Jayhawker Soule

What about the issue of the crucifixion of a Jewish sect leader?

I'm sorry, Johnny, but to which question are you referring?

Not even a little. Why do you ask?

JoeWallack

JW:
Interesting. The 3 Jewish Historians of the 1st century, Josephus, Philo and Paul do not give us any Jewish accusations. What were these accusations?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Because the author is claiming that the Jews of his day were charging that the disciples had stolen the body. This is the only time Matthew steps out of his gospel narrative to relate contemporary information.

I already did so. How did you miss it?

What does this question have to do with the rest of the issues? I will not follow you on the derail.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In what meaningful sense is Paul an historian? And Philo is a philosopher. Josephus, the only true historian of the bunch, writes (in both the extant and the usual modified version of the Testimonium) that Pilate condemned Jesus on the accusation of the principal men among the Jews.

I will certainly understand if you do not accept the Testimonium at all, but this is another example of what I pointed out regarding Earl Doherty; this is one of those statements that simply pretends, without argument or even so much as a nod in the right direction, that certain passages do not exist.

Do you mean their exact content? Josephus does not say. But in Mark the accusation was blasphemy.

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

I am not aware of any good reasons to take the author's word for it. Is it your position that the majority of scholars consider Matthew 28:15 to be historical? How about Elaine Pagels and Karen King?

Ben C Smith

Minus the lie, indeed. I submit that you are asking the wrong question here. Notice the italicized phrase (and the italics are yours). You have asked and answered a question about what is happening within the storyline. But Matthew has, on your own showing, stepped out of the storyline with that comment about the Jewish charges in his own day. You have faulted him for this, and claimed that he has given the reader a lie, but you have yet to answer the obvious question: Why did he do it in the first place?

Had Matthew rested content with the story of the guard itself he would have been acting exactly as he has acted in all his other improvements of Mark; he solves the potential story problem with another or a modified story element.

On the presumption of Marcan priority, scholars have identified numerous spots in which it appears that Matthew has (A) noticed that Mark is unclear or subject to misinterpretation or misapplication and (B) made alterations in the wording or phrasing in order to head these misinterpretations or misapplications off at the pass. The following list is not exhaustive, nor do I necessarily endorse each and every item on it as a genuine improvement of Mark, but if even a modicum of these examples hold true then it can well be said that Matthew knows how to anticipate objections:

1. Mark 1.33-34 has all coming to Jesus and Jesus healing many; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as Jesus not being able to heal some that he changed the storyline to many coming to Jesus and Jesus healing all in Matthew 8.16.

2. Mark 2.12 has Jesus telling a healed paralytic to go home, but there is no actual indication that he did so; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as the healed man disobeying Jesus that he explicitly tells us that the man went home in Matthew 9.7.

3. Mark 6.3 has Jesus being called a carpenter; perhaps it was because Matthew felt that this occupation was not very dignified that he changed this to the son of a carpenter in Matthew 13.55.

4. Mark 6.5 says that Jesus could not do any miracles except a few healings; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as a limitation on the dominical power that he changed this to say that Jesus did not do any miracles.

5. Mark 6.48 says that Jesus intended to pass the disciples by; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as not a very friendly thing to do that he omitted this phrase in Matthew 14.25.

6. Mark 6.52 calls the disciples hard of heart; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as anti-apostolic that he replaces this line with the disciples worshipping Jesus in Matthew 14.33.

7. Mark 7.27 has Jesus flatly refusing to help the daughter of a Syro-Phoenicean woman; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as Jesus not being very congenial to gentiles that he added the bit about being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel in Matthew 15.24.

8. Mark 9.13 has Jesus saying that Elijah already came, but does not explicitly tell us who Elijah was; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be made clearer that he has the disciples realize that Elijah was John the baptist in Matthew 17.13.

9. Mark 9.23-25 and 7.33-34 both have Jesus healing a man with spittle; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as Jesus using magical procedures that he omitted the parallel to the former and changed the latter to a generic healing summary in Matthew 15.29-31.

10. Mark 10.17 has Jesus asking why a questioner called him good; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as Jesus claiming not to be good that he changed this question to why the questioner was asking about what is good in Matthew 19.17.

11. Mark 10.35 has the sons of Zebedee making an inappropriate request of Jesus; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be misinterpreted as anti-apostolic that he changed this to the mother of the sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20.20.

12. Mark 15.43 has Joseph of Arimathea simply waiting for the kingdom; perhaps it was because Matthew noticed that this could be made clearer that he changed this to Joseph being a disciple in Matthew 27.57.

Now, one does not have to accept more than a handful of these examples to realize that Matthew knows how to anticipate and handle potential objections. And I have saved two of the most obvious anticipations of objections for last:

13. In Mark 1.4 John the baptist is preaching a baptism of repentance, and in 1.9 Jesus is being baptized. Matthew almost certainly noticed that this could be misinterpreted as Jesus being a sinner in need of a baptism of repentance, so he added the exchange in Matthew 3.14-15 between John and Jesus, in which John initially refuses to baptize Jesus. In this case we actually have evidence that certain Christian sectarians interpreted the baptism of Jesus as a typical baptism for the remission of sins. Cyprian (or pseudo-Cyprian), On Rebaptism 100.17, writing about a book called the preaching of Paul:

In quo libro, contra omnes scripturas, et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies Christum....

In which book, against all the scriptures, you will find Christ even confessing his own sin....

But Matthew has handled this objection completely within the flow of the narrative, by granting John and Jesus a conversation that tells the reader all he or she needs to know about whether Jesus needed to be baptized for his sins (even if fulfilling all righteousness remains vague in and of itself).

14. Matthew 27-28 adds several narrative blocks dealing with the guard at the tomb. This is evidently a rebuttal to the possible objection that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus.

Now, I have included this example on the list precisely because it, on its own terms, already deals with the possibility of reading into Mark a theft of the body. But Matthew has not stopped with the story of the guards; no, he has gone on to give us what he tells us is a contemporary Jewish charge. He cannot be doing this simply to plug a Marcan hole; he has already done that with the guards, and Matthew nowhere else resorts to the reporting of contemporary traditions in order to seal a leaky plotline.

So the question is why Matthew decides to step out of the story for a moment here. I submit the reason is obvious: Matthew knew something from outside the story, namely that somebody was making a claim about the disciples having stolen the body of Jesus.

Ben.

ETA: You wrote, Earl:

You are quite welcome, but I am wondering why, when you are the one making the absolute claim (no trace of Jewish spin on HJ events prior to Celsus), I am the one quoting both ancient sources like Matthew, Justin, and Tertullian and modern scholars like Wells and Price. Should not these things have been part of your statement in the first place? Why should it be left to the reader to answer such obvious objections?

Ben C Smith

I gave good reasons for it earlier on the thread. How did you miss them?

I could say yes, but then I have no more taken a poll of all scholars than Matthew took a poll of all Jews.

I have no idea what they think of Matthew 28.15. If you know what they think of Matthew 28.15, I do hope you will share it with the group.

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Ben C Smith: Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...der/empty.html

Jeff Lowder

Does Jewish propaganda provide independent confirmation of the empty tomb story?

Craig's ninth argument for the historicity of the empty tomb is that Jewish polemic (in Matthew 28:15) presupposes the empty tomb. Craig writes, "Jewish opponents of Christianity ... charged that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body."[109] However, that Jewish explanation presupposes the historicity of the empty tomb. Although the Jews could have denied the historicity of the empty tomb, they instead chose to explain it away. Thus, Craig argues, Jewish polemic provides independent confirmation of the "highest quality" for the empty tomb story "since it comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the early Christian faith."[110]

However, the historicity of the Jewish polemic should not be assumed. For all we know, the Jewish polemic may be a literary device designed to answer obvious doubts that would occur to
converts. Or, supposing that there is some sort of historical basis to the polemic, it may be that the polemic originated with a non-Jew and then later on Matthew attributed the polemic to the Jews. Given that the polemic is not recorded in any contemporary Jewish documents, we can't assume that Jews actually responded to the proclamation of the Resurrection with the accusation that the disciples stole the body.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, the Jewish polemic is historical. In that case, is there any reason to think the Jews actually accepted the Christian claim of the empty tomb? Craig assumes that the Jews would have accepted the empty tomb story only after verifying it for themselves. But this assumption is multiply flawed.

Johnny: The ariticle is lengthy. I suggest that you read all of it.

Toto

Is there any way to date that particular passage in Matthew? If it was a charge that contemporary Jews made, what was that date?

Johnny Skeptic

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge209.html

Elaine Pagels

This text sees Judas dying as a martyr—because here the other disciples hate him so much that they kill him! But the Gospel of Judas challenges the idea that God wants people to die as martyrs—just as it challenges the idea that God wanted Jesus to die. Whoever wrote this gospel—and the author is anonymous—is challenging church leaders who teach that. It's as if an imam were to challenge the radical imams who encourage "martyrdom operations" and accuse them of complicity in murder—the Gospel of Judas shows "the twelve disciples"—stand-ins for church leaders—offering human sacrifice on the altar—and doing this in the name of Jesus! Conservative Christians hate gospels like this—usually call them fakes and the people who publish them (like us) anti Christian. There was a great deal of censorship in the early Christian movement—especially after the emperor became a Christian, and made it the religion of the empire—and voices like those of this author were silenced and denounced as "heretics" and "liars." The story of Jesus was simplified and cleaned up—made "orthodox."