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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt bibliography

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
      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 2 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
        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 3 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
          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 4 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
            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 5 of 24 , Jul 5, 2001
              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 6 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                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 7 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                  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 8 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                    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 9 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                      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 10 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                        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 11 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                          >
                          >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 12 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                            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 13 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                              ----- 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 14 of 24 , Jul 6, 2001
                                >
                                >--
                                >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 15 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                  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 16 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                    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 17 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                      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 18 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                        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 19 of 24 , Jul 7, 2001
                                          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 20 of 24 , Jul 8, 2001
                                            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.