What is the cultural background of Matthew's Gospel?

Answer 1

The historical background of the gospels was first century Palestine, under direct or indirect rule of the Roman Empire. The gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE), so he must have been born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in April 4 BCE, as a younger man might have had difficulty in being accepted as rabbi.

Matthew's Gospel says that magi followed a star from the east, to worship the baby Jesus. This star was not mentioned by Luke and there is no historical record of any unusual star or comet around the time that Jesus would have been born. However, there was a star that caused a great deal of interest throughout the Roman Empire in the late 60s CE, not so long before Matthew was written. Some scholars link this star to the story in Matthew's Gospel. The magi were priests of the Zoroastrian religion, and it is also suggested that Matthew wished to show that even the priests of this great religion wished to worship Jesus.

Matthew's Gospel says that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt out of fear of King Herod, who ordered what is now known as the "Slaughter of the Innocents" - the mass killing of all children in and around Bethlehem under two years old. There is no historical record of this event, although Herod would certainly have been capable of it. The Jewish historian, Josephus, who despised Herod and would certainly have recorded the Slaughter of the Innocents had he known of it, never mentions the event. Some scholars point to a different historical background. They say that Matthew draws parallels between Jesus and Moses, and that the slaughter by Herod of all the infant children copies the Old Testament story of the the slaughter by the Pharaoh of all the infant children.

Luke's Gospel also places the birth of Jesus during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but also at the time of the census of Quirinius, in other words ten years after the death of Herod. In spite of attempts by some to claim that Quirinius might have been governor of Syria on two different occasions, there is no historical evidence to support this. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says "The best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately."

Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus, back through Joseph and the male line to King David. Apart from the obvious discrepancies between the two family trees, which some Christians believe can be explained, they both call into question the historical veracity of the Old Testament genealogy. Matthew says that King Joatham (Jotham) was the son of King Ozias (Ahaziah), whereas the Old Testament says that Jotham was the great great grandson of Ahaziah, through Jehoash, Amaziah and Uzziah. Luke says that Amminadab was the son of Admin and grandson of Aram, whereas the Old Testament says that Amminadab was simply the son of Aram; that Shelah was the son of Kainan and grandson of Arphaxad, whereas the Old Testament says that Shelah was simply the son of Arphaxad. So, both agree with the Old Testament genealogy, but in different places.

In the gospels, Nazareth is presented as a substantial town, even a city, but some scholars doubt this. They find little evidence for the historical existence of Nazareth before 70 CE and say that it must have been, at most, a small rural hamlet.

All the gospels agree that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, and the Jewish historian confirms the historicity of John. The gospels indicate that John was executed early in the mission of Jesus, probably around 29 CE, at the request of Herodias. Josephus says that Antipas imprisoned and executed John because of his public criticism of his marriage to his own brother's former wife, and indicates that this took place in 35 CE. So, when Luke 9:7-9 says, "Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him [Jesus]: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead ... And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him," it can only be regarded as mistaken.

When it came time to try and crucify Jesus, he was taken before a night-time court of the Sanhedrin, headed by the high priests Ananas (Annas) and Caiaphas. Caiaphas was formally the high priest, but his father-in-law, Ananas, was held in high regard and treated very much as the equal of Caiaphas, having been deposed by the Romans. However, it is most improbable that the Sanhedrin would go against long-standing custom by holding a night-time court. John's account is rather more convincing than that of the synoptics, suggesting that there was no formal trial, but that Jesus was simply shunted between two high priestly houses, that of Ananas and that of Caiaphas.

The gospels insist that there was a Jewish custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover, saying that Pontius Pilate offerred to release Jesus or Barabbas, and the Jews chose to release Barabbas. Scholars say that there never was a tradition among the Jews of releasing a prisoner on the day of the Passover. The real tradition was to release one sheep (or goat, the words being synonyms), to take away the sins of the people and to sacrifice a second sheep (the paschal lamb). From the first goat, we get the modern word 'scapegoat' who takes the blame for the wrongdoing of others.

Jesus was placed on the cross at 9:00 o'clock, then at 12 noon there was a great darkness over the whole land. At the time, there were scholars who would record all unusual natural events, not only in Palestine but throughout the Roman Empire, but no reference is made to this darkness outside the Bible. It may simply be that Mark wanted to make this a counterpoint to the betrayal and arrest of Jesus at 12 midnight, twelve hours earlier.

The gospels say that the Sepulchre was sealed with a round stone that could be rolled away. Archaeologists say that this was most unlikely. In the first half of the century, Jewish custom was to use square cut stones. Round stones began to be used around 70 BCE, just when the first of the gospels was being written.

Answer 2

A:Matthew, Mark and Luke are often referred to as the synoptic gospels, a term which means 'seeing with the same eye', because of their similarities and particularly their frequent use of exactly the same Greek text.

All the New Testament gospels were written anonymously in the Greek language. In spite of this, the second-century Church Fathers attributed two of them to disciples who likely had no knowledge of the Greek language (Matthew and John) and two to companions of Paul (Mark and Luke). Modern biblical scholars say that there is no good reason to accept those attributions, andthat we do not really know who wrote the gospels.

The second century Church Fathers realised that there was a literary dependency among the three synoptic gospels, as can easily be demonstrated by a parallel reading in the Greek language. By the end of the second century they had formed the opinion that Matthew was written first, and that Mark and Luke were derived by copying Matthew's Gospel. Modern scholars agree there is a clear literary dependency, but have demonstrated that Mark was first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark for their knowledge of the life and mission of Jesus.

Matthew and Luke shared a further source, the hypothetical 'Q' document, for sayings material attributed to Jesus. There is additional material unique to each of Matthew and Luke, for which there is no known source, and which some scholars believe not to reflect real, historical events.

The consensus of biblical scholars is that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that Mark seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greek, however we do not know the origins or form of these traditions.

Matthew was written in the eighties of the first century, although Brown suggests that several years should be allowed either side of that decade. Luke is believed to have been written in the nineties or early in the second century. Luke's Gospel is also interesting because it was the main source of material used by the author of John's Gospel.

Answer 3

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek Koine, originally anonymously. Eusebius indicates that Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis of Phrygia, first associated Matthew, the tax collector with the first Gospel, around 130 CE. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for believing that the disciple Matthew was not the real author of the Gospel that now bears his name, in fact scholars say that it could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events that it portrays.

Matthew's Gospel is largely based on Mark's Gospel and includes 600 of the 666 verses in Mark. Whenever Matthew agrees with Mark, the sequence and words in the Greek language are almost identical. It also relies on the hypothetical 'Q' document for sayings attributed to Jesus.

Matthew was written some ten to twenty years after Mark - during the eighties of the first century. It appears that the author was responding to criticisms that Christianity was a new superstition and did not deserve the respect accorded to paganism and Judaism. He countered this by including a great many references to the Hebrew scriptures, to provide the necessary impression of antiquity. These scriptural references and frequent portrayals of the Old Testament as prophesying or foreshadowing the life of Jesus may also have been intended to show Christianity as the natural successor to Judaism, after the traumatic Roman-Jewish War of 66-70.

Some believe that the very "Jewishness" of Matthew means that this Gospel was written in a Jewish milieu and for Jews themselves. However, the fact that it was written in Greek, rather than Aramaic or Hebrew, rules out the possibility that it was written for Palestinian Jews. The book also relies on the Septuagint, a flawed early Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and any knowledgeable Jew would quickly detect the errors that resulted in Matthew's Gospel. Furthermore, John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) says that the author did not understand Jewish law. In particular, the presentation and purification stories are hopelessly confused. And the only gospel author who even realised that the Sanhedrin court never met during the hours of darkness was the author of John's Gospel.

The weight of evidence is that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in a Jewish cultural environment. It was written by a Greek-speaking gentile, in a community of other Greek-speaking gentile Christians.

Answer 4

A:Although Papias attributed one of the gospels to the apostle Mark in the second century, there is good reason to say that Mark was very unlikely to have been the real author of the gospel. Mark's Gospel was originally anonymous, thus we still do not really know who wrote it and therefore know very little about the author's background.

We do know that the gospel was written in Greek Koine, the lingua franca for most of the ancient Near East, but not mainland Greece, so we can probably assume that Mark was written in the Near East for a Near Eastern audience. The tradition that the Gospel was written in Rome has no foundation, particularly given the choice of Greek Koine as the language used and evidence that he knew at least some Latin.

From the text, we know that 'Mark' was a gifted writer, although he wrote in a poor, almost ungrammatical style of Greek Koine, probably by choice. Some believe he lacked familiarity with Palestinian geography and Jewish customs.

Scholars have established from the text that Mark was written approximately 70 CE, which corresponds to the end of the First Roman-Jewish War. This event resulted in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the downfall of the Sadducees and Pharisees. Judaism was left for some time without religious leaders, so it seems possible that Mark was written to fill that void, although perhaps not within Judea.

Answer:

His Roman name was Mark, but he is aka John (Acts 13:5, 13) is directed to Gentile Christians, especially the Romans. He does not assume any familiarity with the Jewish Scripture as he quotes from the Old Testament directly and explains Jewish customs and geography. His Gospel is not a biography of Jesus like Matthew and Luke, instead he records Jesus' actions and achievements - Jesus as Savior-King conquering demons, disease, and death itself.

Perhaps the most thoughtful estimate of the writing of Mark's Gospel would be sometime after Peter's death - circa 64 or 65 AD, but prior to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. In any event, this Gospel of Mark was penned within 30-40 years after the events it records.