hefdaddy42

No, and I don't remember even hinting at such a possibility. Are you suggesting that only your conclusions are valid?

My only point was that your answer was insufficient for my question. But that's OK, I think I may have my answer now.

Fine, and I'm not sure why you would. Or why you would need to say something like that.

If you say so. I guess some examples would help, but whatever. If you don't want to be helpful, then that's fine, too.

I never said you were. I merely expressed curiosity in your viewpoint, and how you arrived there. But again, whatever.

Have a nice day.

bacht

The gospels are not the best source for understanding the Torah or the Pharisees. They're never named in the epistles except by Paul.

I thought that some Pharisees were sympathetic to the Zealots? (nb the revolt against king Janneus). In contrast the NT advises believers to submit to worldly authority, which by the 2nd C meant Rome and her client rulers.

Christians shared the belief in resurrection with Pharisees, but I'm not sure what else they had in common, other than moving in the same social circles (middle-class vs upper-class Sadducees). Pharisees were nationalists, while Christians were at the least Jewish-Hellenistic syncretists, or maybe completely non-Jewish in the Pharisees' eyes. Pharisees expected a traditional messiah to save ethnic Israel, while Christians claimed the advent of a spiritual messiah who saves everyone.

Another way to read the gospels is as a dialog between Christian groups, using "Jew" or "Pharisee" as code for Torah followers or legalists long after real Jews had left the church.

Doug Shaver

OK. We can never be certain.

And therefore, we never have any justified belief about a writer's intentions?

Are you trying to tell me that you don't have the foggiest notion what I'm intending to say to you in this post? You can't read my mind, can you?

kcdad

It is the difference between INFER and IMPLY. I can INFER almost anything, but I can not know what you are IMPLYING.

ripley

I like to think I've understood you, and that on the grand scale of fogginess your words have been transparent. For the sake of convenience I like to think your words are in lockstep with your intent, and that my interpretation of those words is also in lockstep. But I certainly don't feel this has been (or could be) substantiated.

There are, in any case, three reasons why this wouldn't be a fair comparison to Matthew.

• First of all, there has been some back and forth between you and I, which has given us the opportunity to probe our understanding of each other. Such is not possible with Matthew.
• Secondly, we share a similar context. I presume we're both native speakers of English, born and raised in a 1st-world country, intimately familiar with the great social issues of the day, etc., etc., the current vernacular, the current angst. The assumptions you and I make about each other's words have a good chance being correct. But assumptions they remain, governed by chance they remain.
• Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the words of Matthew are a field of inquiry. If I'm a little hazy with my language, if there's something you have difficulty parsing, you don't let it bother you too much. My words aren't the subject of our inquiry, they're only a bit of dressing on the actual data. No one is genuinely interesting in my words, so much as they are in the information I'm trying to convey. Matthew's words, on the other hand, are the precise subject we're trying to shine a light on.

With all that said, fluffy and indulgent as it is, you might see that I hold the bar rather high in some cases, and not in others, but for what I think are good reasons. Sure, it borders on obscurantism (whatever that is), and I suffer from that same desire as everyone else to know things to exactitude and certainty. But I'd rather make cautious statements I can back up, than make outright statements of fact that cannot be wholly defended.

It's, of course, just a personal philosophy... so, caveat lector.

Loomis

It looks to me like the author called Matthew was rewriting the Gospel of Mark (and there is no ‘Paul’ in Mark). Matthew may have been drawing from a second source called Q. It looks to me like the author called Matthew disagreed with the author called Paul on fundamental theological concepts.

It looks to me like the author called Matthew did not view the author called Paul as a potential character that he could insert into Mark’s gospel. It probably never crossed his mind. And even if he could then he still had no motive. Matthew probably thought of Paul as an adversary and an embarrassment.

Loomis

Admit it.

kcdad

The Saducees. They were in favor of assimilating in to the political and economic system of the Hellenized world.

Loomis

Sure it does.

Paul:
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Luke:
Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say.

The motif of ‘calling on the name of the Lord’ is absent in Mark. Paul’s teachings influenced Luke to add it.

couch_sloth

That seems like a bit of a stretch...
The one from Romans seems to be talking about being saved by faith: The one from Luke seems to be about following Jesus's commands:The passage from Luke is not about Calling upon the name of the Lord (i.e. Salvation via faith).
I noticed some transations of Luke use the word Master instead of Lord.