[سواها قلبي]

2 - The Gospel of Matthew

It is still clear that both the Hellenistic Paul and the Jewish evangelist Matthew held completely different views regarding the works and teachings of Jesus. (Frederick Grant, p. 141)


As for the date of writing this Gospel, it can be said that it was written in approximately the period from 85 to 105 AD. In any case, it can be said that it was written in the last quarter of the first century or in the first years of the second century (John Fulton, p. 11).


Regarding the place of its composition: Strong evidence points to Antioch, and since it is difficult to link the Gospel to a specific city, it is appropriate to say that it comes from somewhere in the surrounding area or any place located north of Palestine (Frederick Grant: p. 140).


Problems with the Gospel of Matthew:

1- Predicting the end of the world soon:

Although this idea dominated the thinking of the authors of the New Testament, Matthew was the most keen to confirm it. He expected that the end of the world would come in the days of Christ: before his apostles had completed their preaching in the cities of Israel (10:23), before death overtook some of Christ’s contemporaries who had listened to his teachings (16:28), and before that generation that was a contemporary of Christ and his disciples had perished (24:34).


It is clear, as John Fenton says on page 21, that “nothing of this happened as Matthew had expected.”

2 - Then comes the conclusion of the Gospel, which scholars doubt and consider to be foreign. It attributes to Christ what he said to his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19).

This doubt is due, as Adolf Hernke, one of the greatest scholars of church history, says, to the following:

A- Only in the later stages of Christian teachings did it occur that Christ gave sermons and gave instructions after he was raised from the dead...and Paul did not know anything about this.

B - “This formula of the Trinity is strange to be mentioned by Christ...and it had no influence in the era of the Apostles...which is something it would have remained worthy of...had it been issued by Christ himself (Adolf Hernke: Part 1 - p. 79).”


3 - The Gospel of Luke:

It begins with an introduction that sheds much light on what was happening in early Christianity, especially regarding the composition of the Gospels. It says:


“And since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed good to me also, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (1:1-4)


**From this introduction, a number of points become clear that must be accepted:

1- Luke wrote a personal letter to Theophilus...and this letter was written in succession, according to the available time and information.


2 - Luke did this work out of purely personal motives, in order for the information he learned to reach his friend.. ** The man did not claim in his letter that he wrote it inspired or led by the Holy Spirit.. *** Rather, he explicitly states that his information came as a result of his personal effort because he followed everything from the beginning with precision..

3. Luke also states that many others had begun to compose Gospels.

4. Finally, Luke admits that he did not see Christ and was not one of his disciples. However, he wrote his letter based on information he received from those who had seen Christ and served him. It is well known that the Book of Acts, the longest book in the New Testament, is the second part of Luke's letter to Theophilus.

Scientists have tried to find out who Theophilus was, but their efforts have not yielded any definite results.


Frederick Grant says:

"We have no idea who this Theophilus might have been. He might have been a Roman official. Nor have we any of the many others who wrote similar stories. Although the matter is merely speculative, it is not impossible that the author of Luke's Gospel collected his material in Palestine or Syria as early as 70-80 AD, then combined it with the bulk of Mark's Gospel sometime in the 70s, and then published his Gospel around 80 or 85 AD. About five years later, he appended a second epistle to his original book, which we now know as the Acts of the Apostles, and published his work around 95 AD." (Frederick Grant, pp. 121, 127, 128)

Scholars' statements about Luke's writings include:

The Book of Acts contains many points that completely contradict the teachings mentioned in Paul's epistles. It is therefore inconceivable that these were written by someone with direct knowledge of Paul and his missionary journeys. Luke is rarely mentioned as a prominent figure in the historical records of the first century of Christianity (George Caird, pp. 15, 16, 17).

Problems with the Gospel of Luke:

1- The text of the Gospel of Luke suffers from the same changes that other books of the New Testament suffer from. However, the Western text of the Gospel and the Book of Acts suffers from significant differences in additions and deletions (George Caird, pp. 32, 33).


2- "Then there is the acute problem that resulted from the difference in the lineage of Christ, as reported by Luke, from what is stated in his version in the Gospel of Matthew... and in the books of the Old Testament."

This is one of the problems with the Gospels that we will discuss later.

And there is more to come.

Your brother, Al-Athram