- ... You are right - this is a good argument - the particle (translated or here) does connect this with the previous and not the latter sections. ThisMessage 1 of 13 , Mar 15 11:14 AMView Source
>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.
- ... canonical reading ... Sorry to be so vague. What I meant primarily by this was that the questions you asked previously are nearly identical to thoseMessage 2 of 13 , Mar 17 11:27 AMView Source
>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!