Amaleq13

I agree and that is why I question the certainty of assertions made about the author's intent. We can have no questions, for example, about whoever wrote the preface to Luke. This person, whether the original author or a later interpolator, clearly intends that the following text be accepted as literally true (ie history).

I think this is entirely legitimate for Luke, given the preface, but I would question the basis for the assumption regarding Mark and Matthew. What suggests that either was doing anything other than "preaching to the choir"? My understanding of both is that they were originally intended for their individual community of believers. There is no reason to "sell" something that has already been purchased. Instead, they seem to be imaginative efforts to reinforce an already existing faith.

This seems to be a theological point of difference between Mark and Matthew since the former has a passage questioning the above belief (ie 12:36-38). Again, both appear to be creating a story that conforms to the beliefs of their community but I see no evidence that it was also intended to convince outsiders.

Paul simply asserted that Jesus was a descendant of David. The author of Matthew essentially makes the same assertion but within a narrative context. Both appear to me to be statements of faith rather than attempts to record history.

While it is possible that one author knew of the other and is deliberately "correcting" perceived mistakes, I consider arguments for their independent production more persuasive. Like the incompatible nativity stories, both authors were attempting to express their theological beliefs in narrative form. The author of Matthew appears to have relied on the story of Moses for his inspiration while the author of Luke may have been reading Josephus.

I know there are scholars who contend the nativities are later additions but I'm not familiar enough with the specific arguments to judge whether they are convincing. If we assume they are later additions, however, your point would appear valid.

Rick Sumner

All I can suggest regarding Weems is that you read the book. I assure you he rather clearly intended to deceive people. Complete with citation of sources that don't seem to have existed.

The difference it makes, for the current discussion, pertains to the dating of Matthew. If he intended "some who are still alive" to be taken literally, it forces the conclusion that some were alive when he wrote it, if they weren't, he'd have brought it up to the present--added an extra generation or two.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

He did, all over the place, in the parable of the ten virgins when the bridegroom is delayed, in 24:3-14 there is a whole list of things, such as the gospel being preached to all the nations, which couldn't possibly have happened in his own time. Matthew was well aware that a long period of time had passed, in which there had been false Christs.

In any case, Matt has simply copied from Mark:

Compare:
Matt
16.24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me
16.25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 16.26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 16.27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 16.28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Mark
.34And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 8.35 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. 8.36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 8.37For what can a man give in return for his life? 8.38For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." 9.1And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

The two passages are extremely similar, and the wording of Mark 9:1/Matt 16:27 is almost identical. The reason Matt included this passage is because it was in Mark. Simple as that.

Writing on this very passage, Origen notes:
But since here it is written in the three Evangelists, "They shall not taste of death,"220 but in other writers different things are written concerning death, it may not be out of place to bring forward and examine these passages along with the "taste." In the Psalms, then, it is said, "What man is he that shall live and not see death? "221 And again, in another place, "Let death come upon them and let them go down into Hades alive; "222 but in one of the prophets, "Death becoming mighty has swallowed them up; "223 and in the Apocalypse, "Death and Hades follow some."224 Now in these passages it appears to me that it is one thing to taste of death, but another thing to see death, and another thing for it to come upon some, and that a fourth thing, different from the aforesaid, is signified by the words, "Death becoming mighty has swallowed them up," and a fifth thing, different from these, by the words, Death and Hades follow them."

In other words, the issue for him is "taste of death." It does not signify for him what it signifies for us. Early Christians had other ways of looking at the passage. In the passage right before that one, he also seems to regard that passage in a way that dismisses the simple interpretation that it means he promised that they disciples would still be alive when he came back.

In other words, there is no reason to think that Matthew's group may not have had a similar take on it. Christians have been explaining away this passage for two thousand years now, and I doubt that the Christians of Matt's day were any less skilled at doublethink than the ones today. There is simply no reason to conclude from this passage that the gospel is early (or late). It simply has no bearing on the date, for it is obvious that explaining this passage is not a problem. Otherwise, Matthew would have simply disincluded it, as he did with about 10% of Mark, or changed the wording.

Hints of a later date for Matthew lie in his attitude toward the Jews -- "their synagogues" -- and 27:25, which seem to point to a time when Jews and Christians had broken pretty clearly with each other. That would be after the first century, I expect. I do not consider Ignatius to be an impediment to a late date, because I believe those letters to be later forgeries.

Another pointer to a late date may be a relationship with Josephus. A number of commentators have remarked on the fact that Josephus' Life contains a passage in which three are crucified together but one survives, just like the fable in Mark, which Matt borrowed. This would put the whole lot after 110 (and turn Ignatius into forgery to boot). L Carrington's Flavian Testament has teased out a connection between Josephus' Antiquities and Matt's Parable of the Vineyard, but it is tenuous.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Roger that.
And Rick, por votre bon consideration s'il vous plait:
Why AActs was not a companion of Paul: Paul's letters

Rick Sumner

Vous avez une imagination très bonne.

Je n'ai pas dit que Luc était un compagnon de Paul.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

How valid is your reading of Origen for these purposes? Isn't Origen making apologetics for Matthew's work?

Why would Matthew need to make apologetics for his own work? Wouldn't we just expect him to write it properly the first time? He was suddenly overwhelmed with the need to follow his Markan source more closely? Why?

I'd suggest the best rebuttal to this argument is that we don't really know what is meant by "the kingdom." At least that always seems to have had at least some ambiguity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

CX

I strongly suggest you read a good NT intro text. Even church tradition does not say that Acts was written by Paul. I recommend Schnelle, but there are some others listed in the recommended reading list.

Amaleq13

Rick,


You claim that the author did not consider the genealogy to be literally true. That makes sense if he made it up.

But you also claim that the author did not consider the genealogy to be theologically true. That makes no sense to me and your explanation seemed to indicate that he did even though you used "literally" to describe that belief.

To clarify, "literally true" means "historical" while "theologically true" means "consistent with or even required by the claimants belief system". Aren't you agreeing with the latter in your explanation?

Assuming the author believed the genealogy to be theologically true while recognizing it was not literally true, why should we assume his audience did not think the same way?


Also, who did the author's audience believe wrote the story?

Rick Sumner

He believed Jesus was literally the son of David because of his theology--he believed it was necessary. He just made up a way to get there, probably in response to the seeming polemics you already noted are contained in Mark.

Theologically true, as I have understood it in the context of this discussion, refers to a Marcus Borg-esque "Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened" mentality--where the "truth" of something is not contingent on the literal truth. But the truth of the Davidic pedigree *is* literal, and it follows that Matthew, believing Jesus to be the real son of David, wrote his genealogy to convey a literal genealogy to support his existing belief.

Applying what I've outlined to the present passage, one could contend that Matthew's belief system mandates that the end is coming within the lifetime of those Jesus is speaking to. His theology mandates the literal coming apocalypse. I have no problem with that, it works just fine with my argument. It doesn't with yours.

See above for how I'm understanding the terms. If Matthew did not intend to convey that Jesus was really the son of David, he wouldn't have a genealogy, he'd have just followed Mark's lead. Again, the genealogy, I'd suggest, is an apologetic to counter the polemics you've noted. That apologetic isn't going to work if it is some sort of abstract metaphor.

I'd suggest they knew who wrote the story, because he read it to them. Who that was I cannot know.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

How do you know that the author believed this to be "literally" true?

What did "literally the son of David" mean to the author?

To be the "literal" son of David would mean that David was the sperm donor for the son but that doesn't appear to be how you are using it.

To be the "literal" descendant of David (as I think you are using it) would seem to mean that, if one went backwards from the son's physical father (ie sperm donor) to his father and so on, one would eventually reach a son whose physical father was David.

Does the author's belief in Jesus' Davidic connection follow from his belief that Jesus was the Messiah?

I have given you the way I am using it. Does that change anything in your explanation? A "theological truth" is one that the believer holds to be true without knowing any factual evidence to support it. A "literal truth" is one that the believer holds because he knows (or believes he knows) factual evidence indicating it.

What evidence eliminates the following?:

If Matthew did not intend to convey his belief that the Messiah was to be of Davidic lineage and that Jesus met this requiremen, he wouldn't have created a genealogy.

How does it "work" for the author if he knows it is fabricated?

Given that the author intended the story to be taken literally, doesn't that require certain assumptions about his identity? Specifically, wouldn't he have to have been someone his audience assumed knew what had literally happened?