Wondering About Textual Criticism

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone who claims the New Testament manuscripts were copied from one another and were probably written late in the 1^st century CE—after the destruction of Jerusalem, or even early in the 2^nd century CE? Well, recently I had a discussion with a Jewish acquaintance. I would like to say he is my friend, but I’m afraid he might think I am being presumptuous. Anyway, we were discussing the Synoptic Gospel narratives. He mentioned a number of nuances in Matthew, having to do with different parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, and I told him I never heard of anyone arguing that Matthew intended to make subtle references to those Scriptures he mentioned.

Long-story-short, he told me that I “…no longer read the gospel references with Jewish eyes and are less aware of the parallels than Christians might have been aware of in the 1st century, if they had Jewish antecedents.” This same man argued that Matthew had been written by a Christian (not Matthew the apostle) sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. He argued for a date in the late 70’s or 80’s of the 1^st century CE. However, this just didn’t appear correct to me, given his argument about the Jewish nuances within Matthew’s account that he claimed were cleverly inserted to reflect the authors attempt to show how Jesus was fulfilling various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. One example of what this Jewish gentleman was saying is Joseph son of Jacob in the Matthew genealogy who dreamed of a vision from God "suggests another Joseph son of Jacob who also dreamed and interpreted visions from God." Another is ""  the three days Jesus spent in the tomb has a parallel in Jewish Midrash" (rabbinic commentary on oral tradition in the Talmud). Still another is Jesus’ legal name would be "Joshua ben Joseph haMashiach, which would be reminiscent to Jews familiar with Joshua of the Exodus who was a messiah (as one appointed by God to do a job)."

If Matthew contains subtle nuances to ancient people and events in the Hebrew Scriptures, and I am not referring to Matthew’s obvious references to Jesus’ fulfilling Scripture, then Matthew could not have been written with the gentile in mind. I found my friend’s argument for those nuances fascinating, and I admit they escaped my perception until he mentioned them. With this in mind, what value would Matthew have had to ancient Christians, if it were written late in the 1^st century? In the beginning of the Gospel, most, in not all, believers were Jews. The later we travel through the first century, the less and less this would be true. In fact, many Jewish believers fell away at the time of the Jewish war with Rome, and those who remained faithful to Christ, were no longer welcome in the synagogues after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

What this means is, less and less Jews were accepting Jesus as their Messiah, but more and more gentiles with absolutely no Jewish background were becoming Christians. Why, then, would “Matthew” insert subtle nuances in his narrative that only a Jew would be able to see referred to ancient people or events in the Hebrew Scriptures? The value of Matthew to its readers is greater the earlier we place its being written, while much of its value become gratuitous the later we claim it is written. This just doesn’t make sense.