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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt bibliography

Expand Messages
  • Shawn J. Kelley
    ... I have had a similar reaction, in slightly different terms. I have a good feel for Mark s plot and sense of characterization, and a good feel for Luke s
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Peterson wrote:

      >
      > Apropos a subject that's been previously discussed on the list, Matthew
      > is the Gospel I have most difficulty making sense of on the terms of
      > Richard Bauckham's thesis in THE GOSPELS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS; i.e., its
      > message does seem primarily if not exclusively directed to Jewish
      > Christians. I would be interested in whether others see the implied
      > audience similarly.

      I have had a similar reaction, in slightly different terms. I have a good
      feel for Mark's plot and sense of characterization, and a good feel for
      Luke's plot and sense of characterization. I also have a sense of how it
      is, in both Mark and Luke, the relationship between Jesus and the disciples
      fits into larger theological themes. I don't have such a sense for
      Matthew. I don't know if that is because Matthew is less amenable to
      literary analysis than is Mark and Luke, or if it is because I have yet to
      spend enough time with Matthew to read it on its own terms. After I finish
      what I'm working on, I hope to have time to decide which it is: Matthew or
      me.

      Shawn Kelley
      Daemen College


      >
      >
      > Jeff Peterson
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I have a bibliography available for first year undergraduates in the section on course materials at: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/bibstud
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5 Jul 2001, at 12:52, Steve Black wrote:

        > I am looking for suggestions as to what to look for regarding works on
        > GMatthew. If any one would be willing to submit a select bibliography
        > including two or three (or whatever) works that you believe to be most
        > important, that would be very helpful!

        I have a bibliography available for first year undergraduates in the
        section on "course materials" at:

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/bibstud

        You'll have to scroll down a bit. The section headed "Tutorials"
        also has some specific bibliography on Matthew 1-2, 26-28,
        attitude to the Law etc.

        I would particularly recommend material by Ulrich Luz. Either
        _Matthew in History, Interpretation, Influence and Effects_ or _The
        Theology of the Gospel of Matthew_ are excellent; and Luz has
        used his work on Matthew to pioneer and develop
        Wirkungsgeschichte (history of influence / effects).

        Since I teach Matthew every year here, I'd be interested to hear
        others' opinions on what's worth reading too -- it's always a useful
        exercise.

        I have provided a section on internet resources on Matthew on the
        New Testament Gateway at:

        http://www.ntgateway.com/matthew/

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT
        United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        Homepage
        http://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... The difficulty with the Bauckham book, which I love, is that it really is only a beginning point and stops short of many of the interesting nitty-gritty
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On 5 Jul 2001, at 17:16, Jeff Peterson wrote:

          > Apropos a subject that's been previously discussed on the list,
          > Matthew is the Gospel I have most difficulty making sense of on the
          > terms of Richard Bauckham's thesis in THE GOSPELS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS;
          > i.e., its message does seem primarily if not exclusively directed to
          > Jewish Christians. I would be interested in whether others see the
          > implied audience similarly.

          The difficulty with the Bauckham book, which I love, is that it really
          is only a beginning point and stops short of many of the interesting
          nitty-gritty questions and applications to particular Gospels. I
          understand what you are saying, though I would ask two obvious
          questions: (1) if Matthew is intended primarily or exclusively for
          Jewish Christians, what should one make of 28.19? and (2) if
          Matthew was intended primarily or exclusively for Jewish
          Christians, should we say that he has failed in this intention since
          the Gospel was so popular from so early on among so many?

          My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
          propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
          Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
          thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
          Does that make any sense?

          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT
          United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          Homepage
          http://NTGateway.com
          The New Testament Gateway

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/5/2001 6:17:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, peterson@mail.ics.edu writes:
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/5/2001 6:17:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            peterson@... writes:

            << Apropos a subject that's been previously discussed on the list, Matthew
            is the Gospel I have most difficulty making sense of on the terms of
            Richard Bauckham's thesis in THE GOSPELS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS; i.e., its
            message does seem primarily if not exclusively directed to Jewish
            Christians. I would be interested in whether others see the implied
            audience similarly.>>

            Perhaps at the time Matthew wrote his gospel the expressions "for all
            Christians"
            and "for Jewish Christians" would have been virtually equivalent. It is the
            not-really- substantiated late dating for Matthew that causes this and other
            problems for the interpretation of the first Gospel. I don't think, for
            example, that there is the slightest hint in Matthew that there are
            Christians (Gentile Christians, say, in large, relatively autonomous
            communities) outside of Jewish Christianity. There is no indirect polemic
            against such, nor approval or legitimation of their presumed existence. They
            simply do not exist in the purview of the author, and the best explanation
            for this, since Matthew clearly has a global perspective, is that they did
            not yet exist historically. As soon as they do exist historically, we have a
            good idea what new shape a Gospel would have to take: we have the Gospel of
            Luke and Acts.

            I have always maintained that it is Mark's Gospel that least fits the
            Bauckham thesis. The reason for this is that Mark does not have a global, but
            rather an ecclesial (in the sense of a local, a house!) perspective. There
            are no scenes of world judgment in Mk, e.g., which we see reflected or even
            represented in many places in Matt. Only in the sense that there is something
            essential about the Christian life lived concretely in an individual
            community can Mark's Gospel be said to have been written for all Christians
            -- though even here, one must insist that Mk's primary audience is the not
            highly educated Christian lower classes (of Rome?). The lack of interest in
            Mark's Gospel that we see from the evidence of the Church's first five
            centuries is connected with the fact that our sources for these centuries are
            mostly the literary sources of the educated class -- who were therefore quite
            naturally attracted rather to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, more than to
            Mark.

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I would understand Clement of Alexandria to feel same way, because he contrasted the open publication of Matthew and Luke with the more limited
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:50 PM 7/5/01 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
              >I have always maintained that it is Mark's Gospel that least fits the
              >Bauckham thesis.

              I would understand Clement of Alexandria to feel same way,
              because he contrasted the open publication of Matthew and
              Luke with the more limited distribution of Mark.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/5/2001 7:27:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/5/2001 7:27:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                << My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
                propaganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
                Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propaganda that he
                thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
                Does that make any sense? >>

                It is roughly the conclusion to which one must come, if one thinks that
                Matthew wrote after Mark, and in light of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the two
                Gospels. The re-Judaizing of a Markan Jesus by Matthew is, however, unlikely
                enough in itself (especially for a Gospel destined to acquire world
                popularity) that it should cause one to question the source model upon which
                it is based. Certainly the un-Judaizing of an originally Jewish Jesus by a
                late Mark makes far more sense in terms of the known historical development
                of Christian understanding and thought. I realize that there is nothing new
                in these comments, or in this entire exchange, for that matter: the issues
                involved have been known and debated in similar fashion for a couple of
                centuries at least. I continue to be impressed however with the strength of
                the side of the argument I represent.

                Leonard Maluf


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Steve Black
                Firstly, thanks all for the various recommendations. ... By this, do you mean that you believe that Matthew was primarily written evangelistically - to win
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Firstly, thanks all for the various recommendations.


                  >Mark wrote
                  >My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
                  >propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
                  >Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
                  >thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
                  > Does that make any sense?


                  By this, do you mean that you believe that Matthew was primarily
                  written evangelistically - to win converts?
                  --
                  Peace

                  Steve Black
                  Vancouver, BC


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn t want to rule out the thought that it was used evangelistically , I wonder whether Matthew is attempting to
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 5 Jul 2001, at 18:52, Steve Black wrote:

                    > By this, do you mean that you believe that Matthew was primarily
                    > written evangelistically - to win converts? -- Peace

                    No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn't want to rule out the thought
                    that it was used "evangelistically", I wonder whether Matthew is
                    attempting to propogate among Christians a more Torah-observant
                    Christian Judaism, in which the householder draws from his
                    treasure-chest both "the new" and "the old" (13.52). There is a
                    contrast with some other forms of early Christianity, and I would
                    agree with Leonard Maluf's comments to the extent that Matthew
                    does look, in some ways, like a re-primitivizing of the gospel story,
                    an attempt, perhaps, to re-Judaize, even "re-Jesuize" Jesus (for
                    want of better terms). What do you think?

                    Mark
                    -----------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                    United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Homepage
                    http://NTGateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... What do you understand by re-Judaizing Mark . I realize that many don t wish to identify the author of the second Gospel. Their assessment: they simply
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Goodacre wrote:

                      > My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
                      > propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
                      > Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
                      > thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
                      > Does that make any sense?



                      What do you understand by "re-Judaizing Mark". I realize that many don't
                      wish to identify the author of the second Gospel. Their assessment: they
                      simply don't know. I realize also that possibly a majority of critical
                      scholars are sure that this author, whom we call Mark, was not a Judean
                      (First Century Jew).
                      But isn't it true that by taking up that position they contradict the early
                      references to a (John) Mark in the Acts, the Epistles and Papias? I am
                      convinced that if we ever are to fathom the riddle of Mark's Gospel we
                      should begin by accepting the oldest tradition about him: "in dubio
                      traditio". In other words, we should abandon the Tübinger School in that
                      respect. To me the author is John Mark of Jerusalem, who worked with Peter
                      and Paul. Why deny that Peter was martyred in Rome; that John Mark, who
                      worked with Peter, wrote canonical Mark after the trauma of 70 and that his
                      gospel was accepted for the very reason he had worked with Peter and had
                      enetered Pauline ideas into his Gospel?
                      The term re-Judaizing isn't a happy one, since Mark could well have been the
                      one born in Jerusalem. I would rather believe that Matthew looked askance
                      at this Pauline trend of thought he detected in Mark. Not a tittle or
                      iota...
                      yours cordially
                      Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...





                      >
                      > Mark
                      > -----------------------------
                      > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                      > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                      > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                      > Birmingham B15 2TT
                      > United Kingdom
                      >
                      > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      > Homepage
                      > http://NTGateway.com
                      > The New Testament Gateway
                      >
                      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 7/6/2001 6:23:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes:
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 7/6/2001 6:23:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        K.Hanhart@... writes:

                        << The term re-Judaizing isn't a happy one, since Mark could well have been
                        the
                        one born in Jerusalem. I would rather believe that Matthew looked askance
                        at this Pauline trend of thought he detected in Mark. Not a tittle or
                        iota... >>

                        Without necessarily questioning, in principle, your identification of the
                        author of Mk, I would suggest that your last comment here does not do full
                        justice to the sense in which Matt is often described as a re-Judaizing of
                        the gospel (by comparison to Mark). Matthew's consistent relating of Jesus'
                        identity and mission to Israel, his entirely unselfconscious Jewish
                        modalities of thought (explicit references to Torah, to Israel as a PEOPLE
                        and ITS leaders, etc.) have nothing directly to do with a possible resistance
                        to a Pauline trend of thought.

                        Leonard Maluf

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Mark Goodacre wrote -- ... Mark, I am sure many would be very interested to read your notes on the course you give every year on Matthew at Birmingham, UK.
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mark Goodacre wrote --
                          >
                          >Since I teach Matthew every year here, I'd be interested to hear
                          >others' opinions on what's worth reading too -- it's always a useful
                          >exercise.
                          >
                          Mark,
                          I am sure many would be very interested to read your notes on the
                          course you give every year on Matthew at Birmingham, UK. Perhaps a book
                          on this one day?

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                          _

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • John Lupia
                          Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Steve Black wrote: I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The issue isn t directly mentioned, but Mt s high view
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Synoptic-L@...

                            Steve Black wrote:

                            I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
                            issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
                            suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.
                            --
                            Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
                            relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
                            incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
                            the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
                            Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
                            So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
                            same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
                            baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.

                            Cordially in Christ,
                            John





                            _______________________________________________________
                            Send a cool gift with your E-Card
                            http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/



                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Steve Black
                            ... I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest that Mt was re-Judaizing Mark s presentation rather than the gospel story . The
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >
                              >Mark
                              >No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn't want to rule out the thought
                              >that it was used "evangelistically", I wonder whether Matthew is
                              >attempting to propogate among Christians a more Torah-observant
                              >Christian Judaism, in which the householder draws from his
                              >treasure-chest both "the new" and "the old" (13.52). There is a
                              >contrast with some other forms of early Christianity, and I would
                              >agree with Leonard Maluf's comments to the extent that Matthew
                              >does look, in some ways, like a re-primitivizing of the gospel story,
                              >an attempt, perhaps, to re-Judaize, even "re-Jesuize" Jesus (for
                              >want of better terms). What do you think?


                              I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest
                              that Mt was "re-Judaizing" Mark's presentation rather than the
                              "gospel story". The latter is too broad a series of possibilities to
                              be useful. [ie. was he also re-Judaizing "Q", "M", and his
                              community's living traditions?)

                              If Mt wrote for a Jewish-Christian community, it can be assumed that
                              they were already "Judaized". So I guess the question is to what
                              degree Mt writes for Gentiles or for Jews.

                              That Mt saw Gentiles as being included is clear - to what extent
                              perhaps is not.

                              I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
                              issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
                              suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.
                              --
                              Steve Black

                              Dig deep for dreams, or you will be toppled by slogans...
                              ee cummings

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Jeff Peterson
                              ... 28:19 clearly reflects approval and endorsement of a mission to Gentiles (adumbrated in the homage of the Magi, the centurion s servant, Isaiah 42:4 apud
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mark Goodacre wrote:

                                > The difficulty with the Bauckham book, which I love, is that it really
                                > is only a beginning point and stops short of many of the interesting
                                > nitty-gritty questions and applications to particular Gospels. I
                                > understand what you are saying, though I would ask two obvious
                                > questions: (1) if Matthew is intended primarily or exclusively for
                                > Jewish Christians, what should one make of 28.19? and (2) if
                                > Matthew was intended primarily or exclusively for Jewish
                                > Christians, should we say that he has failed in this intention since
                                > the Gospel was so popular from so early on among so many?

                                28:19 clearly reflects approval and endorsement of a mission to Gentiles
                                (adumbrated in the homage of the Magi, the centurion's servant, Isaiah
                                42:4 apud 12:21, the Canaanitess, Jesus' prophecies in 24:14 and 26:13
                                et al.), but on previous reading Mt has seemed addressed to Jewish
                                churches/leaders engaged in mission to Gentiles rather than to churches
                                themselves composed of Gentiles or their leadership.

                                I suppose the passage that has loomed largest in this construction of
                                the audience is 23:23, which I have taken as presupposing Torah
                                observance as a norm among the recipients. But this may not distinguish
                                carefully enough authorial setting/theology from implied recipents,
                                which is of course one thing Bauckham et al. are asking us to do. You're
                                of course right about the position THE GOSPELS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS holds,
                                at the beginning of a discussion, not the end.

                                > My own tentative view is that Matthew is Jewish Christian
                                > propoganda, written by a Jewish Christian who is effectively re-
                                > Judaizing Mark and Mark's Jesus, but it's propoganda that he
                                > thinks (rightly, as it turns out) will appeal to a wide target audience.
                                > Does that make any sense?

                                I think so; maybe Matthew then contributed to the philoJudaism of
                                Ignatius' opponents? Markus Bockmuehl's JEWISH LAW IN GENTILE CHURCHES
                                (which I've seen but not had opportunity to read) may be of use here.

                                Jeff

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Jack Kilmon
                                ... From: Steve Black To: Synoptic-L Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L]
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Steve Black" <sblack@...>
                                  To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
                                  Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:10 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re-Judaizing Matthew


                                  > >
                                  > >Mark
                                  > >No, not necessarily. Though I wouldn't want to rule out the thought
                                  > >that it was used "evangelistically", I wonder whether Matthew is
                                  > >attempting to propogate among Christians a more Torah-observant
                                  > >Christian Judaism, in which the householder draws from his
                                  > >treasure-chest both "the new" and "the old" (13.52). There is a
                                  > >contrast with some other forms of early Christianity, and I would
                                  > >agree with Leonard Maluf's comments to the extent that Matthew
                                  > >does look, in some ways, like a re-primitivizing of the gospel story,
                                  > >an attempt, perhaps, to re-Judaize, even "re-Jesuize" Jesus (for
                                  > >want of better terms). What do you think?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I think it (assuming Markan priority for a moment) clearer to suggest
                                  > that Mt was "re-Judaizing" Mark's presentation rather than the
                                  > "gospel story". The latter is too broad a series of possibilities to
                                  > be useful. [ie. was he also re-Judaizing "Q", "M", and his
                                  > community's living traditions?)
                                  >
                                  > If Mt wrote for a Jewish-Christian community, it can be assumed that
                                  > they were already "Judaized". So I guess the question is to what
                                  > degree Mt writes for Gentiles or for Jews.
                                  >
                                  > That Mt saw Gentiles as being included is clear - to what extent
                                  > perhaps is not.
                                  >
                                  > I wonder if Mt would expect Gentile converts to be circumcised. The
                                  > issue isn't directly mentioned, but Mt's high view of the law might
                                  > suggest that he would see circumcision as a requirement.

                                  I think that the Matthean hagiographer wrote shortly after the institution
                                  of the
                                  Birkhat haMinim in 85 CE. As a Hellenistic Syrian Jew, he may have seen
                                  the Antiochene gentile participation in "the way" on a sharp increase and
                                  Jewish participation on a decline. His audience were Hellenistic Jews to
                                  whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." On the Markan priority
                                  issue, the very name of the Gospel appears to indicate that it utilized a
                                  source document thought to have been composed by the disciple Matthew,
                                  hence it would have been conventional at the time to transfer the apostolic
                                  "authority" of Matthew to the Gospel by giving it his name. This
                                  anthology/logia/"Q" would seem to confirm it as complementary to
                                  Mark as a narrative source document.
                                  Luke's sayings source appears to me to have been an Aramaic document
                                  which, unlike the Matthean author, he translates himself. A Greek
                                  translation used by AMt and an Aramaic document used by ALk gives
                                  more credibility (to me) of a genuine "Q" and, by inference, Mark
                                  as a primary narrative source to both Matthew and Luke. Hence my
                                  viiew that first Mark + Aramaic Q ---->Luke (or proto-Luke) then
                                  Mark + Greek Q ---->Matthew. Matthew may not have been
                                  "re-judaizing" Mark as much as "re-judaizing" Luke.

                                  Jack


                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Steve Black
                                  ... John Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15 (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a distinctly
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    >--
                                    >Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
                                    >relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
                                    >incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
                                    >the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
                                    >Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
                                    >So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
                                    >same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
                                    >baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.
                                    >
                                    >Cordially in Christ,
                                    John

                                    Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15
                                    (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a
                                    distinctly pro-Paul position, and any historical kernel that is
                                    within it has inevitably been rung threw that "filter". There is also
                                    the well known conflicting presentations of the council of Jerusalem
                                    by Luke, and the one given by Paul himself in Gal. that calls Luke
                                    account into some doubt.

                                    All this aside, Galatians itself assumes that the issue wasn't really
                                    settled at the council! Why was Gal. written in the first place if
                                    not to combat Christians who were *still* saying that Gentiles needed
                                    to be circumcised?
                                    --
                                    Peace

                                    Steve Black
                                    Vancouver, BC


                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 7/6/2001 2:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jkilmon@historian.net writes:
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 7/6/2001 2:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                      jkilmon@... writes:

                                      << I think that the Matthean hagiographer wrote shortly after the institution
                                      of the Birkhat haMinim in 85 CE. As a Hellenistic Syrian Jew, he may have
                                      seen
                                      the Antiochene gentile participation in "the way" on a sharp increase and
                                      Jewish participation on a decline. His audience were Hellenistic Jews to
                                      whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." >>

                                      This simply doesn't seem to me to be the KIND of Jewishness we find in
                                      Matthew. Matthew is not trying to MAKE the Jesus thing Jewish. There is
                                      nothing defensive or apologetic about Matthew's Jewishness; he takes fully
                                      for granted that the messianic community is the culmination of historical
                                      Judaism which has been brought to fulfillment in the person of their Messiah.
                                      The general trend of history since the time this document was produced has
                                      been to gradually dissociate Jesus from these strictly Jewish roots so as to
                                      heighten his appeal to non-Jewish adherents. This process may be seen already
                                      in the Gospel of Mark, with the use of the title "Son of God" for Jesus in a
                                      kind of detached way, i.e., in a way that does not clearly stress the
                                      connection of this title with Israel, its history and its writings.

                                      Leonard Maluf

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Brian Tucker
                                      ... to ... already ... a ... Greetings, The son of God idea has possible Jewish connections and does not need to be divorced from its Second Temple context.
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jack wrote:
                                        >> whom he is saying, "Hey! This is a JEWISH thing." >>

                                        Leonard Maluf responded:
                                        > The general trend of history since the time this document was produced has
                                        > been to gradually dissociate Jesus from these strictly Jewish roots so as
                                        to
                                        > heighten his appeal to non-Jewish adherents. This process may be seen
                                        already
                                        > in the Gospel of Mark, with the use of the title "Son of God" for Jesus in
                                        a
                                        > kind of detached way, i.e., in a way that does not clearly stress the
                                        > connection of this title with Israel, its history and its writings.

                                        Greetings,

                                        The son of God idea has possible Jewish connections and does not need to be
                                        divorced from its Second Temple context. 4Q246 (whether taken as a negative
                                        text (Ed Cook) or positive text (John Collins)).

                                        Here is the quote: 4Q246 2:1 "He will be called the Son of God, they will
                                        call him the son of the Most High..."

                                        It appears that the 'son of God' changes in Mark cannot a priori assume to
                                        be non-Jewish, though there may be other reasons for affirming such a shift.
                                        I would grant that he may not "stress" certain areas of "connection",
                                        however, there appears to be some precedent for 'son of God' in Jewish
                                        literature and thinking during the Second Temple.

                                        Thanks,
                                        Brian Tucker
                                        Riverview, MI
                                        Niqmmadu@...
                                        editor@...
                                        http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org



                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 7/7/2001 8:10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Niqmaddu@hotmail.com writes:
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 7/7/2001 8:10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                          Niqmaddu@... writes:

                                          << It appears that the 'son of God' changes in Mark cannot a priori assume to
                                          be non-Jewish, though there may be other reasons for affirming such a shift.
                                          I would grant that he may not "stress" certain areas of "connection",
                                          however, there appears to be some precedent for 'son of God' in Jewish
                                          literature and thinking during the Second Temple.>>

                                          I agree with all of this, and never intended to say anything different. After
                                          all, Matthew too uses "son of God" in a variety of different contexts, but
                                          usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the background of the
                                          expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary Judaism. The possible
                                          Hellenistic or Roman-imperial flavor of the expression in some Markan texts
                                          should not, as you say, be assumed a priori, but many scholars have at least
                                          thought, after working with the text of Mark, that such non-Jewish overtones
                                          are in fact present in some of Mark's texts ("son of God" seems in Mark to
                                          sometimes carry the general connotation of a "divine being", as in the
                                          Greco-Roman world). The Jewish overtones of the expression have not, however,
                                          been entirely forgotten or suppressed in Mark.

                                          Leonard Maluf

                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • Brian Tucker
                                          ... contexts, but usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the background of the expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary Judaism.
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Leonard wrote:

                                            >> After all, Matthew too uses "son of God" in a variety of different
                                            contexts, but usually in ways that reflect more clearly than in Mark the
                                            background of the expression in the Jewish Scriptures and contemporary
                                            Judaism.>>

                                            I think you are absolutely correct. Not to divert from the main point,
                                            however, I am curious as to your understanding of the background of Luke's
                                            use in 1:32-33: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
                                            High...and of his kingdom there will be know end. Does this fit more in a
                                            Jewish mindset or a Hellenistic/Roman?



                                            >>...such non-Jewish overtones are in fact present in some of Mark's texts
                                            ("son of God" seems in Mark to sometimes carry the general connotation of a
                                            "divine being", as in the Greco-Roman world). >>

                                            It is interesting to note the differences in the usage of this phrase. If
                                            4Q246 was based on Antiochus IV (170 BCE) then the prevailing useage for a
                                            Jewish person would be negative, possibly. If one ignores the context (what
                                            little there is of 4Q246) and sees this as something about messiah (e.g. 2
                                            Sam 7:14) this would shed light on its useage.

                                            It may also be instructive to note Antiochus chosen name 'Epiphanes' (Gk.
                                            appearance) would not have had a positive reception by most Jews, however,
                                            it may have been more accepted in a Hellenistic/Roman setting. Cook remarks,
                                            "encapsulated [Epiphanes] the notion of a human king as God manifest. Such
                                            human pretensions to deity have never been welcome in Judaism and were
                                            condemned out of hand in the prophecies of Isa (14:12-21) and Ezekiel
                                            (28:1-10)." (1996:269)

                                            It is a wonder that either evangelist chose this potentially misunderstood
                                            term. Though it is beyond the scope of our current forum, this may be behind
                                            the misunderstanding of (John 10:33)?

                                            I am also curious as to how we determine the implied readers would have
                                            understood the nuanced useage of 'son of God' in its Hellenistic/Roman
                                            useage versus its Jewish useage?

                                            Also, without being pedantic which places to we see this sort of redaction
                                            occuring? I guess I'll look it up... :-) Assuming Markan priority; Matthew
                                            using Mark and that Luke using Matthew and Mark (Goulder/Goodacre).

                                            Thanks,
                                            Brian Tucker
                                            Riverview, MI
                                            Niqmaddu@...
                                            editor@...
                                            http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org




                                            The Jewish overtones of the expression have not, however,
                                            > been entirely forgotten or suppressed in Mark.
                                            >
                                            > Leonard Maluf
                                            >

                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • Tim Reynolds
                                            If Mt s wedding garment insertion isn t a circumcision ruling I can t think what else it might be. Tim Reynolds ... Synoptic-L Homepage:
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              If Mt's wedding garment insertion isn't a circumcision ruling I can't
                                              think what else it might be.

                                              Tim Reynolds

                                              Steve Black wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > >--
                                              > >Matthew 28,19 gives the Church formula for baptism. Yet, Acts 19,1-7
                                              > >relates c. AD 54 that at Ephesus this formula was unheard of
                                              > >incontrovertibly showing that Matthew must date no earlier than AD 55. Now
                                              > >the point is that during the Fall or Winter of AD 49 the First Church
                                              > >Council of Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision you have raised.
                                              > >So, Matthew's Gospel, written by a high ranking member (apostle) of this
                                              > >same Church never mentions the requirement for convert circumcision but ONLY
                                              > >baptism in the formula found in Matthew 28,19.
                                              > >
                                              > >Cordially in Christ,
                                              > John
                                              >
                                              > Your argument assumes historical accuracy for Acts 19, and Acts 15
                                              > (the report of the council of Jerusalem). Acts was written from a
                                              > distinctly pro-Paul position, and any historical kernel that is
                                              > within it has inevitably been rung threw that "filter". There is also
                                              > the well known conflicting presentations of the council of Jerusalem
                                              > by Luke, and the one given by Paul himself in Gal. that calls Luke
                                              > account into some doubt.
                                              >
                                              > All this aside, Galatians itself assumes that the issue wasn't really
                                              > settled at the council! Why was Gal. written in the first place if
                                              > not to combat Christians who were *still* saying that Gentiles needed
                                              > to be circumcised?
                                              > --
                                              > Peace
                                              >
                                              > Steve Black
                                              > Vancouver, BC
                                              >
                                              > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 7/7/2001 10:00:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Niqmaddu@hotmail.com writes:
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jul 8, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 7/7/2001 10:00:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                Niqmaddu@... writes:

                                                << I think you are absolutely correct. Not to divert from the main point,
                                                however, I am curious as to your understanding of the background of Luke's
                                                use in 1:32-33: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
                                                High...and of his kingdom there will be no end. Does this fit more in a
                                                Jewish mindset or a Hellenistic/Roman?>>

                                                I think this entire section of Luke fits in better with a Jewish mindset, but
                                                nevertheless uses expressions that would be well received in the Greco-Roman
                                                world as well. Fitzmyer points to parallels here to fragmentary evidence from
                                                Qumran (so, more or less contemporary Judaism); there are also remote
                                                biblical parallels to "he will be great" (cf. Gen 16:12), and for "of his
                                                kingdom there will be no end" (Dan 7:14; Is 9:6); but Luke is, I think, also
                                                aware of the fact that hUPSISTOS was a classical title for Zeus in the Greek
                                                world as well. In other words, I don't have a point of view here that differs
                                                greatly from fairly standard scholarly commentary on this verse.

                                                Leonard Maluf

                                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.