Regarding Mark, how do I apply this to myself?
Mark 8:34 states: "Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: `If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me'"(NIV) (1).
Ever since I was given a small wooden cross at a youth ministry conference in the summer of 2000, I have worn that cross around my neck on a regular basis, usually on the outside of my shirt. I remember years ago a woman at a Christian bookstore was talking with me as she was ringing up my purchase. We were having a nice conversation, and then she said, "Every time I see you, you are wearing that cross." No one had ever acknowledged noticing my daily practice of wearing a cross, and obviously it made me feel good that someone noticed.
I child sit for my dear loving friends, Avery (4) and Daniel (3). This summer, Avery took my cross in her hands. (I was at her level sitting down or leaning down.) Avery asked, "Why do you always wear this?" I told her that the cross is a reminder for me of the love of Jesus. Yet it is also a way of expressing what I have chosen to do in my heart, which is to follow Jesus. Taking up my cross is a spiritual choice that I made to trust Jesus.
Regarding Mark, how do I apply this to my community?
Now whether I am wearing my cross or not, what is critical is whether I am carrying my cross in my heart. My wooden cross is simply an outward symbol of the commitment of my heart. Once when I was having a real hard day at work when I use to sell outdoor clothing, I remember physically taking my cross in my hand. Yet again taking up my cross was about following Jesus in my heart, right smack dab in a busy community. Suffering is involved. Since turning to Jesus, in every job I have had, including some employment in churches, I have felt that I encountered hardships I would not have encountered had I not been following Jesus. There are people, some of whom who are active in churches, who are offended by some of the teachings of Jesus. Yet since turning to Jesus, in working every job I have worked, I have felt as though obedience to Jesus enabled me to do the fulfilling work of being a witness to the reality of Jesus.
Hunter Irvine
(1) (Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, and 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Mark background
Mark
Author: Mark, son of Peter
Note my view is advocated by only a small minority. Most scholars say that the author is Mark, known as John Mark, who is mentioned in the Bible (1).
Date: 64 A.D. [Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 132.] or before!
Language: It is uncertain, though many say Greek.
Place: Rome most likely. Eusebius stated, "But Peter made mention of Mark in the first epistle, which he is also said to have composed at the same city of Rome, and that he showed by this fact, by calling the city by an unusual figure of speech, Babylon..." (2).
That "figure of speech" implied a city of decadence.
Purpose: To proclaim the gospel, that people would believe in Jesus and follow Him (Mark 1:1 and Mark 8:35-36).
Mark's actions of likewise making an oral proclamation are noted by Eusebius: "The same Mark, they also say, being the first sent to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written and first established churches at the city of Alexandria. So great a multitude of believers, both of men and women, were collected there at the very outset, that in consequence of their extreme philosophical discipline and austerity, Philo considered their pursuits..."(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 16).
What kind of book?: Historical biography
Reflection: Numerous scholars in numerous seminaries are advocating that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew copied his writing. In the history of what other subject are the ancient historians so doubted in reputable universities than ancient Christian writers?
Hunter Irvine
(1) I once studied this topic, and I even thought that it would make a great thesis at CCU, but then I changed my mind, because the topic is so narrow. Yet here I enclosed the outline to my thesis that never was, so you can see my evidence.
--------------------------------------
Thesis Outline of Hunter Irvine
Copyright 2008 by Hunter Irvine
Introduction: On January 20, 2006, I was near the completion of a personal study of the book of I Peter. After reading I Peter 5:13, I considered that Peter was referring to his physical son named Mark. I recalled a statement from a book that I treasure, In Search of the Twelve Apostles by Dr. William McBirnie, that there was a statement by an early Christian who said Peter was married. Yet then I recalled reading claims by people who advocated that the author of the book of Mark was John called Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.
That weekend, I went to a Christian bookstore which had numerous commentaries, and I started reading each one regarding this issue. Every single commentary I read stated that the book of Mark was written by John called Mark. However, no commentary author gave a single piece of historical evidence to support his firm statement. Thus began the development of my thesis, and the research I have pursued since has led to my conviction.
Thesis Statement: Historical evidence from within two hundred and fifty years of the physical birth of Jesus supports my conviction that Peter had a physical son named Mark, who is mentioned by Peter at the conclusion of his Epistle, I Peter 5:13, and Peter's son was the author of the biblical book of Mark.
1.) Historical evidence
a.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 6, Chapter 25, Verse 5.
[Eusebius, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 998), 215.]
This is a statement by Origen: "The second is according to Mark, who composed it, as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his general Epistle, saying, "The elect church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark my son."
b.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 11, Verse 4-5
This is a statement by Clement of Alexandria (not to be mistaken with Clement, the Bishop of Rome): "... another of Palestine, a Hebrew by descent. The last that I met with was the first in excellence. Him I found concealed in Egypt; and, meeting him there, I ceased to extend my search beyond him, as one who had no superior in abilities. These, indeed, preserved the true tradition of the salutary doctrine, which, as given by Peter and James, John and Paul, had descended from father to son. Though there are few like their fathers, they have, by the favor of God, also come down to use to plant that ancient and apostolic seed likewise in our minds."
c.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 30, Verse 1.
This is another statement by Clement of Alexandria: "Peter and Philip, indeed, had children."
2.) No ancient historical statements to the contrary.
a.) Clement, Bishop of Rome, referred to Mark simply as a "companion" of Peter in his discussion of the book of Mark (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 15, Verse 1). However, he gave no statements that I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
b.) Papias stated that Mark had neither heard nor followed the Lord, yet that he was the "interpreter" of Peter (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 39, Verse 15). And he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
c.) Irenaeus stated that Mark was "the disciple and interpreter of Peter" (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 8, Verse 3), yet he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
---------------------------------------------
(2) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) Book 2, Chapter 15.
Author: Mark, son of Peter
Note my view is advocated by only a small minority. Most scholars say that the author is Mark, known as John Mark, who is mentioned in the Bible (1).
Date: 64 A.D. [Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 132.] or before!
Language: It is uncertain, though many say Greek.
Place: Rome most likely. Eusebius stated, "But Peter made mention of Mark in the first epistle, which he is also said to have composed at the same city of Rome, and that he showed by this fact, by calling the city by an unusual figure of speech, Babylon..." (2).
That "figure of speech" implied a city of decadence.
Purpose: To proclaim the gospel, that people would believe in Jesus and follow Him (Mark 1:1 and Mark 8:35-36).
Mark's actions of likewise making an oral proclamation are noted by Eusebius: "The same Mark, they also say, being the first sent to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written and first established churches at the city of Alexandria. So great a multitude of believers, both of men and women, were collected there at the very outset, that in consequence of their extreme philosophical discipline and austerity, Philo considered their pursuits..."(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 16).
What kind of book?: Historical biography
Reflection: Numerous scholars in numerous seminaries are advocating that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew copied his writing. In the history of what other subject are the ancient historians so doubted in reputable universities than ancient Christian writers?
Hunter Irvine
(1) I once studied this topic, and I even thought that it would make a great thesis at CCU, but then I changed my mind, because the topic is so narrow. Yet here I enclosed the outline to my thesis that never was, so you can see my evidence.
--------------------------------------
Thesis Outline of Hunter Irvine
Copyright 2008 by Hunter Irvine
Introduction: On January 20, 2006, I was near the completion of a personal study of the book of I Peter. After reading I Peter 5:13, I considered that Peter was referring to his physical son named Mark. I recalled a statement from a book that I treasure, In Search of the Twelve Apostles by Dr. William McBirnie, that there was a statement by an early Christian who said Peter was married. Yet then I recalled reading claims by people who advocated that the author of the book of Mark was John called Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.
That weekend, I went to a Christian bookstore which had numerous commentaries, and I started reading each one regarding this issue. Every single commentary I read stated that the book of Mark was written by John called Mark. However, no commentary author gave a single piece of historical evidence to support his firm statement. Thus began the development of my thesis, and the research I have pursued since has led to my conviction.
Thesis Statement: Historical evidence from within two hundred and fifty years of the physical birth of Jesus supports my conviction that Peter had a physical son named Mark, who is mentioned by Peter at the conclusion of his Epistle, I Peter 5:13, and Peter's son was the author of the biblical book of Mark.
1.) Historical evidence
a.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 6, Chapter 25, Verse 5.
[Eusebius, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 998), 215.]
This is a statement by Origen: "The second is according to Mark, who composed it, as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his general Epistle, saying, "The elect church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark my son."
b.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 11, Verse 4-5
This is a statement by Clement of Alexandria (not to be mistaken with Clement, the Bishop of Rome): "... another of Palestine, a Hebrew by descent. The last that I met with was the first in excellence. Him I found concealed in Egypt; and, meeting him there, I ceased to extend my search beyond him, as one who had no superior in abilities. These, indeed, preserved the true tradition of the salutary doctrine, which, as given by Peter and James, John and Paul, had descended from father to son. Though there are few like their fathers, they have, by the favor of God, also come down to use to plant that ancient and apostolic seed likewise in our minds."
c.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 30, Verse 1.
This is another statement by Clement of Alexandria: "Peter and Philip, indeed, had children."
2.) No ancient historical statements to the contrary.
a.) Clement, Bishop of Rome, referred to Mark simply as a "companion" of Peter in his discussion of the book of Mark (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 15, Verse 1). However, he gave no statements that I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
b.) Papias stated that Mark had neither heard nor followed the Lord, yet that he was the "interpreter" of Peter (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 39, Verse 15). And he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
c.) Irenaeus stated that Mark was "the disciple and interpreter of Peter" (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 8, Verse 3), yet he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
---------------------------------------------
(2) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) Book 2, Chapter 15.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Matthew application
Regarding Matthew, how do I apply this to myself?
The first time I ever read the New Testament, other than a few verses when checking out the Bible or on the rare occasion when I attended church, was about a year after I gave my heart to Jesus on April 15, 1990. Soon after turning to Jesus, I was told by a "Christian," John Carter, that I needed to read the Bible. More than one year later, when I was settled into employment as a paralegal, I decided to read the entire New Testament. The only Bible I owned, and possibly the only Bible in my family's home, which had been a gift in my youth, was a King James Version. Mentally tired out after a day of hard work doing paralegal duties, I would consistently read every evening on the orange line of the Washington D.C. area subway until I reached my stop at Dunn Loring. I read the entire New Testament, starting with the book of John, and then going back to read Matthew, Mark, and Luke for the conclusion. After reading the entire New Testament, I considered how my favorite book of the entire New Testament had been Matthew. I felt like I clearly understood the teachings and the ministry of the Person I had turned to, Jesus. I really felt assured of the eternal life I had gained by turning to Him more than a year before.
One incredible moment in reading the book of Matthew the first time was when I read the teaching of Jesus where He states: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"(Matthew 5:48 NIV)(1). As a rather new follower of Jesus, I looked out of the subway window. My first thought was, "That is impossible." Yet I was intrigued by the statement. Then my thought was, "If it was impossible, Jesus would not have commanded it." In the eighteen years since I have been following Jesus, I have learned that the perfection process by Jesus is a painful process, yet that the perfection process by Jesus leads to goodness. And though a person is not completely perfect until he or she is with Jesus in full, living by the love of the Spirit of Christ, a person is changed to be more loving.
How do I apply this to my community?
After a long morning of writing, how nice to end on an easy question. Matthew contains what is termed the "Great Commission," which includes Matthew 28:18-20. The first command is to make disciples of people everywhere and anywhere. How do you make a disciple of Jesus? First of all, you have to tell them about Jesus. I always look for opportunities to tell people about Jesus. Those opportunities vary much in manner. I mentioned my Bible reading on the subway. I remember an incident years later when I was trying to relax by reading the paper after work. Note that I had changed my practice, reading the Bible when I was fresh in the morning, and reading the paper when I was tired on the ride home. Suddenly, this guy sitting next to me leaned towards me a bit and said, "I wonder what the Bible has to say about that subject you are reading about." I proceeded to tell him what I thought the Bible had to say about the subject that I was reading about. But I thought his interruption of my paper reading was rude. Yet I work for appropriate opportunities to tell about who Jesus is and what Jesus has done. Having a gift for evangelism, the work is still always a challenge, and I must rely on God to be enabled to speak the spiritual truths that He has revealed. Many people know some things about church denominations or a few facts about Jesus. Many people do not know what the successful mission of Jesus was. Jesus died on a cross as the substitute for the consequences of sin, which is spiritual death, for anyone. If a person believes in Jesus, he or she has eternal life with Him. Regarding the second command to baptize people, this is also an important community need. Rather than getting into a full discussion here, I will state my conviction that only a person who acknowledges a desire to be baptized should be baptized. The command of Jesus was not to go out and force people to become disciples. Discipleship is a choice. You cannot make a person commit in his or her heart to following someone.
Finally, we are supposed to teach people about the teachings of Jesus. I can thank Jesus that He has me spending my Tuesday doing all of this work in the CCU library for my New Testament class, as He further prepares me for more teaching. I love teaching, and that is one of the reasons that I am blessed to be here at CCU.
Hunter Irvine
(1) (The Holy Bible New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Published by the Zondervan Corporation. All rights reserved.)
The first time I ever read the New Testament, other than a few verses when checking out the Bible or on the rare occasion when I attended church, was about a year after I gave my heart to Jesus on April 15, 1990. Soon after turning to Jesus, I was told by a "Christian," John Carter, that I needed to read the Bible. More than one year later, when I was settled into employment as a paralegal, I decided to read the entire New Testament. The only Bible I owned, and possibly the only Bible in my family's home, which had been a gift in my youth, was a King James Version. Mentally tired out after a day of hard work doing paralegal duties, I would consistently read every evening on the orange line of the Washington D.C. area subway until I reached my stop at Dunn Loring. I read the entire New Testament, starting with the book of John, and then going back to read Matthew, Mark, and Luke for the conclusion. After reading the entire New Testament, I considered how my favorite book of the entire New Testament had been Matthew. I felt like I clearly understood the teachings and the ministry of the Person I had turned to, Jesus. I really felt assured of the eternal life I had gained by turning to Him more than a year before.
One incredible moment in reading the book of Matthew the first time was when I read the teaching of Jesus where He states: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"(Matthew 5:48 NIV)(1). As a rather new follower of Jesus, I looked out of the subway window. My first thought was, "That is impossible." Yet I was intrigued by the statement. Then my thought was, "If it was impossible, Jesus would not have commanded it." In the eighteen years since I have been following Jesus, I have learned that the perfection process by Jesus is a painful process, yet that the perfection process by Jesus leads to goodness. And though a person is not completely perfect until he or she is with Jesus in full, living by the love of the Spirit of Christ, a person is changed to be more loving.
How do I apply this to my community?
After a long morning of writing, how nice to end on an easy question. Matthew contains what is termed the "Great Commission," which includes Matthew 28:18-20. The first command is to make disciples of people everywhere and anywhere. How do you make a disciple of Jesus? First of all, you have to tell them about Jesus. I always look for opportunities to tell people about Jesus. Those opportunities vary much in manner. I mentioned my Bible reading on the subway. I remember an incident years later when I was trying to relax by reading the paper after work. Note that I had changed my practice, reading the Bible when I was fresh in the morning, and reading the paper when I was tired on the ride home. Suddenly, this guy sitting next to me leaned towards me a bit and said, "I wonder what the Bible has to say about that subject you are reading about." I proceeded to tell him what I thought the Bible had to say about the subject that I was reading about. But I thought his interruption of my paper reading was rude. Yet I work for appropriate opportunities to tell about who Jesus is and what Jesus has done. Having a gift for evangelism, the work is still always a challenge, and I must rely on God to be enabled to speak the spiritual truths that He has revealed. Many people know some things about church denominations or a few facts about Jesus. Many people do not know what the successful mission of Jesus was. Jesus died on a cross as the substitute for the consequences of sin, which is spiritual death, for anyone. If a person believes in Jesus, he or she has eternal life with Him. Regarding the second command to baptize people, this is also an important community need. Rather than getting into a full discussion here, I will state my conviction that only a person who acknowledges a desire to be baptized should be baptized. The command of Jesus was not to go out and force people to become disciples. Discipleship is a choice. You cannot make a person commit in his or her heart to following someone.
Finally, we are supposed to teach people about the teachings of Jesus. I can thank Jesus that He has me spending my Tuesday doing all of this work in the CCU library for my New Testament class, as He further prepares me for more teaching. I love teaching, and that is one of the reasons that I am blessed to be here at CCU.
Hunter Irvine
(1) (The Holy Bible New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Published by the Zondervan Corporation. All rights reserved.)
Matthew background
Matthew
Author: Matthew, son of Alphaeus
Papias: "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able." (1) (2)
Origen: "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew."
(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; Book 6, Chapter 25)
This quote from Origen was around 244 A.D.
Irenaeus: "Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect..."
(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; Book 5, Chapter 8)
This quote from Irenaeus was before 191 A.D.
Notice that Origen states that Matthew was the first gospel. Scholars who claim that Matthew, or some unknown person, copied part of Mark, are making that claim in spite of historical evidence. If you followed Jesus, and you decided to write a first hand account, why would you copy part of another person's eyewitness account? Always keep in mind that Matthew was an eyewitness, and was perfectly capable of writing the Scripture we still have!
Date: Around the 50s A.D. since Peter and Paul were still alive according to Irenaeus.
Language: Aramaic, most likely.
In the quotes from early historians given under the topic of the author of Matthew, they all said the language used by Matthew was Hebrew. However, once the Israelites came back from the exile in Babylon, the popular language was Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Yet for Gentiles, they often lumped the two together, just as many back then still referred to Israelites as Hebrews, rather than the more recent term of Jews. Yet most "modern" scholars think Greek was the language of the autographe, and concerning this dispute, see the reflection at the bottom of this page.
Place: Jerusalem
Eusebius: "...when on the point of going also to other nations..."
(Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius; Book3, Chapter 24)
Purpose: Just as the ancient historians refer to Matthew as a "gospel," Matthew was giving a history about Jesus the Messiah so that people would know the "good news," a translation of "gospel," about the offer by Jesus for eternal life. I think Matthew hopes that readers will do what he did, which was to follow Jesus.
What kind of book: A historical biography of Jesus.
Reflection: Dr. Keener states, "... the same tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel)."(3) For someone like me who is use to arguing the accuracy of the New Testament Scriptures even though we do not have any of the original manuscripts, it seems ironic that I now have to emphasize that we do not have any of the original New Testament manuscripts.
Here is a quote from an incredible book from a Professor of New Testament at Cincinnati Bible Seminary from 1938. (Coincidentally this is the same year as the book I quote by Dr. Cartledge; 1938 was a superb year for New Testament Introductions by seminary professors :) "The earliest copies of the Gospels were doubtless made of papyrus. The immensely important find of a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John which dates from the first part of the second century has already been discussed on page 106. The autograph copies doubtless perished in the early centuries, and there is slight chance that any of them will ever be recovered (4). I do add that we have oodles of manuscripts, unlike any of the classics I read in my "Humanities" classes in high school or at Virginia Tech. And there have been some exciting manuscript finds in the past one hundred years. But the only argument that some make to refute the ancient Christian historians is that the ancient Greek texts we have now do not look to them like a translation. This is no ground to make a claim with certainty.
Let me make an illustration. One major hero for me is Abraham Lincoln! Once in the basement of the CCU library, a book that gives a list and a description of the "best" books on Lincoln caught my eye, and I browsed through it. Now I do not agree with the person's list. Listen to what was said in the book about the two classic books written by Carl Sanburg about Abraham Lincoln: "There are two parts to Carl Sandburg's massive biography of Lincoln. The first part, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, came out in two volumes in 1926, and the second, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, came out more than a decade later. The two works are so dissimilar, they could be from different authors"(5). (Note - I own a abridged book which was published at a later time which is a one volume book where those two books by Sandburg were merged together with material having been edited out.) Why are two book written by the same person do dissimilar? Some people are capable of writing in different manners and ways. The same is true of translating. Because of different manners and ways, you cannot always identify a translation, especially if you do not have the original to make a comparison. I'll tell you what we do have. We have fantastic quotes from ancient Christian theologians who have preserved history. Obviously the accuracy of their statements is open to scrutiny just like any history. Yet the more Christians affirm a certain point, considering that I give credence to Christians, the more weight we should give to it. I am learning more and more at CCU that many Biblical scholars simply do not like history.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 106.
(2) {After my study of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius from June of 2006 to December of 2006, I state my conviction that Eusebius was a genuine historian, though his writing is rough. Yet likewise, I state that I do not agree with all of his doctrinal statements. And I in no way concur with his adamant view that the reason for Jerusalem being ransacked in 70 A.D., a ransacking that involved many Jewish people being killed, was that many Jewish people had persecuted Jesus. I do not believe that God was in any way getting what could be classified as revenge. Rather, it was a consequence of the fact that many Jewish people did not enter the new covenant in that time period, which was necessary for the survival of Israel, since the guidance of the Messiah was what the nation had to have on the whole at that tumultous time. And keep in mind that a number of Jewish people did turn to Jesus! All of the authors of the Scriptures of the New Testament were Jewish except for one.}
(3) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 43.
(4) R.C. Foster, An Introduction to the Life of Christ (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1938), 180-181.
(5) Michael Burkhimer, 100 Essential Lincoln books (Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2003), 48.
Author: Matthew, son of Alphaeus
Papias: "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able." (1) (2)
Origen: "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew."
(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; Book 6, Chapter 25)
This quote from Origen was around 244 A.D.
Irenaeus: "Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect..."
(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; Book 5, Chapter 8)
This quote from Irenaeus was before 191 A.D.
Notice that Origen states that Matthew was the first gospel. Scholars who claim that Matthew, or some unknown person, copied part of Mark, are making that claim in spite of historical evidence. If you followed Jesus, and you decided to write a first hand account, why would you copy part of another person's eyewitness account? Always keep in mind that Matthew was an eyewitness, and was perfectly capable of writing the Scripture we still have!
Date: Around the 50s A.D. since Peter and Paul were still alive according to Irenaeus.
Language: Aramaic, most likely.
In the quotes from early historians given under the topic of the author of Matthew, they all said the language used by Matthew was Hebrew. However, once the Israelites came back from the exile in Babylon, the popular language was Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Yet for Gentiles, they often lumped the two together, just as many back then still referred to Israelites as Hebrews, rather than the more recent term of Jews. Yet most "modern" scholars think Greek was the language of the autographe, and concerning this dispute, see the reflection at the bottom of this page.
Place: Jerusalem
Eusebius: "...when on the point of going also to other nations..."
(Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius; Book3, Chapter 24)
Purpose: Just as the ancient historians refer to Matthew as a "gospel," Matthew was giving a history about Jesus the Messiah so that people would know the "good news," a translation of "gospel," about the offer by Jesus for eternal life. I think Matthew hopes that readers will do what he did, which was to follow Jesus.
What kind of book: A historical biography of Jesus.
Reflection: Dr. Keener states, "... the same tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel)."(3) For someone like me who is use to arguing the accuracy of the New Testament Scriptures even though we do not have any of the original manuscripts, it seems ironic that I now have to emphasize that we do not have any of the original New Testament manuscripts.
Here is a quote from an incredible book from a Professor of New Testament at Cincinnati Bible Seminary from 1938. (Coincidentally this is the same year as the book I quote by Dr. Cartledge; 1938 was a superb year for New Testament Introductions by seminary professors :) "The earliest copies of the Gospels were doubtless made of papyrus. The immensely important find of a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John which dates from the first part of the second century has already been discussed on page 106. The autograph copies doubtless perished in the early centuries, and there is slight chance that any of them will ever be recovered (4). I do add that we have oodles of manuscripts, unlike any of the classics I read in my "Humanities" classes in high school or at Virginia Tech. And there have been some exciting manuscript finds in the past one hundred years. But the only argument that some make to refute the ancient Christian historians is that the ancient Greek texts we have now do not look to them like a translation. This is no ground to make a claim with certainty.
Let me make an illustration. One major hero for me is Abraham Lincoln! Once in the basement of the CCU library, a book that gives a list and a description of the "best" books on Lincoln caught my eye, and I browsed through it. Now I do not agree with the person's list. Listen to what was said in the book about the two classic books written by Carl Sanburg about Abraham Lincoln: "There are two parts to Carl Sandburg's massive biography of Lincoln. The first part, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, came out in two volumes in 1926, and the second, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, came out more than a decade later. The two works are so dissimilar, they could be from different authors"(5). (Note - I own a abridged book which was published at a later time which is a one volume book where those two books by Sandburg were merged together with material having been edited out.) Why are two book written by the same person do dissimilar? Some people are capable of writing in different manners and ways. The same is true of translating. Because of different manners and ways, you cannot always identify a translation, especially if you do not have the original to make a comparison. I'll tell you what we do have. We have fantastic quotes from ancient Christian theologians who have preserved history. Obviously the accuracy of their statements is open to scrutiny just like any history. Yet the more Christians affirm a certain point, considering that I give credence to Christians, the more weight we should give to it. I am learning more and more at CCU that many Biblical scholars simply do not like history.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 106.
(2) {After my study of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius from June of 2006 to December of 2006, I state my conviction that Eusebius was a genuine historian, though his writing is rough. Yet likewise, I state that I do not agree with all of his doctrinal statements. And I in no way concur with his adamant view that the reason for Jerusalem being ransacked in 70 A.D., a ransacking that involved many Jewish people being killed, was that many Jewish people had persecuted Jesus. I do not believe that God was in any way getting what could be classified as revenge. Rather, it was a consequence of the fact that many Jewish people did not enter the new covenant in that time period, which was necessary for the survival of Israel, since the guidance of the Messiah was what the nation had to have on the whole at that tumultous time. And keep in mind that a number of Jewish people did turn to Jesus! All of the authors of the Scriptures of the New Testament were Jewish except for one.}
(3) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 43.
(4) R.C. Foster, An Introduction to the Life of Christ (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1938), 180-181.
(5) Michael Burkhimer, 100 Essential Lincoln books (Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2003), 48.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Start of New Testament Survey!
The following 2008 blogs comprise of a personal New Testament Survey review, written as required course work for my New Testament Survey class at Colorado Christian University under Professor Stace Tafoya.
After a great education at Colorado Christian University, this class, which was my first semester, remained my favorite class.
All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version, NIV: The Holy Bible New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Published by the Zondervan Corporation. All rights reserved!
After a great education at Colorado Christian University, this class, which was my first semester, remained my favorite class.
All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version, NIV: The Holy Bible New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Published by the Zondervan Corporation. All rights reserved!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Jesus Fulfilled
In preparation for the New Testament Survey entries, I think reflecting on a transition from the Old Testament is necessary, even though that was not done in class, and even though most of us students will be taking Old Testament Survey next semester.
In the Old Testament, there was a covenant which scholars call the Mosaic Covenant, which was a covenant between God and the Israelites with Moses as the mediator. No other nation was in this covenant; not Greeks or Australians or Mongolians, or anyone else. I summarize the Mosaic covenant: If the Hebrews, the Israelites, would obey the laws and decrees given to them from God through Moses, then they would live long and prosper in the land God gave them, which was named Israel. Yet if they did not obey the Mosaic law, then they would have bad problems. Biblical history in the Hebrew Scriptures exposes to us that the Israelites often were disobedient, and they had plenty of bad problems. Yet God was faithful to them, not giving up on them, but having mercy on them, keeping them rolling until the arrival of the Messiah.
In the New Testament being surveyed here, a new covenant is offered by the Messiah, a covenant offered to all Jewish people and to all people of any other ethnic group. The New Covenant is this: If a person believes in Jesus, he or she will be forgiven of sins and have life forever in heaven. How is this possible? Because Jesus is the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament, a Messiah who suffered as He had to, dying on a cross as the substitute for the sins of people. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there were many sacrifices of animals to temporarily atone for sin. Jesus was the Lamb of God who gave Himself to be the eternal sacrifice; a gift which people have a choice to receive. All a person needs to do is believe in Christ. Believing results in receiving.
Now Jewish people need to examine the challenging question, "Is Jesus the Messiah?" And one thing many Jewish people have struggled with is the new dynamics of the New Covenant. You see, in the teachings of Jesus recorded in Matthew in what is dubbed The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus furthered the Mosaic Law. Then by His perfect life, His ministry, His atoning death, and His resurrection, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Friends, the Old Testament was really a leading covenant, leading to the covenant by the Messiah that is still available for anyone today!!!
Jesus stated: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"(Matthew 5:17 NIV).
Hunter Irvine
In the Old Testament, there was a covenant which scholars call the Mosaic Covenant, which was a covenant between God and the Israelites with Moses as the mediator. No other nation was in this covenant; not Greeks or Australians or Mongolians, or anyone else. I summarize the Mosaic covenant: If the Hebrews, the Israelites, would obey the laws and decrees given to them from God through Moses, then they would live long and prosper in the land God gave them, which was named Israel. Yet if they did not obey the Mosaic law, then they would have bad problems. Biblical history in the Hebrew Scriptures exposes to us that the Israelites often were disobedient, and they had plenty of bad problems. Yet God was faithful to them, not giving up on them, but having mercy on them, keeping them rolling until the arrival of the Messiah.
In the New Testament being surveyed here, a new covenant is offered by the Messiah, a covenant offered to all Jewish people and to all people of any other ethnic group. The New Covenant is this: If a person believes in Jesus, he or she will be forgiven of sins and have life forever in heaven. How is this possible? Because Jesus is the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament, a Messiah who suffered as He had to, dying on a cross as the substitute for the sins of people. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there were many sacrifices of animals to temporarily atone for sin. Jesus was the Lamb of God who gave Himself to be the eternal sacrifice; a gift which people have a choice to receive. All a person needs to do is believe in Christ. Believing results in receiving.
Now Jewish people need to examine the challenging question, "Is Jesus the Messiah?" And one thing many Jewish people have struggled with is the new dynamics of the New Covenant. You see, in the teachings of Jesus recorded in Matthew in what is dubbed The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus furthered the Mosaic Law. Then by His perfect life, His ministry, His atoning death, and His resurrection, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Friends, the Old Testament was really a leading covenant, leading to the covenant by the Messiah that is still available for anyone today!!!
Jesus stated: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"(Matthew 5:17 NIV).
Hunter Irvine
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Scriptures are not allegories
Though this journal reflects New Testament study, it is fitting to address another issue of the "Old Testament" here at the outset, because the "Old Testament" was really the leading Scripture. God did not start His revelations at the birth of Jesus, rather He prepared people with revelations and prophecy leading to the arrival of Immanuel! And then we received revelations straight from the Messiah Himself.
The issue was raised in class last Wednesday concerning the claim of some people that the early chapters in Genesis are an allegory. Such a statement even has New Testament implications because the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3:23-37 goes all of the way back to Adam.
May my conviction be clear that in the entire Bible, where symbolism and metaphors are used consistently, there is no section that is an "allegory" by the academic definition. This is an important issue, since it is a matter of separating fact from fiction. Some consider the "parables" given by Jesus as allegories, thus saying that allegories are embedded in the Bible. I think they need to be more specifically classified as "parables." The difference between an allegory and a parable is that an allegory is a fictional story where the characters and actions are used to symbolize an experience, truth, or even a moral, whereas the parable is a fictional story where the action and sometimes the characters are used to symbolize a "religious" truth or moral. Note that parables are usually more limited in scope, giving a single message, and there is less symbolism involved with the characters. Also note that some allegories are religious yet giving more of a general expression of "religious" reality than a parable. The bottom line about allegories is that they are often so abstract in symbolism that two people can come away with extremely different interpretations about what the author is attempting to say. God has not given us the Scriptures to be a book that is impossible to interpret. Granted there are sincere Christians who interpret certain passages very differently. Yet Christianity has be a blessing for two thousand years because there has been plenty of agreement on the central doctrines of the Bible.
Even "Revelation," which has so much symbolism that it is in a literary realm of its own, is not an allegory. The key Person is God. And angels, creatures, and people are described as worshipping God, with direct quotes given, throughout the book. God, the folks, and the worshipping are not symbolic, rather the great end all in the midst of the final tribulation on earth, which is described with much symbolism within a "vision."
When studying for my first degree at Virginia Tech, during spring quarter of my junior year in 1988, I took an English class called "Fantasy Literature." The professor was a woman who was extremely nice and very encouraging to dedicated students. I really liked her. I learned in that class that even though some academically renowned fictional literature can be what I would classify as bizarre, there are still literary boundaries. Pieces were never part "fairy tale" and part "historical fiction" for example.
One May when I attended the annual Colorado Christian Writer's Conference at the YMCA at Estes Park, I attended a panel of writers who took questions from the attendees. One of the writers was a Jewish Christian woman who was a screenwriter in California. In answering a question, she stated how combining "non-fiction" with an allegory within a script is something that is never accepted.
No part of Genesis is an allegory, though there could possibly be a metaphor with the term "day." 2 Peter 3:8 states: "...With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (NIV). Whenever there is symbolism in the Bible, we need to discover what that symbolism is representing, understanding that it was given for a reason. Praise be to God that He was not trying to be elusive.
Hunter Irvine
The issue was raised in class last Wednesday concerning the claim of some people that the early chapters in Genesis are an allegory. Such a statement even has New Testament implications because the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3:23-37 goes all of the way back to Adam.
May my conviction be clear that in the entire Bible, where symbolism and metaphors are used consistently, there is no section that is an "allegory" by the academic definition. This is an important issue, since it is a matter of separating fact from fiction. Some consider the "parables" given by Jesus as allegories, thus saying that allegories are embedded in the Bible. I think they need to be more specifically classified as "parables." The difference between an allegory and a parable is that an allegory is a fictional story where the characters and actions are used to symbolize an experience, truth, or even a moral, whereas the parable is a fictional story where the action and sometimes the characters are used to symbolize a "religious" truth or moral. Note that parables are usually more limited in scope, giving a single message, and there is less symbolism involved with the characters. Also note that some allegories are religious yet giving more of a general expression of "religious" reality than a parable. The bottom line about allegories is that they are often so abstract in symbolism that two people can come away with extremely different interpretations about what the author is attempting to say. God has not given us the Scriptures to be a book that is impossible to interpret. Granted there are sincere Christians who interpret certain passages very differently. Yet Christianity has be a blessing for two thousand years because there has been plenty of agreement on the central doctrines of the Bible.
Even "Revelation," which has so much symbolism that it is in a literary realm of its own, is not an allegory. The key Person is God. And angels, creatures, and people are described as worshipping God, with direct quotes given, throughout the book. God, the folks, and the worshipping are not symbolic, rather the great end all in the midst of the final tribulation on earth, which is described with much symbolism within a "vision."
When studying for my first degree at Virginia Tech, during spring quarter of my junior year in 1988, I took an English class called "Fantasy Literature." The professor was a woman who was extremely nice and very encouraging to dedicated students. I really liked her. I learned in that class that even though some academically renowned fictional literature can be what I would classify as bizarre, there are still literary boundaries. Pieces were never part "fairy tale" and part "historical fiction" for example.
One May when I attended the annual Colorado Christian Writer's Conference at the YMCA at Estes Park, I attended a panel of writers who took questions from the attendees. One of the writers was a Jewish Christian woman who was a screenwriter in California. In answering a question, she stated how combining "non-fiction" with an allegory within a script is something that is never accepted.
No part of Genesis is an allegory, though there could possibly be a metaphor with the term "day." 2 Peter 3:8 states: "...With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (NIV). Whenever there is symbolism in the Bible, we need to discover what that symbolism is representing, understanding that it was given for a reason. Praise be to God that He was not trying to be elusive.
Hunter Irvine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)