Uploaded May 2025 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Sometimes when scholars claim that Matthew made dyschronological composite discourses, because we find it both in a discourse in Matthew and in another Gospel apparently not in a discourse, they ignore the fact that we find Jesus teaching that same teaching (which they are using to make this argument) twice in a single Gospel. Sometimes it's twice in Matthew, sometimes twice in another Gospel (like Luke or John). This in itself shows that it was a saying that Jesus was fond of and repeated, so it isn't an argument for a composite discourse in Matthew at all. In fact, sometimes Matthew has the same teaching in the very same setting as in another Gospel, as well as in a discourse (so Matthew is conveying that Jesus taught it twice), and scholars will illicitly parallel the other Gospel setting to the *wrong passage* in Matthew--not the one where Matthew is clearly agreeing with the other Gospel.
Watch to learn more! (And don't forget to like and subscribe.)
Sometimes when scholars claim that Matthew made dyschronological composite discourses, because we find it both in a discourse in Matthew and in another Gospel apparently not in a discourse, they ignore the fact that we find Jesus teaching that same teaching (which they are using to make this argument) twice in a single Gospel. Sometimes it's twice in Matthew, sometimes twice in another Gospel (like Luke or John). This in itself shows that it was a saying that Jesus was fond of and repeated, so it isn't an argument for a composite discourse in Matthew at all. In fact, sometimes Matthew has the same teaching in the very same setting as in another Gospel, as well as in a discourse (so Matthew is conveying that Jesus taught it twice), and scholars will illicitly parallel the other Gospel setting to the *wrong passage* in Matthew--not the one where Matthew is clearly agreeing with the other Gospel.
Watch to learn more! (And don't forget to like and subscribe.)
