Re: [ematthew] The Strong One
- I understand what you are saying, but let me make a
couple more points:
1. With respect to paring v. 29 with v. 30:
Grammatically you are on shaky ground. V. 29 begins
with a disjunctive �h� requiring a preceding referent.
Mark�s (3:27) begins with an even stronger
disjunctive ALL�, but links it not to a statement like
Mt 12.28 but rather Mk 3.26, most closely associated
with Mt 12.26.
2. With respect to the sequence of events, etc. with
the 'binding' I'm afraid we can't avoid Rev 20 which
obviously is a notoriously complicated and
controversial passage and probably beyond the scope of
this list or at least my mental faculties at the
3. If you want to consider the Markan �source� you�d
probably need to examine the material unique to
Matthew in this pericope � and there is a bit. This
might be telling of how Matthew intended to use it
vis-�-vis Mark. That would be an interesting and
worthwhile project in my opinion.
4. When you said "Rev orbits in a completely different
sphere" � I assume you are referring to the
apocalyptic language and imagery of Revelation. If
that is the case, I strongly challenge that
assumption. Matthew and Rev 20 are using nearly
identical imagery which begs at least some degree of
comparison, though each approaches it from a slightly
different way. Though apocalypticism in Matthew is in
need of further development, works such as David C.
Sim Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew.
SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: University Press, 1996.
Apocalyptic imagery is abundant in the parables,
though admittedly more prominent following the
Triumphal entry. Clearly both Mt and Rev in reference
to this �binding� are employing some sort of
metaphorical language that is eschatological in
orientation. It would be interesting to try to trace
this imagery through its alleged �Jewish� origins in
the Second Temple texts mentioned previously and
explore how it is employed/modified in the Christian
Daniel M. Gurtner
St. Mary's College
University of St. Andrews, Scotland
--- Steve Black <sdblack@...> wrote:
> Yoju are probably right and the traditional__________________________________________________
> interpretation is to be
> preferred - but just to make my case a bit I'll give
> a few reasons
> why I came up with it.
> The tradition reading pairs v. 29 with 24-28 which
> makes it clearly
> about demons. My suggestion pairs v. 29 with 30-34,
> which would make
> it a polemic attack on the Pharisees. Certainly the
> reading works - I am not suggesting that it doesn't
> - although it
> does raise some difficult questions about what Jesus
> means. When are
> these demons bound? Have they already been bound -
> and if so when did
> that occur? In the temptations? Perhaps but that
> seems a bit of a
> reach. You could suggest that the demons are bound
> by Jesus' words -
> but when then is the strong man "plundered" (if not
> in his command
> [words] to come out??) - which is a distinct step
> according to the
> logic of the parable.
> With my reading I am not saying that Jesus is
> actually bound - but
> rather that Jesus is revealing the Pharisees
> strategies of *trying*
> to bind him. The irony is that Jesus is finally
> bound and killed -
> but this turn to his ultimate victory.
> As far as reference in other works - the book of Rev
> orbits in a
> completely different symbolic universe from Mt and
> so I am not sure
> it is helpful - other older works might reflect a
> understanding of Mt - Lk for example seem to
> understand this pericope
> as referring the demons - but of course that doesn't
> mean Mt did. It
> could be that Mark, the source of this pericope for
> Mt - might have
> also understood this differently.
> Anyways - there you go... I gave it one for the
> >Daniel M. Gurtner wrote
> >I think that is an insightful question which can be
> >particularly problemetic when viewing the pericope
> >alone. I think, however, context demands the
> >traditional view for a number of reasons: 1. Jesus
> >has just healed a demon-possessed man (12.22-23)
> >immediately calls forth "binding" imagery with
> >as the agent and the demonic as the bound; 2.
> >reference to Satan driving out Satan (12.26)
> >he understands, again, the demonic to be 'bound.'
> >The association by JEsus' opponents of His action
> >Satan seems to occasion Jesus' response in vv.
> >Furthermore, one is hard pressed to find other
> >occurrences of Jesus being 'bound' in any sense
> >his physical binding in Mt 27:2. Hagner (WBC)
> >us to As. Mos 10.1, T. Lev 18.12 and Rev 20.2, the
> >latter of which has obvious implications. T Levi,
> >my opinion, is another important source
> >for Matthew. Though questions of its date and
> >frequent Christian interpolations suggest caution,
> >Chap 18 makes explicit reference to binding of
> >'Beliar'. Matt and TLevi have much in common,
> >particularly views of the temple and Abrahamic
> >Other thoughts?
> >St. Mary's College
> >University of St. Andrews, Scotland
> >--- Steve Black <sdblack@...> wrote:
> >> Mt 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man's
> >> and plunder his
> >> goods, unless he first binds the strong man?
> >> indeed he may
> >> plunder his house.
> >> I'm going against 2000 years of interpretation
> >> - but can anyone
> >> tell me why the strong "man" here isn't Jesus
> >> than the devil?
> >> In other words - Jesus is saying that his
> >> are trying to
> >> bind him with their accusations and character
> >> slander. If people
> >> believed that Jesus was acting by the power of
> >> devil (as he was
> >> being accused) - this would turn them away from
> >> and thwart his
> >> mission.
> >> Am I just reaching here?
> >> --
> >> Steve Black
> >> Vancouver School of Theology
> >> Vancouver, BC
> >> ---
> >> The lion and the calf shall lie down together
> >> but the calf won't get much sleep.
> >> -Woody Allen
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of
> Steve Black
> Vancouver School of Theology
> Vancouver, BC
> The lion and the calf shall lie down together
> but the calf won't get much sleep.
> -Woody Allen
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
>I understand what you are saying, but let me make aYou are right - this is a good argument - the particle (translated
>couple more points:
>1. With respect to paring v. 29 with v. 30:
>Grammatically you are on shaky ground. V. 29 begins
>with a disjunctive ëhí requiring a preceding referent.
> Markís (3:27) begins with an even stronger
>disjunctive ALLí, but links it not to a statement like
>Mt 12.28 but rather Mk 3.26, most closely associated
>with Mt 12.26.
"or" here) does connect this with the previous and not the latter
sections. This particle was added by Mt - as Mk does not have it -
making it fairly clear that Mt saw this as referring to demons. My
little theory had a short shelf life...
>I'm afraid I don't quite follow you on this step. If I understand you
>2. With respect to the sequence of events, etc. with
>the 'binding' I'm afraid we can't avoid Rev 20 which
>obviously is a notoriously complicated and
>controversial passage and probably beyond the scope of
>this list or at least my mental faculties at the
correctly - you are proposing what I would call a "canonical" reading
to explain Mt. But I see no reason to justify the use of Rev to
explain an ambiguous passage in Mt. We can import the Rev passage to
make sense of Mt - but I see no evidence within Mt that would justify
this move. I see no reason to posit literary or even any traditions
connections between Mt and Rev. Rev seems to orbit in a more
In any event - I may have entirely misunderstood you on this point!
>[snip]Simply sharing a apocalyptic approach does not mean that metaphors
>4. When you said "Rev orbits in a completely different
>sphere" ñ I assume you are referring to the
>apocalyptic language and imagery of Revelation. If
>that is the case, I strongly challenge that
>assumption. Matthew and Rev 20 are using nearly
>identical imagery which begs at least some degree of
>comparison, though each approaches it from a slightly
>different way. Though apocalypticism in Matthew is in
>need of further development, works such as David C.
>Sim Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew.
>SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: University Press, 1996.
>Apocalyptic imagery is abundant in the parables,
>though admittedly more prominent following the
>Triumphal entry. Clearly both Mt and Rev in reference
>to this ëbindingí are employing some sort of
>metaphorical language that is eschatological in
>orientation. It would be interesting to try to trace
>this imagery through its alleged ëJewishí origins in
>the Second Temple texts mentioned previously and
>explore how it is employed/modified in the Christian
will signify the same things. Mt and Rev use language very
differently and so attempting to understand one by the other I think
will tend to suggest false comparisons.
Vancouver School of Theology
The lion and the calf shall lie down together
but the calf won't get much sleep.
>I'm afraid I don't quite follow you on this step. If"canonical" reading
>I understand you
>correctly - you are proposing what I would call >a
>to explain Mt. But I see no reason to justify theSorry to be so vague. What I meant primarily by this
>use of Rev to
>explain an ambiguous passage in Mt. We can import
>the Rev passage to
>make sense of Mt - but I see no evidence within Mt
>that would justify
>this move. I see no reason to posit literary or even
>connections between Mt and Rev. Rev seems to orbit
>in a more
was that the questions you asked previously are nearly
identical to those raised for the Rev 20 text. They
tend to be more comprehensively discussed there.
>Simply sharing a apocalyptic approach does not meanExcellent point, and I�m with you to a degree. We
>will signify the same things. Mt and Rev use
>differently and so attempting to understand one by
>the other I think
>will tend to suggest false comparisons.
must let Matthew be Matthew and look to him primarily
for his own understanding of the pericope. Thus we
look at themes, language, OT allusions, etc. I agree
that just because they share a similar portion of
genre (if we can call apocalyptic that) and canonical
status can lead to, as you say, �false comparisons�.
(I must add this applies not just to using Revelation
in Matthew, but also Mark in Matthew � a method too
often used in my opinion).
While I do recognize validity in a �canonical� reading
I have more in mind what I consider an �intertextual�
reading. That is, there are texts in the Assumption of
Moses, T. Levi and Rev which are quite similar to the
Matthean texts. While one must examine each of these
texts and contexts in detail before one can discern
what, if any, comparisons can be made, I think that
the fact that the issue of the binding of Satan is one
so rarely attested in either Jewish or Christian
sources from antiquity some degree of consultation is
in order. Moreover, if you examine the Matthean text
without regard to Rev whatsoever, you run the risk of
assuming Matthew wrote in a theological vacuum when it
is more likely that he wrote within an evolving
Christian tradition. Again, their uses of the concept
may differ but to write off the Rev text off hand
because it is a different work than Matthew may
equally lead to a distortion. That being said, I must
confess a great deal of ignorance on apocalypticism in
Matthew so my ability to comment on it vis-�-vis
Revelation is quite limited.
I do want to ask, however, what you mean by �Rev seems
to orbit in a more Johannine universe�?
Daniel M. Gurtner
St. Mary�s College
University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!