Could the Gospel According to Matthew have been purposely written as a satire or humorous writing and not a serious religious work?
The
Satire According to ”Matthew written by Kyle Williams describes the Book According to Matthew as a satire or humorous writing and not a piece that the author meant for his readers to take ”seriously.”
IMO, it is possible that the author of Matthew (80-100CE) did intend it as a satire or humorous ”writing. I would like to compare Matthew with the Book According to Mark (65-80-CE), the ”synoptic written first, and the Book According to Luke (80-130CE), the supposed investigative ”synoptic, written after Matthew.”
In the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, expert Craig Bloomberg states: "It's ”important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous."”
Even though I agree that the synoptic authors are anonymous, I will be refering to the ”books by their traditional names. NOTE: This discussion is not about proving ”authorship. Please don’t go there.”
Williams has the satire markers broken down into five categories:”
””The Genealogy”, ”Double Vision, ”Phony Fulfillments, ”Zechariah, and ”General Nonsense.
”
”
Genealogy”
Mark carries no genealogy. Luke does not mention the women, which is normal. The ”women mentioned in the Matthew genealogy are rather questionable. An unusual group ”to bring forward and Luke didn’t.”
We also find that the genealogy doesn’t stack up to what is written in Kings and ”Chronicles. Four generations seem to be omitted.”
Luke did not support Matthew’s genealogy.” The point being that the investigator came up with different information and Matthew was trying to keep the numbers even.
(I don't want to argue about which is correct, if either, since there is already an open thread for that:
Luke and Matthew's genealogies)
”
Double Vision”
Several examples are given where the author has increased the number of participants in ”an event.”
Mark (5:9) has one demon possessed man named Legion and Matthew has two (8:28-34). ”Now Luke (8:30) who claimed to investigate for his writing agrees with Mark and not ”Matthew. So the author of Luke does not support Matthew’s rendition.”
”
Phony Fulfillments”
This brings up the ever popular virgin birth which was already fulfilled by Isaiah’s son, ”which the Jews would know. (usage of the word almah, not up for debate-Don’t go ”there)”
Mark didn’t have the birth story and Luke downplayed the impression that there was no ”sex between Joseph and Mary. Luke also doesn’t bring up the name Immanuel. So the ”investigator again doesn’t strongly support Matthew.”
The prophecies brought out by Matthew don’t hold water and aren’t supported by the ”other two synopotics. (Out of Egypt 2:15, Nazarene 2:23, and Donkey Riding King 21:4-””5.”)
”
Zechariah”
This is being covered in another thread
Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah? ”so I won’t go into it here.”
Conclusion:”
Even though religious writings tend to have amazing stories within them, the author of Matthew ”brought up information that the Jews knew to be incorrect or could easily check.
As I understand it there were several men who tried to present themselves as the messiah in those ”days (First Century CE). Unfortunately, presenting the wrong information wouldn't make the author's candidate for ”messiah very impressive.”
IMO, the author may have made these "mistakes" on purpose using ancient satire/humor to poke ”fun at the messiah craze.”
__________________________________________
Please put this in the Bible: Accurracy and Inerrancy Forum please since this discussion is looking at accuracy of the information in the Book of Matthew in relation to the OT, the other two synoptics, and known history.
™ Version 4.2