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

65Re: [ematthew] the mission to the gentiles

Expand Messages
  • Steve Black
    Oct 18, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >Larry wrote...
      >
      >Steve, your tension persists gospel wide, not just at these two points.
      >The problem is how do we reconcile the positive statements about
      >inclusion of the Gentiles with statements that Jesus is only for
      >Israel? [snip]

      Originally I was plying with the idea that 28:19 was a later
      interpolation. There are problems with this approach - but not in
      these early references to Gentiles. My [attempted and now mostly
      aborted] reconstruction put Mt's mission (or whatever) as being
      directed towards the Jews. These early Gentile references all have
      Gentiles *coming to* the Jews. This theme of Gentiles coming to the
      Jews can be found in the OT (Mt even quotes the OT in this regard as
      if to highlight the "orthodoxy" of such an expectation - see;12:18ff)
      and I think it might be considered as part of many "orthodox"
      expectations of non-Xn Jews of the 2nd Temple era. Thus there is
      nothing new or particularly Xn in the belief that Gentile will come
      to the Jews and to their God. 28:19 changes all this by having the
      Jews GO TO THE Gentiles. This "proactive" approach is a significant
      shift.

      As I said, I have [mostly] abandoned this theory because of other
      Gentile references later in the gospel that would forces me to posit
      too many interpolations in rather unplausible places. (Mt 21:43,
      24:14)

      Your approach. if I understand it correctly, falls within my
      previously "enumerated" approaches...
      2. The tension can be dealt with by a "salvation history" approach.
      and
      3. These two texts can be explained by a pre-textual history.

      It certainly makes sense - but it seems to me to require that Mt's
      final redaction was very conservative. Not unlike the final redactor
      of the Pentateuch who left blatant holes/bumps in the narrative in
      order to preserve ancient traditions. I think Mt shows no hesitation
      in changes his sources to suite his agenda. Why did he not alter
      10:5b-6 to suggest that this legislation was only temporary? (don't
      go to the Gentiles "until/yet/now/etc") As the text stands now we
      have to add this provision extra-textually to the story ourselves.

      --
      Steve Black
      Vancouver School of Theology
      Vancouver, BC
      ---

      Strangers stopping strangers just to shake their hand...

      -Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic