71Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one
- Feb 19, 1998Jim Deardorff wrote:
>At 12:48 AM 2/19/98 +0100, U. Schmid wrote:My own opinion goes quite in the opposite direction from
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote in part:
>>The crucial fact is not that the centurion was a gentile, but that his
>>belief _as a gentile_ is contrasted with the belief found in Israel (Mt
>>8:10). Moreover, the following verses (Mt 8:11-12) suggest the
>>eschatological exclusion of the "sons of the kingdom" while those coming
>>from the distant parts of the world will enter the kingdom and be united
>>with Israel's fathers at the eschatological banquet. In this context, no
>>doubt, the Israel-versus-gentile issue is very much at stake, hardly in
>>favour of the present (Mattheian) Israel. This is very much in line with Mt
>>21:33-46 (esp. v. 43). In my view, these are very strong statements (cf.
>>also Mt 23:29-36). If they are present (as well as the others, esp. Mt
>>24:14), I can also also accept 28:19-20. How to reconcile them with the
>>gentile polemics in Matthew is quite a different matter. My point is simply
>>that there is the other issue as well in this Gospel. The idea expressed in
>>Mt 28:19-20 with regard to the positive perception of the gentiles is not
>>isolated. Therefore, the case for excluding these verses is not very
>Sorry, I had missed the point there, in Mt 8:5-13.
>The way my own research explains this part of the dichotomy is that the
>writer of Matthew's source material contained much harsh language against
>the Pharisees and scribes, and even against the Jews who unthinkingly
>followed their teachings. It contained much more than is in Matthew. The
>writer of Matthew, having been a Jew or even a Pharisee himself, before
>converting, naturally softened or omitted much of this harsh material. But
>he didn't remove it all because after converting he agreed to a considerable
>extent with his source, because the scribes and Pharisees weren't accepting
>Jesus' teachings. Thus I believe that in Matthew's source, its equivalent
>to Mt 23 was even harsher against the scribes & Pharisees.
Jim's. Matthew added a lot of anti-pharisaic and anti-scribe
matter to his gospel, not from a lost source but from his own
head. Just as Matthew (who was probably a former pharisaic
scribe) adds a lot of hellfire symbolism to what he found in
Mark. Luke deletes a lot of Matthew's most excessive diatribes
against the pharisees and scribes and a lot of the hellpreaching.
>So I believe that Mt 8:11-12 was retained for this reason; or it wasI have problems with arguments of this sort. I don't think
>overlooked when the compiler of Matthew edited out much harsher neighboring
>material directed against the "sons of the kingdom."
any gospel writer overlooked inherited material that goes
contrary to their own bias and theological inclination. If so
Matthew must have overlooked a lot, and I take him to be
quite an intelligent man.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>