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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt bibliography

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.