57Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one
- Feb 18, 1998At 12:50 PM 2/18/98 +0100, you wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote:[...]
>>>>Mt 18:17 "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."anything.
>>>>An additional key point is the strong likelihood that Mt 28:18-20 is a later
>>>>addition. This is indicated by "...in the name of the Father and of the Son
>>>>and of the Holy Spirit" -- a Trinitarian-like formula. This was surely
>>>>added by someone else than the original writer of Matthew, in an attempt to
>>>>counteract the preceding anti-gentile material.
>>>Jim, do you know what the Greek NT critical apparatus says on this verse.
>>>Does the apparatue hint whether or not the verse was inserted? I am at work
>>>now and, therefore, do not have a copy of the Greek NT with me.
>>>Timothy T. Dickens
>>NA-27 doesn't indicate any possibility of this that I can see, merely a
>>change in spelling of "baptizing" in some witnesses.
>>It was instead an article by George Howard that brought out this possibility
>>to me, in his "A note on the short ending of Matthew," in HTR 81 (1988)
>>117-120; it stems from analyses of what Eusebius failed to say when
>>discussing this general area of Matthew. Also,
>>the primitive Hebrew text Howard analyzed fails to have Mt 28:19 and 20b.
>>I notice that F. Beare, in his commentary on Matthew, gives a couple reasons
>>why Mt 28:19 "is a relatively late formulation."
>>Is it indeed in the Didache? I've been one who favors the Didache as having
>>come out a little later than Matthew, in which case it wouldn't prove
>(1) Those favouring the later addition of Mt 28:19-20 do they also want to
>remove Mt 2:1-11; 8:5-13; 12:21; 21:33-46; 24:14; 26:13?
(I think you failed to send your post also to the List, so let me post it
here. In any event, your question here was soon after seconded, essentially,
by Antonio Jerez.)
Re your question (1), not generally, I'd say. But given all the evidence
that the writer of Matthew was anti-gentile, it is only natural to explore
reasons why he nevertheless would have included certain material that seems
Regarding Mt 2:1-11, let's keep in mind the writer's key desire to include
material from his source (and add some of his own) that portrayed Jesus as
the prophesied Messiah. The verse from Micah 5:2, in distorted form, makes
clear the Messianic underpinnings of the visit by the Magi. And these magi,
along with their worshipful actions, were proof of the babe's Messianic
status. The writer of Matthew could not have failed to include that in his
gospel, in spite of his anti-gentile attitude.
Regarding Mt 8:5-13, it may have been a close decision, I don't know,
whether the writer should include it or not. Each miracle was very worthy
of inclusion, especially if it portrayed Jesus as an authority as well as a
Messianic miracle worker. But it does not seem implausible to me that this
factor outweighed the fact that the centurion was a gentile, especially
since the centurion was so subservient to Jesus. (The pericope's omission
from Mark, within the Augustinian framework, is admittedly more difficult to
understand, unless the writer of Mark in Rome frowned upon a centurion
professing to be unworthy, and did not believe in Matthean admonitions to be
meek; and wished that the healing had been described in some detail.)
Regarding Mt 12:21, it was again inserted by the writer of Matthew (in
distorted form from Isa 42:4) to show that Jesus (not just the servant
Jacob) was the Messiah. Isn't the one true Messiah supposed to reign over
all nations, not just Israel? So in this context inclusion of gentiles
supported full messianism, despite the writer's distaste for gentiles.
Regarding Mt 21:33-46, and Mt 21:43-45 in particular, this was a stern
warning to Israel and especially to the chief priests and
Pharisees who were not accepting Jesus' teachings. The writer of Matthew
was very much engaged in trying to bring the messianic form of Christianity
to the Jews, and was evidently very upset that it was not catching on well
with them (as indicated by Mt 27:25). So what worse fate was there to
threaten than to have the fruits of the kingdom taken away from Israel and
given to a gentile nation? If his source material had anything close to this
in it, he would wish to include it for the severity of the admonition.
Regarding Mt 24:14, you have me there. I do believe it is close to the
original source material. However, having said this, I do see a distinction
between preaching a gospel to all nations, thus making them subservient to
the Messiah, and desiring to make disciples out of their peoples to the
extent of baptizing them, as in Mt 28:19. Of course, the later editor who
fed in 28:19 didn't harbor a strong dislike of gentiles.
Regarding Mt 26:13, I feel the same way as above (and that it is a prophecy
come true). But as you indicated by (?), it doesn't much relate to offering
>(2) The Hebrew text (Shem Tov) edited by Howard is, of course, notBut the 14th-century text was based upon something earlier. Howard gave
>"primitive". It is a late 14th century text produced in Spain; cf. the
>review of W.L. Petersen, JBL 108 (1989), 722-726.
reasons why it contains material that seems to date back to very early
times. In an article by Robert Shedinger (NTS 43 (1997) 58-71), he tends to
support Howard on this.
>(3) The triadic combination of Father-Son-Holy Spirit, interestinglyNo, merely give those scholars' arguments more consideration who see GTh to
>enough, is found in the Gospel of Thomas, log. 44. Quite a few scholars
>consider GTh as belonging to the oldest strata of the Gospel tradition(s).
>Do we have to remove log. 44 from Gth as well in order to keep our nicely
>arranged layers of Gospel tradition developments? [...]
be subsequent to the Gospels! I see log. 44 as deriving from Mt 12:31-32
without having to be a later development than that. To me, the GTH reads
like it was written by a semi-Gnostic who had gained the opportunity to read
through some of the Gospels in their earliest form, when there were but a
few of them and they were quite inaccessible, but he was not welcome enough
to be granted sufficient time to sit down with the precious manuscripts and
transcribe significant portions of them. But he wished to set forth the
teachings he recalled from reading them so that others of like mind could
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>