tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post1398734275374049819..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: The Gospel of Matthew and the New PropheciesWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-37493599158035760702008-12-17T07:34:00.000-06:002008-12-17T07:34:00.000-06:00I'm saying the internal evidence from Matthew ...I'm saying the internal evidence from Matthew may not settle the question whether Matthew was written before or after the destruction of the Temple. I'm trying to give a fair shake to both sides of the argument, and with Matthew the internal evidence is far more complicated than Mark's, which I think is the only clear take-home conclusion from Matthew as a standalone study or even in comparison to Mark. <BR/><BR/>Luke has more points of interest in his writings as far as dating goes, so I think in the case of the Gospel of Luke the evidence is clearer. Any conclusions drawn from there about Matthew will depend on whether you hold the view that the Gospel of Matthew was written before, or at least not after, Luke's writings. Which is the post I'm drafting now, though probably won't be finished today ... <BR/><BR/>Btw I think I'm going to break "Let the reader understand" into its own post besides Luke's writings, just in case you're keeping an eye on that angle also. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-37573997495047507242008-12-16T22:17:00.000-06:002008-12-16T22:17:00.000-06:00So I'm not sure whether you're saying Matthew was ...So I'm not sure whether you're saying Matthew was written before or after the destruction of the Temple. Will the post about Luke clear that up?BruceAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16013588487417582411noreply@blogger.com