Bible Review

In Matthew 1:2–17, the numbers of generations in each block are actually 13, 14, 13 instead of the three 14-generation blocks claimed by the author.

My basic point would remain intact, however, even if it turned out that the texts had some other relationship.

Further, for the Synoptics, the extensive literary borrowing, the thematic arrangement of discrete episodes (e.g., conflict stories, teaching examples) with only the loosest chronological links, and the free adjustment of this material for literary purposes indicate that the authors—like other ancient biographers—are weaving material relayed to them by tradition rather than simply reporting what they saw.

My assumptions about the authorship and dating of these texts are generally accepted in New Testament scholarship and are presented as standard views in universities, seminaries and many Bible colleges. A detailed and balanced account may be found in E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). See also Steve Mason and Tom Robinson, eds., An Early Christian Reader (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, forthcoming).

I do not claim that the arguments presented here are original. The editors of BR have invited me to make a summary statement on the issue in conjunction with year 2000 celebrations.

Lichtheim, Wisdom Literature, pp. 13–22, 22–24.

See Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context, Orbis biblicus et orientalis 52 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), p. 27.

I am quoting from Seow, Ecclesiastes, p. 64.