No Robots

I was just wondering if you can think of any other historians who share your outlook.

Your fallacy, like that of traditional ecclesiology, is in contending that Matthew is not a Jewish document. By all standards of scholarship, Matthew is a Jewish document. This is the mainstream position. Your contention to the contrary needs some support beyond your own ad hoc justifications and selective quotations.

Vorkosigan

What does it mean to be a "jewish document"? What mainstream scholars can you cite?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

Daniel Wallace, for one. Peter Kirby cites E. Schweizer to the effect that the author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian, the Jewish background plain. Alfred Loisy characterizes the book as Jewish-Christian. Goodspeed denies that it was written for Jews but affirms that the author was probably a Jew. L. Michael White thinks it clear that Matthew was written for Jewish-Christians.

I think the majority of scholars think that Matthew was written either for Jews (or Jewish-Christians) or by a Jew or both.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I have read every post on this thread.

If you think that Jesus cannot be identified, whatever you mean by that, because he is in the same boat as 99% of named figures from antiquity (the 1% being emperors and kings and such), then I leave you to it. I agree that the evidence for Jesus is not on the same scale as that for, say, Henry V.

I cannot help but wonder what all the fuss about identifications is about if only a handful of ancient folks can be identified in the way you suggest.

How do you feel about positive identifications between texts? For example, can I argue that (A) Paul talks about a fellow named Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead, (B) Mark talks about a fellow named Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead, therefore (C) Paul and Mark were probably referring to the same fellow named Jesus?

First of all, if such a passage were found in Josephus I am quite certain rlogan would find it to be an interpolation.

Second, do you regard this kind of description-matching as helpful in studying the historical Jesus?

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Again, I'd like to point out the obvious appeal to authority fallacy in maintaining such.

Ben, could you at least tempt me with how you have received the paper? Heck, I'd be content with one of the following: :notworthy: :jump: :thumbs: :huh: :down: :rolling: :banghead:

Ben C Smith

A fallacy it is, but it is not my fallacy. Vork asked for names of scholars, and I listed some for him. I nowhere appealed to their authority, nor even hinted on which side I stood.

Sure. :thumbs:

I think it correctly nails the gospel as pro-gentile. I also think you are really onto something in the boiling down of the law to one or two statements; that sounds like what a pro-gentile Paul might do (you might consider adding that connection to your paper). I think the paper is too short; in discussing the genealogies, for example, your points about the women are well taken, but I think you need to address the potential objection based on the Matthean list starting with Abraham (the first Jew) and the Lucan list starting with Adam (the first human). I am sure you can pierce right through that, but the question surfaced as soon as I read that paragraph.

Do you see Matthew and Paul as quite compatible? Or are there residual tensions?

I think you ought to develop the paper into a longer work that quotes from those scholars that regard Matthew as uncomfortable with the gentile mission.

Ben.

Johann_Kaspar

Is it not clear that there is not ONE author, but several? Jewish-xians? What is that? Xians cannot appear before 888 auc. Why don't you call them messianist Jews? There were some until 888 auc.

Once upon a time it was a "majority" who was thinking the earth is flat and at the center of the universe...

Johann_Kaspar

And there is a MP, why just a HJ/MJ? HJ could be an hypothese, an HP not even such. "He" is completely fictionnal.

Chris Weimer

I know. It was a general statement made for the audience, not aimed at you, Ben.

That's reassuring. For a minute, I was seriously doubting myself. Of course, there will always be objections. I originally was going to add a section about the tendency to portray Jesus as Jewish by scholars after the Holocaust, but it's not really appropriate. I think it was Donald Senior who I got that from, but regardless, it appears to be true.

In all honesty, I don't think my Pauline knowledge is on par here. However, I already am forced to do more research on 1st century Judaism, I might as well go for the Pauline connection as well, especially if I'm looking at a journal.

I agree! This is one reason I've only sent it to a few of you, so I can keep building and building.

I thought I had already addressed that, but you're right that I missed it. Let me muse over that bit for a while...

I don't see anything that would make Paul and Matthew enemies. I think there is sufficient room for both Jews and Gentiles in Matthew, and likewise that exists with Paul as well. Furthermore, the Law isn't the laws of the Torah anymore for either of them. But Matthew is largely silent on the great debate of Paul's era about circumcision, though he does negate the unclean meats. I think they should be compatible. I don't know if I would argue that Matthew knew Paul directly, but I may have to save that for another paper, and I'm sure it would largely be inconclusive.

Thanks Ben for the comments. You've really helped there. I can't wait until you send the full criticism. I appreciate it,

Chris

Ben C Smith

Because I was quoting scholars who use the term Jewish-Christians.

True. Does that change the statistical datum that it was indeed a majority who thought that?

Ben.