Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] self-indictment

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    ... If you take a look again at the gospel text it is not the priests that are talking about his blood be on us and our children . It´s the common people. So
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 8, 2004
      Jan Sammer wrote:

      > For me the crucial proof that this piece of writing is *not* post-70 is
      > the naked attempt at implicating the chief priests and the elders (and
      > their sons) in the murder of Jesus; remember that these persons were
      > irrelevant in a post-70 setting. These same chief priests and elders were
      > a major problem for Paul, though, since they brought charges against him
      > and had him imprisoned on a capital offence. They had him hauled to Rome
      > in chains. How helpful of them to publicaly declare their own guilt (and
      > that of their sons, who were in charge of the temple a generation later,
      > i.e., ca. 60 AD) in the murder of Jesus--and just in time for Paul's
      > trial! Wouldn't Paul's defenders be delighted to have such a
      > self-confession to show the Roman authorities? What more evidence does the
      > Court of Caesar need? Release Paul and arrest the chief priests and the
      > scribes, who are trying to destroy him, as their fathers had destroyed
      > Jesus! After AD 70 the Matthean diatribe against the chief priests and the
      > elders would be tantamount to tilting and windmills.

      If you take a look again at the gospel text it is not the priests that are talking
      about "his blood be on us and our children". It´s the common people. So I
      think your whole argument falls.
      It also comes as a surprise to me that you think GMatthew was written before
      70 AD as an apology for Paul. I have a recollection that you have argued for
      that earlier regarding GLuke. I am sceptical. I don´t think the romans would give
      a damn about what Matthew has to say on the matter. I find it even less likely
      that they had any interest in reading an apology for a crucified crimininal.
      I agree with you that Matthew seems to have known about Paul, but in contrast
      to you I think that Matthew is not defending the apostle but rather spending parts
      of his gospel in critisizing those who like Paul argued that Christ had come to
      abolish the Law. Take a look at Matthew 5:17-20.

      > As I mentioned in a previous message, the crowd talks about their sons,
      > not about their future sons. The guilt is passed onto the succeeding
      > generation, i.e., the one that is a problem for Paul and the Jerusalem
      > church some 30 years after the crucifixion. If your hypothesis is true,
      > Antonio, can you explain why the author of GMatthew is so coy about
      > drawing this lesson? What would stop him from making sure the lesson was
      > clear to his readers, not just to certain 21st century intepreters, by
      > explicitly mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem? Since Matthew does not
      > mention this momentous event, could it be because it hadn't happened yet?
      > Jan Sammer

      It sure had happened already when Matthew wrote his gospel. Matthew is
      hinting at the destruction of Jerusalem in 22:7.

      Best wishes

      Antonio Jerez
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.