fromdownunder

Nomad

Do we have any idea as to whether or not the author of Matthew aware of Paul’s letters?

If so, it would be easy enough for him to decide that, since Paul was the earliest known written inspiration for the Christian religion as we know it, that the idea of the Priesthood and Church “seemed like a good idea at the time”.

So, purely on the basis of what Paul had written, the author of Matthew included references that would be consistent with what Paul had previously said.

Of course, If he was not familiar with Paul’s writings this idea goes straight out the window.

Norm

Nomad

Actually, the evidence that any of the Gospel writers knew of Paul (or vice versa) is so scanty that I have seen some claim that the evangelists (including Luke!) argued against Paul, while others have think that they argued for Paul!

Personally, I do not see enough of a connection to believe that Matt (or Mark or John) knew much about Paul. Even Luke's connections to Paul are pretty slim.

Actually, I think that given that the structure of the Church was clearly in place before Matthew wrote his gospel (no one dates Matthew to before Paul's epistles), then it is obvious that Matthew would ascribe the existence of the Church to Jesus Himself. There is certainly no reason to think a later redactor had to change Matthew to reflect a new reality in which the Church had finally come into existence. It was there, at least since the 40's when Paul began his ministry.

Nomad

aikido7

First off, equating the Pauline group and Matthew's community in any theological sense would be misleading. We are talking about two very different communities of early believers. And since the compelling evidence tells me that Matthew is not a primary source for Jesus, but a variation of Mark, then it doesn't matter that the more developed preaching and teaching from Paul's authentic epistles were written "before" Matthew's probable date.

Secondly, I see a Jesus who radically negated ALL worldly forms of religious, social and political power in his time. He was an itinerant who had no place to lay his head and, therefore, no place to found a church. He could have easily settled down in Nazareth or perhaps Bethany and set up his own order of command. But he did not. His intention was to preach the Kingdom of God and what came was the church.

You say that "ALL textural arguments" (emphasis by Aikido7) point to Matthew 18:16-19 as orignating from the authentic voiceprint of Jesus. The word "all," especially within the range of scholarly opinion, is an unfair word. Perhaps you really mean to qualify that with "all textual arguments" you yourself read--or even to soften it a bit by subsituting "more often than not, MOST textual arguments."

We must always be mindful that most critical judgements in biblical scholarship will become clear only when looking backward. The advances of scholarship that are taking place now will not be known for certain until some future time. Remember, most pre-critical readers of the gosples are still ignornant of the existence of Q and the Gospel of Mark's priority. And these two hypotheses are still being hotly debated--albeit only on the margins of mainline inquiry.

[ October 06, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]