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

Re: Wording in Matthew supplied by the writer himself

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Brian: I see the main possibilities, within the framework of Matthean synoptic priority, as being: (a) An original account was written truthfully and was
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 11, 1998
      At 09:24 AM 9/11/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) -
      >>Can anyone please identify one piece of material in the Gospel of
      >>Matthew and give good reasons why that piece of material must have been
      >>supplied by the writer of Matthew himself, and not taken by him from
      >>his documentary source material?

      >Jim Deardorff replied (SNIP)-
      >>As you can surmise, the list goes on and on. If one posits that Jesus
      >>himself was very often inconsistent and illogical, you can eliminate
      >>many of these, but quite a few still remain. When the list is complete,
      >>then one can go through it and pick out favorite expressions of AMt
      >>that he used within his redactions.

      >Jim,
      > How do you know that the wording of the inconsistencies and
      >illogicalities you identify was not taken by the writer of the Gospel of
      >Matthew from a Proto-Matthew?
      >
      >The analysis you make is fully compatible with the Boismard, Lowe and
      >Flusser, O'Neill, Bleek, Lagrange, Pierson Parker and Vaganay-Benoit
      >Hypotheses, and others also. In such hypotheses, the writer of the
      >Gospel of Matthew copied from documentary source material. The phenomena
      >you identify could have been taken from such material, and not supplied
      >by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew himself. He may have been a very
      >logical person, like yourself.

      Brian:

      I see the main possibilities, within the framework of Matthean synoptic
      priority, as being:

      (a) An original account was written truthfully and was therefore essentially
      free of inconsistencies, contradictions and other illogic. Then extensive
      editorial action by AMt undertaken to make this account acceptable
      introduced many inconsistencies or illogic.

      (b) The Gospel of Matthew is the original account, in the writing of which
      AMt made a lot of logical errors both in his narratives and in his portrayal
      of Jesus' teachings, which caused them to be riddled with inconsistency and
      illogic.

      (c) The original teachings of Jesus, written in one or two proto-documents,
      contained much illogic and inconsistency. AMt retained much or all of this
      illogic, and perhaps introduced more when trying to reconcile his sources,
      which were never mentioned and identified in any literature.

      (d) The original teachings of Jesus were consistent and sensible, but were
      rendered inconsistent and illogical when set into writing within a
      proto-Matthew. Then AMt put it in gospel form, perhaps doing so without
      adding his own redactions, or perhaps eliminating some illogic within
      proto-Matthew, or perhaps adding a few redactions of his own.

      I think it is something like (c) or (d) that you asked about. These involve
      one or two important proto-documents never mentioned in any literature,
      without there being any good reason why such important document(s) would not
      have been mentioned.

      I find (c) implausible also because Jesus is mentioned as having been a
      wisdom teacher, which a saying like Mt 10:16b supports. Such a teacher would
      not likely have gained that reputation by teaching one thing one time and
      something else in contradiction on another.

      I find (b) implausible because of the lack of evidence that the first gospel
      was written early enough to have been an eye-witness account.

      I prefer (a) because it can explain statements we have from Papias (via
      Eusebius) and Clement of Alexandria, and because there is a candidate
      document for this original account that explains why the first gospel did
      not appear on the scene at all early, and why Matthew contains so many
      inconsistencies suggestive of redaction.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... This would not be a good idea, because all (existing) versions of this document are still under copyright. Those who are so inclined can visit Jim
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 12, 1998
        At 10:37 PM 9/11/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
        >I'm sure the list would be grateful to have this "candidate document" (a
        >document which you frequently refer to, but don't ever name here or ever
        >produce any exemplar of in your posts) *sent here to the list*, along
        >with some explanation of how you know that this "candidate" is genuine.

        This would not be a good idea, because all (existing) versions of
        this document are still under copyright. Those who are so inclined
        can visit Jim Deardorff's web site themselves to see some quotations
        of the document and come to their own conclusions.

        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.