I am presently working through a dissertation on the topic of Matthean posteriority, which is an unusual take on this topic. The issue is in what order the Gospels were written, and who then borrowed from whom. Of the different permutations which scholars advance, rarely is Matthew placed last. This is an examination of the scholars who hold this position and the evidence they use to advance the argument. Interesting stuff!
Recent blog posts
- Internet Sleuthing in the Service of Biblical Studies
- Doing what is right
- Schweitzer as enigma and challenge
- A Tribute to Martin Hengel
- Spear or sword? Finding word meanings
- Albert Schweitzer, the Genius
- Matthew wrote last?
- A Tribute to Harold Hoehner - Update
- A Tribute to Harold Hoehner
- The New Epistemology
Latest image
About The Author
Dr. Michael Burer is Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is the assistant project director for the NET Bible and has contributed various studies to the bible.org site. His first book - A New Reader's Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, co-authored with Jeff Miller - was published Fall of 2008.
Syndicate
What you describe is certainly confirmed by anecdotal evidence. That's part of the reason I want to focus on the Gospels. Let's give Jesus equal time with Paul!
Dr Burer, I'd be especially interested to know, have you seen any synoptic scholars suggesting Matthew wrote both first AND last? (my hypothesis)
By the way, I'm always glad when local DFW professors are able to blog, so thanks for posting as often as you can.
Bill: Thanks for the link to your blog post. What you argue there is very similar to what some scholars argue about Q, namely, that the apostles of Jesus would have recorded sayings and teachings, which then were later compiled into a single document. Your focus on Matthew is very reasonable for reasons you mention (Matthew to be a tax collector would have been educated, literate, etc.), but some scholars even argue that Matthew wrote Q! So your theory is interesting; it'd be neat to see it worked out in the details.
Thanks for the encouraging words, Professor. Unfortunately, this is as far as I expect to take this theory. I'd love to know what textual critics think about the potential applications for synoptic issues, so please feel free at any time in the future to suggest the topic to students and/or colleagues. Thanks again for the encouragement, and I deeply hope yourself or someone else picks this up again somday. :-)
For clarification, last among all four gospels or last among the synoptic gospels?
Last among the Synoptics. Usually when scholars discuss this issue, the relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is viewed as a separate problem from the relationship of John to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Post new comment