Ted Hoffman

My point exactly. Nothing new in Matthew about the imminence. Thus its opportunistic to link the imminence to the Jewish war. Or even to treat it as special.
Is it your argument that if passages are reinterpreted in a 'novel manner' something must have happened?

On further thought:

(1) If one argues that 'some standing here' does not refer to the ongoing Jewish War, it falsifies the idea that the author of AMatt knew the destruction of Jerusalem and was putting the words in Jesus' mouth.

But it does NOT provide any basis for dating the gospel shortly after c.70 as Jesus could have meant 'those who believe me among you'.

(2) If it refers to it, one can argue that the author of AMatt knew the destruction of Jerusalem and was putting the words in Jesus' mouth.
Hence justifying late dating

Amaleq13

I see no reason to assume that the author of Matthew was trying to create "a purportedly historical account of Jesus' life". He certainly doesn't treat Mark's story as though it were history because he feels free to change it and add to it. The author is rewriting a theological narrative. This does not mean, however, that we can assume it has no connection whatsoever to a historical figure who actually conducted a ministry. It just means these stories probably aren't going to be terribly helpful in describing it because they are more concerned with the beliefs of the community than recording history.

I thought I had made it clear previously that I understood the author and his community to consider themselves in the midst of a prolonged tribulation leading to The End. They had no idea when the Final Judgment would take place but I think it is clear the author intended them to believe it would happen within their generation.

"And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come." (Mt 10:23. YLT)

First, I lack sufficient understanding of the language to question your criticism about Young's translation but it seems to be yet another example of "it could happen at any time now". Second, this is only false if we interpret it literally to only refer to Jesus' original disciples rather than to Matthew's community which was, no doubt, continuing to preach their gospel throughout Israel.

"Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign." (Mt 16:28, KJV)

As I mentioned before, the author immediately follows this with the transfiguration which seems to suggest that seeing the "Son of Man coming in his reign" was not about the Final Judgment but about the beginning of the process that would lead to that Judgment.

ichabod crane

But the issue is not imminence per se. The issue is the fact that Matthew portrays Jesus as teaching a return in his hearer's lifetime, which he would know to be false if he lived later.

How can "some standing here" mean "those who believe in me amongst you"? And I don't see your first point. I agree with you that the author of Matthew was aware of the destruction of Jerusalem; that much is clear. But he could have been writing soon after the event, reinterpreting those events in the light of his apocalyptic worldview. I think, given the Olivet Discourse, that very likely the author of Matthew thought that the destruction of Jerusalem was a sign that the end was just about to happen.

If he knew about the destruction of Jerusalem, why does that justify a late date necessarily?

It's presented as a narrative. Surely the whole Jesus Myth argument is that Matthew represents a historicization of the Jesus Myth? Isn't he about creating a picture of a human Jesus? How can he do that without putting that human Jesus in a context? As regards his reworking of Mark, maybe he just didn't think Mark was completely accurate. Using something as a source doesn't mean you have to accept everything it says. I can accept the claim that Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual being without a historical context. But I find it hard to accept that the writer of Matthew did not believe in a historical human Jesus. In addition theology and history are not mutually exclusive. You can develop a historical picture for theological reasons.

OK, that's reasonable, but it doesn't explain the problem.

But the text portrays Jesus as speaking to his disciples, not to some later people. Maybe these later people could read it that way if they wanted to, but the text doesn't support such a reading, and the author would not have written it that way if that was what he meant.

A straightforward alternative explanation for the data is this: Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught that the end of the world was near. Some of these statements are preserved in the gospels. However, it was necessary to rework them and reinterpret them to deal with the fact that the end had not come. Hence, for example, the placement of the transfiguration account.

Amaleq13

What is relevant is how it was presented and I see no indication that it was presented as historical narrative. I do, however, see ample indication that it was likely presented as a theological narrative.

Doherty argues that the story eventually came to be considered/asserted as history but I'm not sure he would argue that is how it was originally written. Regardless, whatever "the whole Jesus Myth argument is" is actually irrelevant to my position.

My point is that his treatment of the source material does not suggest to me that he considered it to be history. The author of Matthew appears to me to think the theological meaning to be the most important part of the story. Not the historicity of the details.

I think I already said that the theological nature of the story does not preclude a historical figure. I think it is entirely possible that the author of Matthew believed Jesus to have been a historical figure but I think the evidence indicates he knew virtually nothing about him except what could be found in the Hebrew Bible, Mark, Q, and whatever other source(s) he used. The author knew virtually nothing about Jesus but he clearly believed a great deal about him.

That said, I don't share your incredulity about the possibility that the author believed in a Dohertyesque Jesus (pat. pending). I think it is possible that the author could rewrite Mark while believing Jesus to be an entirely spiritual entity just as much as Paul may have. I think, however, that this context requires me to also assume that the kind of internal stratification suggested by Secret Mark was in place in the early Christian community. In other words, I think the story would have to have been taught at a literal level to initiates but the deeper, hidden level would have been reserved for the more advanced believer.

Perhaps after the initiate started asking questions about the apparent difficulties at the literal level.

True but I see far more theology than history in Matthew's story.

I just don't think Matthew or his community were as literally minded as you are.

How do you know what the author would have done? All we have to work with is what the author did and that is rewrite Mark to fit his own beliefs. I'm simply assuming his audience shared those beliefs and would have recognized them in the story. How stupid would they have to be to miss them so completely as to consider the story to be a history lesson?

I tend to accept that Q was a layered document that only became apocalyptic in its latest form so your explanation doesn't match the evidence as I understand it.

The placement of the transfiguration account was established by Mark's story and Matthew simply retains it. Jesus is unlikely to have predicted the destruction of the Temple. This is something that the author of Mark more likely put in his mouth because the event seemed to him a clear signal of that The End was coming. Prior to this scene, Jesus only predicts the coming of the Kingdom of God but does this have the same apocalyptic feel to it? Or does it have more of a feeling of hope? It seems to me he is promising radical changes in the way people lived not that their world was coming to an end.

Can you really be so sure, from the whole body of evidence, that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher or was apocalypticism thrust upon his narrative form because of subsequent historical circumstances?

Whether Jesus was historical or mythological, I think the evidence is better explained by considering apocalypticism as a post-resurrection development.

Vorkosigan

Why? As Amaleq has been trying to make clear, Matthew was writing theopolitical fiction for current audiences, not a historical account of the life of real human being. There is no need for great commitment to truth in fiction. The parable of the ten virgins makes clear that Matthew is aware of this problem. Matthew is also working within an established framework of knowledge. Mark has already written his story of Jesus, and time has clearly passed, for Mark writes of false Messiahs, etc. Indeed, the comment that "this generation shall not pass away" is already in Matt's source, so he was faced with a tough choice -- and Matt included about 90% of Mark, so he had a penchant for inclusiveness.

Further, Matt included, in Mt 24, the comment that the gospel would be preached in all the nations of the world ere Jesus return, an event which had obviously not occurred, and which explained why Jesus had not returned. An 24:36 is emphatic on this point:

24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

In other words, Matt built in enough evasions and conditions that Jesus' "this generation" could be understood to read the generation that was being addressed by the reading of the text.

The translation is fine, Ichabod. In English the term "may not" is an emphatic "no." For example, if your 16 year old daughter comes home and says "Dad, may I date this 45 year old truck driver?" and you say "No, you may not" should she take that "may" as evidence that you are conflicted? The fact is that the YLT has simply chosen one of many ways to express emphatic negativity. Open up any of your children's games, they frequently use the construction "may not" when something is forbidden. For example, these rules for netball are studded with "may not"

Players may not DELIBERATELY kick, punch or fall on the ball; gain possession or throw while on the ground or use the goalpost for support.
Players may not run with the ball.
Players may not grab the ball from the opposition or try and knock the ball from the oppositions hands.
Having caught the ball players may not drop or bounce the ball and then replay it.

Do you think the writer intends to express possibility, or to forbid actions here?

The amusing thing here is that after making an elementary error, you struggle to find some way to make a negative comment about Jesus-mythers. It seems that for you, all roads lead to this Rome.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, I agree with Vorkosigan here.

I find YLT very useful for getting to the literal meaning of Greek. But one has to make an allowance for the fact that this is an old translation, and the use of English is very 19th century.

Whenever there's a substantial disagreement in meaning between the YLT and the modern translations, this should automatically raise the red flag.

The difference can come either from the fact that,

1. YLT is based on the Byzantine Greek text (so there may be a substantial textual difficulty there),

2. or from the fact that YLT is a very literal translation. In such a case, one needs to examine the Greek texts to see if the Greek grammar or vocabulary are somehow problematic for this passage. In such a case, a few other English translations may also be consulted.

All the best,

Yuri.

WILLOWTREE

7Q5 Dead Sea Scrolls: Cannot be disputed as those caves were sealed PRIOR to Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus Seminar completely ignores 7Q5.

Magdalen Fragments: Carsten Thiede

"When Thiede saw them his recent research told him a very different story. Here was evidence of a handwriting style in use in the mid-first century, very similar to manuscripts found at Qumran (all pre 68 A.D.), at Herculaneum (pre 79 A.D.) and other very early papyri of both Christian and secular texts. Thiede returned to Oxford again and again to study them and became convinced that these fragments were written by 60 A.D. or even earlier. His isolation of palaeographical 'markers' such as the equal thickness of the vertical and horizontal strokes and the touching of one letter upon another proved their early date as these features were abandoned by the second century. Discoveries of new scrolls in the Nahal Hever 'Cave of Horrors' provided Thiede with better examples of this hand which could be precisely dated to the mid-first century. Radiocarbon dating used in archaeology was impractical on such tiny fragments and would, in any case, be insufficiently precise. The whole weight of proof for Thiede depends on the writing; his invention of a special microscope for examining the fragmentary ink survival has strengthened his view."

Thus paleography has established First Century. Also completely ignored by Jesus Seminar.

Codex Mayerianus 48 AD

Dictated by Matthew to Nicolaus the Deacon. Contains several papyri fragments of Matthew's Gospel and portions of the epistles of James and Jude.

source: Dr. Gene Scott Bible Museum, 1862 London reproduction.

Once again, completely ignored by Jesus Seminar.

Tatians Harmony of the Gospels (160 AD)

This means all 4 gospels had to of been written and circulated for Tatian to produce this source.

Guess what ?

Completely ignored by Jesus Seminar.

Why ?

Because all these sources contradict their already spoken up for theories.

Amaleq13

Carsten Thiedes' identification of 7Q5 and dating of the Magdalene Fragments are not unopposed by his colleagues.

Regarding 7Q5, see Ernest A. Muro, Jr.s website for the specifics:

http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch...ins/index.html

and

http://www.breadofangels.com/7q5/key.html

According to Peter Flint, Professor of Biblical Studies and Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute:

"...most scholars would agree with you that there are no frgs. Of Mark from Cave 7 (including 7Q5). In fact, following recent discussions by Nebe, Puech, and Mauro, it now seems quite certain that several of the 7Q fragments are in fact parts of 1 Enoch. For a summary of research, see my article:

Peter W. Flint,
?Apocrypha,? Other Previously-Known Writings, and Peudepigrapha? in the Dead Sea Scrolls,? in P. Flint and J. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1999) 2.24-66, esp. pp. 41-45."

from http://www.mail-archive.com/orion@pa.../msg00589.html

For a critique of Thiedes' methodology for dating the Magdalene Fragments, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt

I could find no online references to scholarly discussions about the "Codex Mayerianus". In what journal(s) has this been addressed?

Roland

160 is hardly evidence for 1st Century composition since we already know that Irenaeus mantions them all by name a mere decade or so later.

Also, I've never understood why this "harmony" of the four gospels was finally deemed heretical if it was, indeed, a harmony of the gospels that were later acclaimed as "acceptable."

ichabod crane

Would you explain the characteristics of the genres "historical narrative" and "theological narrative"? Surely any narrative, of whatever type, which places characters with real human identities (names of parents, mentions brothers and sisters, where they lived, and so forth) should be taken as describing events in the real world. Whether you want to label such descriptions as "theological narrative" or not is beside the point. I agree with you that the picture of Jesus Matthew portrays is theologically motivated. But that doesn't imply, not in the slightest, that he doesn't intend what he says to be taken at face value. Matthew describes Jesus' parentage, birth, where he lived, interactions with contemporary events and figures, real places, and so forth. When I read "Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper", I take that to mean that Matthew is asserting that Jesus, a real person, was in a real house in the town of Bethany that was owned by a real person called Simon the leper. Please explain how else I should understand it?

The theological details in Matthew are dependent upon the historical details of the narrative. You can't seperate them. In Paul, there is no narrative and the theology is abstract. But in Matthew, there is little if any abstract theology, but the theology is founded upon the narrative. For this reason Matthew is much more Jewish and Paul much more Hellenistic. So arguing for a theological focus just doesn't prove your point. You have to show why the obviously historical references like those mentioned above shouldn't be taken at face value.

So why are we arguing? I agree that Matthew probably knew little about Jesus except what he gleaned from the sources (and perhaps also stories that circulated in the community). But when he wrote down what he thought happened, I am sure that he thought that those things really happened in real history.

An entirely spiritual being born to human parents at a particular time and place and so forth? I think if you can interpret Matthew that way, then you can interpret any text that way, even something about the life of Julius Caesar or whatever. The theory then becomes completely unproveable. After all, the original complaint about Paul is that he never mentions details of the life of a human Jesus. But Matthew does mention such details in spades, and yet you still say he is writing of a non-human Jesus? What would it take to convince you that he thought Jesus was human? I can't see any possible way he could have written something that you would accept as teaching a human Jesus.

But what evidence is there of this? What other texts have the characteristics of Matthew and are intended to be interpreted in such a manner? And why bother writing anything down at all, if its real meaning was secret and required special revelation from another person? For this very reason, the mystery religions tended not to write things down.

The author of Matthew would not have expected his readers to have access to Mark or other gospels. It was some time before all four gospels were collected together. But in any case, just because he disagreed with Mark does not prove that he didn't intend the narrative to be taken as true in a straightforward sense. It just shows that he regarded Mark as not completely reliable. They would not have been stupid at all to interpret the events as real in time and space; indeed they could hardly interpret it in any other way. I don't know any writer, whether from the early church or from a heretical source, who interpreted Matthew in the way you are trying to.

But the apocalyptic elements are not just found in Q, and this still doesn't address the basic problem, that whether it was in Q or anything else, it could not have been written later than a lifetime after when Jesus was claimed to have lived.

Correct. But why did Mark place the transfiguration account there? To get around the problem of the imminent end of the world.

I agree. Either this was a complete fiction attributed to Jesus after the destruction, or something that Jesus said was re-interpreted and reworked to refer to the destruction when originally it did not. But why is this relevant?

We can be more sure than not, because the predictions of the end of the world in Jesus' lifetime just are not things that would be inserted later unless they were inserted within a lifetime of Jesus. So the best explanation is that such predictions track back to an authentic historical Jesus.

See above comments.

No, it isn't. The phrase "may not" can only be emphatic in English when it is in an imperative statement, not when it is in an indicative statement. In an indicative statement in English "may not" always means that there is uncertainty. All the examples you give are imperatives. But the statement in Matthew is not an imperative; although the verb form is subjunctive it is functionally indicative. In any case, this is not a crucial issue, so long as you concede that the statement is emphatic.

See above comments.