ripley

Whether wordplay is there or not, is a question that only Matthew can answer. You know this. If you'd like to make an assessment of the quality of the wordplay, that's certainly your right. But definitive proof of its absence is simply not something you can give.

We're not talking about homonyms. We're talking about synonyms.

It's possible for it to make perfect sense in its context, and be about Paul at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.

Doug Shaver

He probably knew of their existence. Whether he'd read any of them, or even had a good idea (from secondary sources) of what was in them, is another matter entirely.

Amaleq13

You will find this is a consistent complaint throughout his posting history.

If past history is any prediction of future posting, it will either be rendered so through logically flawed and simplistic arguments or it will be ignored.

Get used to it or discover the "ignore" function.

hefdaddy42

I, for one, would be very interested in how you came to those conclusions.

Rather than have you regurgitate info you have probably posted long before I joined here, can you point me in the right direction to read your thoughts on this?

ripley

I have more restraint than you give me credit for. I'm able to recognize a fruitless discussion when I see one. But it's not possible to see it in advance, regardless of what you're implying. I've had my epic 3-post dual-to-the-death, and now I'm going to bed. Happy?

aa5874

I think you will have to read the writings of antiquity yourself, from perhaps Philo to Eusebius and beyond.

Amaleq13

I think you have misunderstood my intent. It was to serve as a heads-up to someone unfamiliar from someone quite familiar. Sufficient past experience does allow one to make accurate predictions. I was just trying to provide what you lacked so you might avoid suffering through the learning experience.

Petergdi

It depends on how high your standards of proof are. If you know (by a fair degree of certainty) what the text is about then you are (by that same degree of certainty) able to say what the text is not about. I don't need the denials of Peter, Paul and Mary to know that the Newsweek interpretation of "Puff the Magic Dragon" as a song about pot is wrong. All I need to know is that it is clearly a song about childhood innocence and how fleeting it seems to be. Their denials really add nothing - they would deny it, wouldn't they. I know the Newsweek interpretation is nonsense simply because I do understand what the song is really about.

Similarly the text in Matthew has a clear meaning in context. Jesus denies that what he is doing amounts to an abolition of the law, and he insists on the contrary that what he is really doing is being very very strict. He then goes on to provide illustrations and examples of how he is being very very strict.


How is it any kind of pun if he could have, but doesn't, use a word which could be a pun?


Double meanings are possible, but how is a pun not made any evidence that one should read an out-of-context interpretation into the text when there is an obvious in-context meaning? Matthew can't really be expecting his readers to be thinking along the lines of the Tübingen school.

The misinterpretation really requires that you make the same mistakes about both Paul and the Pharisees that were common in 19th century "liberal" theology but which we all ought to know enough to avoid by now. Jesus does not mean by "every jot and tittle" that he is a stickler for the sort of extreme legalism that F. C. Baur mistakenly attributed to the Pharisees and Jews in general. No, what Jesus means is that he is very very strict - stricter than the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law - and then goes on to explain exactly how he is being strict.

Peter.

ripley

Well, my standards of proof differ depending on how strongly an assertion is made. If it's not subjunctive, if there's no suggestion that the assertion could be wrong, then naturally I expect a fuller degree of proof than if the assertion were more cautious.

You see, I think this is where we differ. It assumes a few things which I can't agree with:

1. that a writer's intention is something that can be gleaned by examination of what they wrote.
2. that even if (1) were true, that the meaning could be gleaned some 2000 years later.
3. that even if both (1) and (2) are granted, that we are not severly hindered by not knowing who the writer was and whom they were writing to.

I really, *really* don't think the mind of a writer is open to historical inquiry. No matter what the weight of the probabilities, we're ultimately just guessing.

Well I think it can be a mental cue, depending on how you look at it. "Paul" means "least," and "least" means "least." I'll be first the to admit the evidence is fairly weak. But weakness of evidence is merely suggestive. It isn't proof.

And in the end I was only speculating, which is no great crime.

Petergdi

I'm apodictic because I think it is demonstrable to a reasonable standard. I'm willing to argue my point and I would be willing to take on Jefftey Gibson on this if he happened to disagree with me. (I don't think he would, but am by no means certain of his views on this.)

Taking your list at face value would make:
(1) mean that you could never know what anyone meant by anything, and
(2) mean no one can know what any 2000 year old document means,
(3) mean that we need to know who someone is and their audience to detect meaning in their words.

I don't think you could possibly really mean (1) so I think it was just stated for effect. You might believe (2) which amounts to obscurantism, but doing anything interesting in BC&H requires us to do exactly that. Proposition (3) is interesting and contains at least some truth, but I do not think we are entirely in the dark about who Matthew the Evangelist was and what sort of people were his audience.

We can reasonably know that Matthew is someone who is purporting to give us a speech by Jesus after the manner of ancient writers, and that his audience consists of people who have some interest in being or becoming disciples of Jesus. This knowledge is enough for us to look later in the speech/discourse/sermon for the explanation of what Matthew thinks Jesus means by "every jot and tittle" and "the least of these commandments."

I'm not claiming mindreading, but I certainly think it is possible to tell what a writer means by reading his words with care. I think that you must too at some level or having this discussion would be entirely pointless for you.

You were presenting it as something worthy of being taken seriously. I don't think it is worthy of being taken seriously, and I think I have explained why. If it is unclear to you, I'd be willing to try again.

Peter.