Blog

According my previous study, neither Matthew nor the other two Synoptic Gospels make sense, unless they were written prior to AD 70. In other words, no matter what one believes about the possibility of predicting future events, Jesus did, in fact, predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Olivet Prophecy. Was he a true prophet, or was Jesus just lucky? The Bible claims that the prophets of God did predict future events. It’s a matter for the reader to decide whether or not this is so. However, no matter what position we take on this subject, the fact remains, it is more reasonable to believe Matthew and the other Synoptics were written prior to AD 70, and Jesus did successfully predict Jerusalem’s destruction. The question remains, however, how early were the Gospel narratives written?

According to my earlier studies, Papias claimed that Matthew’s Gospel was written first in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect, and the other Apostles added their remembrances to the final copy. This implies that Matthew kept a journal during Jesus’ ministry and wrote down the things that were said and done. Therefore, if this understanding is logical and true, there is no good reason to believe that he didn’t write a formal Gospel narrative very early. Many scholars, however, try to disallow an early writing, because the Apostles lived in an oral culture. In other words, the Gospel narratives weren’t written down until later, because it is hypothesized that information contained in the written accounts was first passed on by word of mouth. First folks passed on data about Jesus’ healing miracles, and there were also other traditions about his sayings, like the parables, and these things were done prior to writing down what we find in our finished Gospel accounts. However, this makes no sense, if we take into account what was done in other societies during the first century AD. For example, consider how writing served the oral tradition of the first century AD:

“Writing was usually seen as supplementary to the oral discourse. Orators should avoid note-books that were too detailed. One is reminded of Quintillian’s criticism of Laenas’ dependence on such notes and his clear-cut advice: “For my own part, however, I think we should not write anything, which we do not intend to commit to memory…” Writing was not avoided as such, but functioned mainly as a memorandum of what the person already should remember from oral communication” [Samuel Byrskog: “Story as History” page116].

Therefore, there is absolutely no foundation for the idea that the Gospels were written down only after a period of time, when parts were transmitted orally.

How early, therefore, were they written down? Jerusalem was the focal point of all Jewry during the first century AD. Folks in Galilee gathered there to celebrate the annual festivals, as did also many from the Diaspora who made extended pilgrimages there, not only for the annual festivals but to acquaint themselves with their great heritage as the children of Abraham. While they were there, the Gospel was preached to them by the Apostles. It makes good sense for them to return to their homes in the Diaspora with a written copy of the Gospel and study and share it with Jewish family and friends, that the Messiah had come. Matthew’s Gospel is written in a manner that accommodated memorization.[1] So, it makes sense that Matthew’s was written very early to accommodate Jewish pilgrims who believed, so they could spread the Gospel by bringing a copy back with them to their local synagogues in the Diaspora.

We’ve already mentioned that Luke probably used Matthew’s narrative to gain information for his account, which is written to Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4). Who is Theophilus? It has been postulated that Theophilus was Paul’s lawyer or the sponsor who paid for Luke’s supplies to write down the narrative, but neither of these suggestions makes sense. There is only one famous Theophilus who lived during the Apostolic age, and that was the high priest and son of Annas who played a major role in Jesus’ crucifixion (John 18:12-13). Theophilus’ reign was about 36 to 41 AD. During his tenure, the Jewish authorities were involved in persecuting the Grecian Jewish believers who resettled in Jewish lands.[2] Luke’s Olivet Prophecy has believing Jews fleeing Jerusalem, when the city was surrounded by armies.

Caligula, Emperor of Rome, commanded Petronius, the governor of Syria, to place a statue of the emperor in the Temple at Jerusalem. Petronius took his armies and settled in for the winter at Ptolemais, just north of Caesarea, intending in the spring to march to Jerusalem to place the idol in the Jew’s Temple. He anticipated a war breaking out, which is why he wintered his armies at Ptolemais, hoping for good weather for any trouble that would erupt over the idol, he was to place there.

Theophilus knew what was happening, and upon reading Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21, he stopped the persecution, Caligula was assassinated, and Petronius took his armies and returned to Syria. Luke refers to this cessation of the persecution by saying: “Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified…” (Acts 9:31). This means that Luke’s Gospel was written in the late 30s or early 40s AD, during the term of Theophilus as high priest. Therefore, Matthew had to have been written prior to the Gospel of Luke, and this fits nicely into the context of it being the narrative that the Diaspora Jews took with them, when they returned to their homes throughout the Empire and spread the Gospel in their locales.

_____________________________________________

[1] Three sets of 14 generations in Jesus’ genealogy (Matthew 1); an accumulation of Jesus parables in one area (Matthew 13; a collection of Jesus’ saying in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6 & 7), a collection of Jesus’ miracles (Matthew 8 & 9) etc.

[2] This was the persecution that began with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.