gregor

Ben

Do you think that some of the statements in Matt that appear (to me at least) to be directed at the mission to the Jewish community (ref: preservation of the law / least in the kingdom) are:

1. Not intended for the Jewish community
2. a pre-Paulian preservation of Jesus' original mission statement
3. an anti-Paulian reaction to the expansion of the mission?

Thanks

Ben C Smith

1. I suspect they were originally directed at the Jewish community, even if Matthew himself has widened his scope.
2. I suspect that at least some of them preserve a state of affairs that predates Paul, but each saying would have to be argued for separately.
3. I doubt that many of them are outright reactions against a gentile mission; they seem not to have the gentile mission in view (whether because they predated that mission or because they were composed in a setting where the gentile mission had little local influence or impact).

The relationship between Paul and the Matthean material is very interesting. On the one hand, the two bodies of material seem so different that indeed some scholars see them as diametrically opposed. On the other hand, the overlap between 1 Thessalonians and the gospel of Matthew is pretty deep; what is intriguing in that regard is that, according to Acts, Paul originally set out from Antioch and, according to many modern scholars, the gospel of Matthew was written in or near Antioch. It is at least possible that this overlap finds its provenance in Antioch from a very early period.

Ben.

Gamera

I think that's a very complex question. Some of his teachings are clearly in the context of practicing Judaism under the Law. But some of his teachings are clearly intended to transform the Law, and essentially make it moot.

Thus, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus is talking as a Jew to another Jew, and giving him a definition of what a neighbor is (thus exposing the inquirer's real intention to limit the defintion so he can only "love" as limited a universe of people as possible). It's a typical rabbinical kind of teaching for the elucidation of a Judaic principal embodied in the Law. But in discussing divorce, Jesus basically says the Law is wrong and that that there is a universal rule of love that transcends Judaism.

I can't recall whether either or neither of these made the Jesus Seminar cut, but I suspect I can find examples of both categories that did. (And by the way I have serious reservations about the JS methodology). My point is simply that Jesus' teachings aren't monolithic, but nuanced and contextual. And ultimately, they themselves are not the gospel -- something I want to emphasize. The gospel is not Jesus' teachings, but the Jesus narrative, which is about God's love.

By the way, to elaborate on the Great Commission, I don't particular care if it was a later development that was back formed and made into a statement by Jesus. That's because the Great Commission is the obvious outgrowth of the nature of the gospel. Since it is this Jesus narrative that must be accepted to overcome one's self-involved character (not Jesus' sacrifice itself, which by itself didn't magically do anything), the Jesus narrative must be shared. The gospel implies the Great Commission. Now, since I think that Jesus was aware of the narrative nature of the gospel in which he was playing the leading role, he intended the Great Commission, even if he didn't say it in so many words.

Niall Armstrong

I wonder if Kessler’s discrepancy might not be more interesting than being merely yet another biblical discrepancy. The passages (Matt 10:23b and 24:14) are obviously contradictory, but instead of indulging in Schadenfreude should we not try to find out how it happened, how these things got written, preferably by looking at Matthew’s literary history? (Schweitzer’s explanation, as brought forth by Ben C Smith here, seems improbable, as such an embarrassment would have been edited out by the writer. But others may disagree.)

Matt 10:23b is not only in contradiction with the later “Great Commission”, but, as the disciples go out and come back again without any special “coming of the Son of Man”, it may be seen as contradictory with the rest of Matthew. It is definitely a difficult passage, mentioned, and then forgotten. This makes it far more “difficult” than the Great Commission” that may or may not be an interpolation. (This “Lesser Commission” is obviously not an interpolation, as it thus would not make any sense.) It is a part of the “sending out of the disciples” found in both Matthew and Luke (though this half-verse of course only found in Matt), and much of it therefore also found in (the hypothetical) Q Gospel. Q scholars normally rely on Luke for greater accuracy, but in this instance we may have good reason not to. Luke is undeniably more oriented towards a gentile audience, and would find this not only incorrect, but embarrassingly Judaic.
Son of Man is also a popular reference within Q in general, and especially with regard to eschatological pronouncments, so the half-verse would fit right in. As a motivating phrase at the end of the sending out of disciples, this quote seems highly effective. Though it could, of course, not have been used by Jesus, but must have been done by the Q-community, so as to provoke the coming of The Son of Man, later identified with Jesus. (This interpretation is, if you hadn’t guessed it already, based on Doherty’s understanding of the Q-community)

But I’m a mere amateur. What do you others say to this theory?

Ben C Smith

Yes, but it engenders another. What is a perfection epistle?

Thanks.

Ben.

John Kesler

I spell my last name "Kesler." My tribe lost an "s" between Germany and America.

If you are right, then that's one small step for IIDB, one giant leap for biblical studies. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :blush:

Niall Armstrong

Sorry! :blush: But then I suppose I'm even touchier with people who mix me up with someone going beyond "the sublunar sphere"