BRUCE: 9. In both language and outlook, Luke is clearly aimed at a Gentile
audience, whereas Matthew has much stronger ties with Judaism. Christianity
was born out of Judaism, therefore it is very unlikely that Matthew made use
LEONARD: I like the logic here. But let me show you what else it yields: In both language and outlook, Mark is clearly aimed at a Gentile audience, whereas Matthew has much stronger ties with Judaism. Christianity was born out of Judaism, therefore it is very unlikely that Matthew made use of Mark.
BRUCE: TRAJECTORY 2: CHRISTOLOGY
[....]1. Mark has Jesus recognized as God's son by God, at the time of his
LEONARD: If you are implying here that in Mark's view it is at this point (namely his baptism in the Jordan) that Jesus became God's son, you are saying much more than (and I think something quite different from) what the text actually says.
BRUCE: To some readers at least, he yields up his temporary divinity at
the moment of his death (leading to what some call an adoptionist
Christology; last I heard, it was a heretical position [....]
LEONARD: Whether heretical or not, the position is not at all convincing as an interpretation of the Markan text -- which is really all that matters.
BRUCE: 2. Matthew dates Jesus's Sonship back further, to the time of his
conception. He provides a human genealogy reaching back to David, most
likely in support of the idea of Jesus as fulfilling the Messianic
prediction, even if the Jews of his time didn't do their part in that
scenario. Matthew is thus annexing Jewish tradition for a non-Jewish
movement, as witness his frequent invocation of OT prophecies in his story
LEONARD: "For a non-Jewish movement"? Isn't Matthew's Christianity thoroughly Jewish? I also find problematic your implicit comparison of Matthew with Mark in the first sentence here. The really significant difference between Mark and Matthew in terms of the son of God attribution is not the issue of adoptionism, which neither Evangelist raises. It is that in Matthew the son of God attribution (not necessarily "title") most often identifies Jesus with Israel (if you are aware of the sub-text), whereas with Mark the designation seems to place Jesus at least vaguely in the divine world. In other words, solely on the basis of the use of son of God language, Mark's Christology is clearly higher than Matthew's. This also means that according to your trajectory-logic, Matthew writes first in time.
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]