Cesc

dog-on, I completely agree with you. Obviously the most logic assumption must be that the author of Mark applied to the JC character properties of the annointed king from Zech. To me thats a no-brainer.


Isnt it widely accepted (whatever that means) that the author of Matthew took the account of Mark of JC and "jewed him up" aswell as applied tons of messianic properties from OT? He starts with the geneology which establishes JC as the seed of David. And so on. Obviously the author of Matthew and the authors of the other Gospels were hardcore Scripture nerds (as scribes tended to be).

I just learned the term 'inner-biblical allusion/discourse' from XKV8R's post (#8) and as far as I understand about NT, most of the elements in the story of JC is built upon and around the specific ideas from OT and other holy scripture, or "inner-biblical allusions". In particular the messianic properties of JC.

Either that, or:
1. They are true accounts of a HJ who actually did fulfill these things by his actions, words and thoughts written about in the NT.
2. They are merely massive coincidences.

And I personally dont regard any of those 2 options as logical or in tune with reality.

Georgia Girl

First of all Matthew wouldn't need to take the account from Mark, because Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples. The book of Matthew is a primary account.
Second: Each of the first four books of the NT were written with different audiences and different purposes in mind. Matthew was jewish and his book, Matthew, was written with the jewish people in mind. Geneology was very important to the Jews also the bible said the Jesus was descended from King David.
Thirdly: Of course there would be "inner-biblical allusions" because they were refering to their history. The whole OT is jewish history. They also didn't have really have a bible, as we know it today, to refer to. There was no NT, OT, or even the bible yet. There were however the books that make up the OT, although they had not been canonized yet.

Toto

Stop right there. Does the gospel according to Matthew indicate that it was written by someone who knew Jesus?

And if it was, why are there so many blocks of text in common between gMark and gMatthew?

Amaleq13

There is clearly a direct, literary connection between the Synoptics (ie somebody copied from somebody) and your observation is precisely the reason why most scholars, including Christian scholars, conclude that a disciple probably did not write the story attributed to Matthew.

This is a tired apologetic that simply begs the question and does nothing to actually explain the differences or agreements.

Did the Jews accept Davidic descent by adoption? I ask because the genealogy in Matthew only establishes that Joseph was descended from King David.

makerowner

Through two different fathers, no less!

Minimalist

From Isaiah "52" (The chapter and verse #'s were added much later in the 13th century or so). Sure looks like ole Isaiah blew that verse all to hell.

In any case 52 runs into 53 and should be read intact. The Jews, btw, seem to think that it refers to the nation of Israel and, after all, it is their book.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html