Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

In RH Gundry’s Matthew, a Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art his final chapter is titled “A Theological Postscript” in which he discusses how both extreme conservative and extreme liberal approaches have missed the mark in interpreting Matthew. The conservative side tends to want to harmonize the Gospels whereas the liberal side will tend to strip the Gospels of their divine creation. Gundry argues for a more healthy middle approach. His chapter does tend to focus on the conservative side as, I feel, the liberal side doesn’t have much merit to begin with.

In my New Testament Foundations class taught by Bob Derrenbacker I wrote a short (1000 words) essay discussing Gundry’s thoughts. If you would like to read it (in PDF format) please click here. (you can also right click and select “Save As” and save it to your desktop.)

I have also posted the text at the end of blog for those without Adobe Acrobat Reader (but I recommend getting it as it is much easier to read the paper in that format, also there are no footnotes in this version).

Addendum: From the comments of the original post [No longer available].

Posted by:
Liveitup
Date: 03/07/05 at 3:14 AM
I have a question? But before that good paper. Very well written, and I hope you get an “A.”

1. You refer to Gundry’s saying, ” Gundry says that the discrepancies will be seen as such as long as we continue to believe that the authors were intending to write in an historical way (Gundry also lists a number of these
discrepancies).3
I was wondering….What are those discrepancies. I do not have the book, and I was hoping that you could point those out to me.

Thank you much. I hope that you have time to place a few of the discrepancies down.

Once again, good job.

Posted by:
Mattithyahu
Date: 03/07/05 at 3:41 AM
Thank you very much, I appreciate the compliment!

Here are the discrepancies that Gunry points out in Matthew (pg 624-5):
Feeding of the 5000 in Mt 14.16-17 contrasted to Mk. 6.37-38
Not allong the disciples to take even a staff and sandals in Mt 10.9-10 (also Lk 9.3, 10.4) compared to Mk 6.8-9 where Jesus allows both.
The chief priests and elders sentencing themsleves at the end of the tenant parable in Mt. 21.41 contrasts to Mk 12.9 and Lk 20.16 where Jesus pronounces the sentence.
Gundry goes on to say “We are not dealing with a few scattered difficulties. We are dealing with a vast network of tendentious changes. Taking a different view of the synoptic problem offers no escape; for then the tendencies merely run in another direction. Whatever synoptic theory we adopt – and even though we remain agnostic on the synoptic problem – somebody was making drastic changes.”

Hope that helps some, let me know if you have more questions!

I did a quick side-by-side write up comparing the three examples Gundry gives and also threw in a few of his comments about the discrepancies . You can view it (also in PDF format) here. You will probably still want to read through the larger sections to see the overall context, but the side-by-side view really helps show the differences.

Hope this helps!

Gundry, R.H. A Theological Postscript, in Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 623-640.

Gundry’s “A Theological Postscript” is an essay written to combat two extremes: extreme conservatives who want to harmonize (bring into agreement) the synoptic Gospels and extreme liberals who strip the Gospels of having any divine inspiration. This dichotomy arises because of the nature of the Gospels and their authority. The Protestant conservative side tends “toward minimizing the human manner in which the biblical writers went about their work.” Gundry suggests that in order to have a fuller understanding of the Synoptics, the influence of the biblical writers needs to be recognized and placed in its correct context and given appropriate importance. The Protestant liberal side swings the other way: “the human characteristics of the Bible devour its authority as God’s Word….” Gundry hopes to offer a more reasonable approach to the Word of God.

The conservative view sees that the Bible is God’s word and is a history of the life of Jesus (specifically with the Synoptic Gospels). The problem that arises is one of a historical nature. Because conservatives see the Gospels as a historically accurate account of Jesus’ life, the discrepancies between the synoptics must be addressed. Their “solution” to this so called “Synoptic problem” is to mesh the Gospels together in a way that removes the inconsistencies. Gundry says that the discrepancies will be seen as such as long as we continue to believe that the authors were intending to write in an historical way (Gundry also lists a number of these discrepancies). In order for the harmonization to “work” the biblical language must become very “loose” which will weaken the text in exactly the same way the conservatives were trying to fight against (namely discrepancies arising).

Gundry suggests the answer to the conservative side is this: “The equation of the Bible with God’s Word must stay, the straining to resolve all historical differences in the Bible must go.” This view, I feel, is a good position to have at all times when approaching the Bible. Reading of the Bible should always take into account the historical context in which it was written as well as a realization that there are some ambiguities that we may never resolve. The Holy Spirit is recognized as having inspired the creation of the Biblical canon, including its perceived inconsistencies.

Gundry also uses the genre of “midrash” (Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures based on exegesis) and “haggadah” (traditional Jewish literature) as a parallel to the Gospel writings. His comparisons would have made more sense to me if he had explained how he was drawing his parallels. Gundry also calls on a contemporary of the New Testament writers, Josephus, to show how modern views of historians do not necessarily coincide with the views of ancient historians as “Antiquities [one of Josephus’ historical works] hardly reflects the actualities of past events.” He later goes on to say that regardless of Matthew being historical or unhistorical (or both), the Gospel is in the canon and therefore divinely inspired.

The nature of truth is also discussed with its relation to history. Gundry argues that in order for something to be truthful, it does not have to be historical. Jesus spoke often in parables that were to be understood in the community as being relevant but not necessarily actual historical events. Jesus’ parables contain valuable truths (why else would he give them?) but were never intended to be taken as real events in time. The construction of “Jesus said…” and the like could very likely be actual events but, similar to the parables, could be a means for conveying truth. This construction is apparently similar to writings in the midrash and haggadah Gundry suggests (but without examples). “In such places Matthew is not writing as a historian; he is writing as a midrashist and haggadist who bends and shapes his materials to make certain points.” It is good to know the style in which Matthew writes his “unhistorical” material, but that begs the question of what it means to write as a midrashist or haggadist. Gundry does add this helpful definition of midrash and haggadah: their message (which include unhistorical events) contain truth that are not contingent on historical events.

A crucial point that Gundry makes that I think both conservative and liberal Christians should hear is this: “We must remind ourselves that taking Matthew’s intent to be solely historical is as much a critical judgment (conscious or unconscious) as taking it to be a mixture of the historical and unhistorical. Both positions require justification.” It seems most Christians don’t realize they are making critical judgments about the text when they assume it is completely historical. If people would take the time to study the context, it seems pretty clear, as Gundry argues, that there are both historical and unhistorical elements to the Gospels.

Gundry also suggests the possibility that the early Christians would have recognized the historical elements as being distinct from the unhistorical. It is pretty likely that Matthew used Mark as a source as well as Q, both of which would have included oral tradition. If Matthew drew upon that tradition it is very likely that the early readers of his Gospel would have known those traditions as well. “There is no reason to think Matthew’s readers were unable to compare his gospel with his sources. They would have recognized many of its distinctive features as embroidery.”

Gundry’s arguments towards a more inclusive view of the historicity of Jesus are very compelling. He argues well against the conservative view and folded that into the discussion of a more appropriate view of the Gospels. What he seemed to leave out was the discussion of the liberal side. He mentions it at the beginning of the essay, but doesn’t come back to it at all. Most references in his argument relate to the conservative view and not the liberal. All in all, a thought inspiring essay that leads to a balanced attitude when approaching the Gospels.

[UPDATE: The original post and comments are no longer available. Sorry!]