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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt bibliography

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