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

Re: [ematthew] The Divorce Texts

Expand Messages
  • Jim Bacon
    In deconstructing the Gospel passion narratives, I had long operated under the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew was utterly worthless as a historical
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In deconstructing the Gospel passion narratives, I had long operated under
      the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew was utterly worthless as a
      historical source. The author clearly patterned his narrative on Mark's. The
      only material he added, it seemed, were passages that indicated fulfillment
      of prophecy, were apologetic (the story of the guards at the tomb), or were
      outright legendary (the angel meeting the women at the sepulcher).

      But recently I stumbled across Helen Bond's observation in "Pontius Pilate"
      that while Mark speaks of the "chief priest" and the "high priests," Matthew
      mentions the high priest, Caiaphas, by name. In this instance, Matthew
      indisputably demonstrates historical knowledge not found in Mark.

      Secondly, I note that Mark and Matthew differ in naming the women who
      observed Jesus dying on the cross. Mark mentions Mary Magdalene and Mary the
      mother of Joses. Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the bother of *James*
      and Joses, plus *the mother of Zebedee's children.* Although this additional
      information could represent legendary accretion, it's also possible that
      Matthew had independent knowledge of which women stood by the cross.

      I wondered if anyone on the eMatthew list could point out additional shards
      of historically trustworthy information that might be contained in Matthew's
      passion narrative.

      Jim Bacon
    • MillerJimE@AOL.COM
      In a message dated 01/11/2002 8:26:29 AM Central Standard Time, MillerJimE@AOL.COM writes:
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 01/11/2002 8:26:29 AM Central Standard Time,
        MillerJimE@... writes:
        << Thank you, this is very helpful. I will look this up tomorrow in the
        library.
        Jim Miller

        antony@... writes:
        << Although I think he probably pushes it too far, Warren Carter offers an
        interpretation of Matthew 19:3-12 which has a genderĀ¹ agenda...
        Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20, JSNTS
        103 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), esp. 56-89. >> >>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.