ripley

I can't agree with the characterization. It's not my belief that we can never know what anyone meant, but I do think we need access to more than the writing itself. The way people write is quite often idiosyncratic, people are prone to render their thoughts in words that only accurately represent those thoughts in the context of that person's own mind. (Sorry about that sentence, I know it's unwieldy.)

I think history is about weighing probabilities. I'm not sure what technically counts as "obscurantism," but I think there are no hard and fast facts of history. I think the job of a historian is to be an educated guesser. That may well be my bias. But c'est la vie.

Once again, I think we need data that (a) is external to the Gospel, and (b) is not an extrapolation of cultural or genre data. In other words, we need a larger set of examples of Matthew's style, we need to know how Matthew uses rhetorical forms in a variety of settings (not just in the genre of Gospel), and we need to know if Matthew was typical of his social context before we apply a normative understanding to what he wrote.

Well, I think to make statements of certainty is to claim mindreading skills, implicitly. I can draw conclusions about what you mean, based on what I know of English, and based on the assumptions I make about you, your beliefs and your context. But I hold myself open to correction by you, about what you mean. You are, ultimately, the only arbiter of what you yourself mean. My understanding of your intent will always be subordinate to your own understanding of it, since it is yours, after all.

The reason I have these discussions is because I find historical speculation fascinating. I don't, however, feel the need to elevate any of it to the status of fact. Though, as I've alluded, I may have a philosophical bias here. Likely we're skirting the edge of a tedious debate over epistemology. Might be a good idea to just take the bias for granted, since I'm probably unfixable.

I think anything is worth holding onto as a possibility. At a future date it may fit well into a larger picture of mine. For the time being, it's just an idea. But if it can't be ruled out conclusively then there's a chance that supporting data might be forthcoming in the future, at which point I'd like to still have it at hand. It's just a case of compulsive hoarding, really.

I'm glad we've been able to talk so calmly about this.

hefdaddy42

I have read much of that, and I don't come to your conclusions.

aa5874

Are you suggesting that only your conclusions are valid?

When I come to a conclusion I do not ever even think about your conclusions.

I can support my position with written statements from antiquity, from Philo to Eusebius and beyond.

Evidence or written information of antiquity can make me alter my position. I am not obligated to maintain any position.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Loomis,

I tend to agree with aa5874 and others who tend not to see very much of a significant connection in the use of the term "Least" by Matthew, although the name may be associated with the name Paul or Paul's use of the term.

Common adjectives or nouns are often used as names or nicknames, but the occurrence of the word only rarely makes a reference to a specific name. Honey West is the name of a fictional detective character in ten novels written from 1957 to 1971 by Gloria and Forest Fickling under the pseudonym "G.G. Fickling". It was also the name of a short-lived television show starring Anne Francis. Jack Nicholson says the words, "Honey, I'm home," in Stanley Kubrick's film The Shining. There is no reason to believe there is a connection in the use of the word "Honey" here to the character Honey West. Although one could argue that Nicholson plays a murderous villain and Honey West fought against many murderous villains in her narratives.

Even the use of the same adjective/word as a name in two different works does not guarantee a connection. Another movie by Stanley Kubrick is Full Metal Jacket It is based on the novel The Short-Timers. The main protagonist in the movie and book is nicknamed Joker. The marine drill sergeant Gerheim gives Leonard Pratt the name Joker after Pratt does a mocking impression of John Wayne. John Wayne is an actor who played a hero in many movies. A character called the Joker also appears as the main villain in many comic books, television shows and movies featuring the hero Batman. The Joker often mocks Batman. Still, there is no reason to believe that there is a direct relationship between the use of the name Joker in Full Metal Jacket and the character in the Batman narratives.

In this case a use of a common term does not prove a relationship between the user of the common term and the name of the character who has a name based on the common term. If there were more examples of such usage, it might be considered significant. As it stands now, it seems far more likely to be coincidental and even probable considering how often a word like "least" gets used.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Petergdi

I think you could draw a reasonable analogy with the case of respectable Anglican clergy vs Methodists and Evangelicals in 18th century England - with the Pharisees corresponding to the respectable churchmen and Jesus and the NT Christians corresponding to Methodists and Evangelicals.

Some of John Wesley's invective against the respectable churchmen can compare with anything Jesus is recorded as saying about the Pharisees. Wesley said of the whole body of students studying theology:"I know how fast they are rivetted in the service of the devil and the world before they leave the university". William Blake's marginalia in pious works be respectable clergymen is also pretty interesting - it takes some specialised knowledge of the time to figure out what it is that he finds so objectionable. And while persecution of Jesus' followers by some of the Pharisees in NT may seem implausible to you, I think that in a world in which respectable Anglican clergymen could incite mob violence against Methodist preachers because the Methodists were religious fanatics - anything of the sort is possible.

Peter.

Doug Shaver

Why can't you agree with that? What makes it seem implausible in your judgment?

bacht

Syllogistically:

Pharisees were anti-establishment (Sadducees)
Christians were anti-Pharisee (gospels)
Therefore Christians were pro-establishment (Rome)

Of course the Pharisees evolved into Rabbinic Judaism, which Christians may have been reacting to in the 2nd C (ethnic nationalism vs imperial universalism)

kcdad

Christians were anti Sadducees... but by the time the Gospels were written, there were no Sadducees... so Pharisees were substituted. They became the heretical group that the Christ religion would rebel against. Paul was preaching to a new choir... a choir of Gentiles unfamiliar with the law that the Pharisees and Jesus loved. I think there is good argument to be made that Jesus was a Pharisee.

ripley

Well, intention is, roughly speaking, what one aims to do, what one aims to say. Intention is not synonymous with outcome, it's internal, and it must struggle for fulfillment. One can intend to express a particular sentiment, a particular idea or thought, but such intention is not always in lockstep with what is actually expressed.

If Matthew intended to express something, but did so poorly and in a way only comprehensible to himself, this does not, nor can it, detract from his intent. But his failure to execute that intent coherently, makes it essentially a one-way function, where his intent is translated into an outcome, but without leaving any ability for us to trace the outcome back to its source, his intent.

We have only the outcome of Matthew's intent, and I don't think there is a reliable formula that allows us to always glean that intent. This goes for any writer, anyone at all. Intent is internal, outcome is external. Without mind-reading skills, we can't ever know the former to a certainty. At least that's how I see it anyway. Feel free to rip me apart. I may have just written three paragraphs of babble.

Petergdi

That ain't a proper syllogism, has a conclusion which is transparently false, and besides it misses the entire point that the Gospels are actually very close to Phariseeism. It is a reasonably common observation that some of the strongest disagreements are between people who are mostly alike. Jesus calls the Pharisees "play-actors" because he thinks they ought to see the gospel as the obvious conclusion to the ideas that they already have.

Peter.