1520 | The Synoptic Gospels and Acts
and triumphant Messiah should experience suffering and rejection . Mark seems to suggest that the answer lies in the fact that Jesus has redefined the terms of messiahship altogether . In the first half of the Gospel , prior to the revelation of Caesarea Philippi ( Mk 8:27 – 30 ), the evangelist seeks to establish Jesus as the promised Messiah . In the second half of the narrative , he conveys the surprising things that Messianic identity entails . The reason why so many do not accept the Messiah is because only some are “ good soil ” ( Mk 4:1 – 20 ), receptive to the claims of Jesus . Mark ’ s Gospel , with its twin focus on Christ ’ s compelling character and suffering , serves as an unparalleled charter document for Chris tian discipleship .
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
The Gospel of Matthew is often assigned a date much later than that of Mark . This is primarily a consequence not only of the Two-Source Hypothesis , but also of the sense that the author of Matthew ’ s Gospel is addressing concerns relevant to the late first century AD ( e . g ., Chris tians ’ conflicts with the synagogue and issues of church order ). Moreover , the twice-used phrase “ to this day ” ( Mt 27:8 ; 28:15 ) seems to imply some historical distance between Matthew ’ s recording of the events and the events themselves . These factors may suggest an authorship date in the late first-century AD , although other factors suggest an earlier date ; the dating of Matthew remains open to discussion .
Antioch in Syria is the most probable place of origin for Matthew ’ s Gospel . Other suggested locations include Caesarea Maritima , Alexandria and the territory east of the Jordan . The Gospel has an obvious concern for the Gentiles , and Syrian Antioch was a cosmopolitan mix of Jewish and Gentile cultures during the first century AD . The earliest attestations of Matthew ’ s Gospel stemming from the church father Ignatius of Antioch also suggest a Syrian origin for the Gospel . 2
The first Gospel seems to have been written with a Jewish audience foremost in mind . Matthew ’ s modeling of Jesus on the figure of Moses , the polemic against institutional Judaism and the various “ fulfillment citations ” ( referencing an Old Testament passage as being fulfilled in the NT , especially how Jesus personally fulfills Old Testament Scriptures ; e . g ., Mt 1:22 – 23 ; 2:15,17 – 18,23 ; 4:14 – 16 ) all seem to presuppose an attempt to legitimize a fledgling Chris tian movement within an established Jewish culture . Matthew shows Jesus as the true teacher of Torah , indeed as the embodiment of Torah itself , and as the culmination of the history of God ’ s redeeming purposes through Israel .
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE AND BOOK OF ACTS
The Gospel of Luke , the latest of the Synoptic Gospels , has traditionally been credited to Luke , a Gentile physician and companion of the apostle Paul ( Col 4:11,14 ; 2Ti 4:11 ; Phm 24 ). The book of Acts ( or Acts of the Apostles ) is also traditionally attributed to Luke since the prologue presents it as a sequel to the Gospel ( Ac 1:1 – 2 ). There are also four “ we passages ” in Acts , which appear as if the author was present for the events being narrated ( Ac 16:10 – 17 ; 20:5 – 15 ; 21:1 – 18 ; 27:1 — 28:16 ). This would make sense if Luke was indeed the author .
Assuming that Luke and Acts were written together as one piece ( the two works show striking structural parallels that make it hard to believe otherwise ), the dating of Luke-Acts is closely connected with prior judgments relating not only to the authorship of Mark ( on whom Luke presumably depends ) but also to the events narrated in Acts . The earliest that Luke – Acts could have been
2 E . g ., Ignatius of Antioch , To the Smyrnaeans , 1.1 ; To the Ephesians , 19.1 – 3 .