Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thedeist · 05-28-2007, 08:58 PM

Hmmm, the writer of the gospel of Matthew is know for editing Mark and adding in theological literary figures that no other gospel writer testifiest to

Reasons for not accepting the historicity of Matthew's guard:

1) Luke (the historian) doesn't attest to it in his gospels of Luke-Acts
2) the writer of Mark the earliest gospel in which Matthew derived most of his source material from ,doesn't testify to guards.
3) John, the most exaggerated of all the gospels doesn't even attest to the story of the guards
4) Paul doesn't attest to the story of the guards.
5) We don't even have external attestation from early church fathers attesting to the historicity of the guards

6) There is no 1st century neutral (from Roman sources) or hostile sources (Jewish sources) that lend attestation to the story of guards.
7) Even with in the biased source of the Gospels, the story of the guards does not fit the historical criteria of multiple attestation since Matthew is the only one to make such a claim.

8) Matthew edits Mark's gospel many times trying to polish over Markan embarrasments

a. What is even more interesting is that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or whoever edited it later on), which post-dated the Gospel of Mark by some 20-25 years, completely drops the "Shema" (Mark 12:29) and the "friendly" portion of the discussion between yeshu and the "scribe" (Mark 12:32-34) in his account - Matthew 22:34-40.

Mark 12:29-34 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. (33) And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. (34) And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

Matt. 22:36-39 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37And He said to him, " '(A)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38"This is the great and foremost commandment. {Leaves out the Lord our God is one!) (Leaves out the burnt offerings and sacrifices discussion with the scribe also)

b) Matthew changes Marks mistake (Mark 2:25-26) by dropping the name Abiathar (Matth 12:3-4)

Mark 2:25-26 25And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26how he entered the house of God in the time of (A)Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which (B)is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"

Matt. 12:3-4 3But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4how he entered the house of God, and (A)they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?

c) Matthew again corrects Mark because Jesus misquotes the Ten Commandments

Mark 10:17-19 17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

Matt. 19:6-19 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"

d) Matthew changes Marks' story from Jesus not doing any miracles in his hometown to Jesus not doing many miracles.

Mark 6:3-6 "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

Matt. 13:55-58 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

e) Matthew makes Mark’s story of Jesus’ brothers and Mary ridiculing Jesus seem non-problematic.

Mark 3:21 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
Mark 3:31 31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you

Matt. 12:46 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
Matthew repeats part of this story, telling about Jesus family arriving while he is teaching but fails entirely to describe their motivation for doing so, not wanting to repeat Marks’ explanation (Jesus presumed insanity) for seeking him out. Matthew could not allow his Mary such a thought about her son, surely she would have know about what the angel had told Joseph. Mark’s Mary clearly knows none of this, and is only worried about a son who is acting strangely. In other words, we don’t have Mary we have Mark’s Mary and Matthew’s Mary, two different fictional characters. One can say the same about Mark’s and Matthew’s Jesus.

f) Compare Mt 8:25 to Mk 4:38. Compare also Mt 14:30. What do you think is the meaning behind Matthew's editing of Mark in this verse?

Mark 4:38 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"

Matt. 8:25 25The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!"

g) Matt. adds post-resurrection appearances Mark's story (Mark 16:48 vs. Matt. 28:5-10)

9) Matthew adds in events such as two earthquakes (Matt. 28:2) and risen saints (Matt. 27:51-53) in his gospel that no historian or even an NT source attests to. Herod killing babies (Mat. 2:16)

10) Moreover, if Matthew edited Mark by adding guards then Matt. thought the original Gospel of Mark wasn’t convincing enough in the face of skepticism

11) Half of the NT scholars deny the guards are historical (Craig says so in Case for Christ)

Peace
Thus we have solid reasons for not lending creedence to Matthew's story of the guards.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-28-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am not aware of any good reasons to take the author's word for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I gave good reasons for it earlier on the thread. How did you miss them?

I did not start to read posts in this thread until recently. Which posts are you referring to?

Are you an inerrantist?

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I did not start to read posts in this thread until recently. Which posts are you referring to?

Number 46, primarily.

You provided a link to an essay, for which I thank you, but I have already read a lot of it. (I am fairly familiar with Lowder.) Part of this essay may serve to throw my arguments for the validity of the Jewish charge against the disciples in sharp relief:

However, the historicity of the Jewish polemic should not be assumed. For all we know, the Jewish polemic may be a literary device designed to answer obvious doubts that would occur to converts. Or, supposing that there is some sort of historical basis to the polemic....

This is exactly the sort of thing I am arguing is unlikely. Matthew throwing in the story of the guard already answers obvious doubts that might occur to the reader. Why now claim that contemporary Jews were charging the disciples with theft? That does nothing to allay suspicions; indeed, it would serve only to raise suspicion of theft among those who had not thought of it yet. The best conclusion here is that Matthew knew his readers had already heard this Jewish charge. If they had not, to bring it up at all would be imprudent.

Quote:

Are you an inerrantist?

I tend to think that there were no guards at the tomb, despite the Matthean claim. That ought to answer your question.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any way to date that particular passage in Matthew? If it was a charge that contemporary Jews made, what was that date?

I do not think we can date the charge itself, since Matthew is either our earliest or our only independent extant evidence of it. The charge would probably date to whenever Matthew was written. And that is quite a topic in its own right.

If the Jewish objectors made the charge on the basis of Mark (hence the Matthean modification of Mark at this point), then I think we could date the charge to between Mark and Matthew. If, on the other hand, they made the charge on the basis of independent tradition, then the charge could be older. I am not prepared at this point to commit to either one of these options over and against the other.

What do you think?

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge209.html

Elaine Pagels

This text sees Judas dying as a martyr—because here the other disciples hate him so much that they kill him! But the Gospel of Judas challenges the idea that God wants people to die as martyrs—just as it challenges the idea that God wanted Jesus to die. Whoever wrote this gospel—and the author is anonymous—is challenging church leaders who teach that. It's as if an imam were to challenge the radical imams who encourage "martyrdom operations" and accuse them of complicity in murder—the Gospel of Judas shows "the twelve disciples"—stand-ins for church leaders—offering human sacrifice on the altar—and doing this in the name of Jesus! Conservative Christians hate gospels like this—usually call them fakes and the people who publish them (like us) anti Christian. There was a great deal of censorship in the early Christian movement—especially after the emperor became a Christian, and made it the religion of the empire—and voices like those of this author were silenced and denounced as "heretics" and "liars." The story of Jesus was simplified and cleaned up—made "orthodox."

Okay... so now what does this have to do with the Jewish accusation in Matthew 28.15?

Amaleq13 · 05-28-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

So the question is why Matthew decides to step out of the story for a moment here. I submit the reason is obvious: Matthew knew something from outside the story, namely that somebody was making a claim about the disciples having stolen the body of Jesus.

I agree that the reason is obvious but I disagree that you have correctly identified it.

I agree that the author of Matthew knew about this claim but I think the real reason he steps outside of the story here is because he knows his readers know about the claim and his primary concern is addressing them.

Authors don't break their narrative for themselves. They do so for the people they expect will be reading their story.

Toto · 05-28-2007, 11:57 PM

I do not assume that canonical Matthew was first written in its current form. I wonder about the possibility of this story being inserted later - so that if it did reflect current Jewish stories, it might reflect the state of the argument in the mid-2nd century.

What do you make of the phrase "to this very day" in Matt 28:15? It indicates that the narrative is being written well after the claimed events. But it could be 50 years or 150 years.

Solo · 05-29-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What do you make of the phrase "to this very day" in Matt 28:15? It indicates that the narrative is being written well after the claimed events. But it could be 50 years or 150 years.

I think this is strongly supported by the Johanine dismissive reference to the "Jews" in the verse.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 05-29-2007, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I do not assume that canonical Matthew was first written in its current form. I wonder about the possibility of this story being inserted later - so that if it did reflect current Jewish stories, it might reflect the state of the argument in the mid-2nd century.

What do you make of the phrase "to this very day" in Matt 28:15? It indicates that the narrative is being written well after the claimed events. But it could be 50 years or 150 years.

I agree that it indicates a passage of time. But, as you say, how much time is an open question.

It would possibly be fruitful to run through as many ancient examples of this kind of expression (until now, to this day) as possible in order to find the minimum verifiable amounts of time it is applied to. But... I am not volunteering for the job.

As for the phrase being a later insertion, that is of course always possible. It is the kind of thing I would view with suspicion, however, if the phrase being an insertion is helpful or even necessary to the thesis being promoted.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-29-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I agree that the reason is obvious but I disagree that you have correctly identified it.

I agree that the author of Matthew knew about this claim but I think the real reason he steps outside of the story here is because he knows his readers know about the claim and his primary concern is addressing them.

You are correct. I do think I already said something like that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Why now claim that contemporary Jews were charging the disciples with theft? That does nothing to allay suspicions; indeed, it would serve only to raise suspicion of theft among those who had not thought of it yet. The best conclusion here is that Matthew knew his readers had already heard this Jewish charge.

And I sort of implied it in another post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

But if Luke was writing for a readership that had not yet heard this Jewish accusation (remember that I doubt Matthew was necessarily speaking for the entire Roman world) there would have been no reason to bring it up.

But I realize I have not always made that reason (and distinction) as clear as it could be, as for example in that snippet you quoted from me.

Quote:

Authors don't break their narrative for themselves. They do so for the people they expect will be reading their story.

I completely agree, and thanks for bringing to my attention that I have not always made that clear enough.

Ben.

05-28-2007, 08:58 PM	#71
thedeist Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 22	The Guards are fictitious Hmmm, the writer of the gospel of Matthew is know for editing Mark and adding in theological literary figures that no other gospel writer testifiest to Reasons for not accepting the historicity of Matthew's guard: 1) Luke (the historian) doesn't attest to it in his gospels of Luke-Acts 2) the writer of Mark the earliest gospel in which Matthew derived most of his source material from ,doesn't testify to guards. 3) John, the most exaggerated of all the gospels doesn't even attest to the story of the guards 4) Paul doesn't attest to the story of the guards. 5) We don't even have external attestation from early church fathers attesting to the historicity of the guards 6) There is no 1st century neutral (from Roman sources) or hostile sources (Jewish sources) that lend attestation to the story of guards. 7) Even with in the biased source of the Gospels, the story of the guards does not fit the historical criteria of multiple attestation since Matthew is the only one to make such a claim. 8) Matthew edits Mark's gospel many times trying to polish over Markan embarrasments a. What is even more interesting is that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or whoever edited it later on), which post-dated the Gospel of Mark by some 20-25 years, completely drops the "Shema" (Mark 12:29) and the "friendly" portion of the discussion between yeshu and the "scribe" (Mark 12:32-34) in his account - Matthew 22:34-40. Mark 12:29-34 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. (33) And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. (34) And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Matt. 22:36-39 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And He said to him, " '(A)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38"This is the great and foremost commandment. {Leaves out the Lord our God is one!) (Leaves out the burnt offerings and sacrifices discussion with the scribe also) b) Matthew changes Marks mistake (Mark 2:25-26) by dropping the name Abiathar (Matth 12:3-4) Mark 2:25-26 25And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26how he entered the house of God in the time of (A)Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which (B)is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?" Matt. 12:3-4 3But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4how he entered the house of God, and (A)they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? c) Matthew again corrects Mark because Jesus misquotes the Ten Commandments Mark 10:17-19 17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]" Matt. 19:6-19 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]" d) Matthew changes Marks' story from Jesus not doing any miracles in his hometown to Jesus not doing many miracles. Mark 6:3-6 "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith. Matt. 13:55-58 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. e) Matthew makes Mark’s story of Jesus’ brothers and Mary ridiculing Jesus seem non-problematic. Mark 3:21 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." Mark 3:31 31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you Matt. 12:46 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew repeats part of this story, telling about Jesus family arriving while he is teaching but fails entirely to describe their motivation for doing so, not wanting to repeat Marks’ explanation (Jesus presumed insanity) for seeking him out. Matthew could not allow his Mary such a thought about her son, surely she would have know about what the angel had told Joseph. Mark’s Mary clearly knows none of this, and is only worried about a son who is acting strangely. In other words, we don’t have Mary we have Mark’s Mary and Matthew’s Mary, two different fictional characters. One can say the same about Mark’s and Matthew’s Jesus. f) Compare Mt 8:25 to Mk 4:38. Compare also Mt 14:30. What do you think is the meaning behind Matthew's editing of Mark in this verse? Mark 4:38 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?" Matt. 8:25 25The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!" g) Matt. adds post-resurrection appearances Mark's story (Mark 16:48 vs. Matt. 28:5-10) 9) Matthew adds in events such as two earthquakes (Matt. 28:2) and risen saints (Matt. 27:51-53) in his gospel that no historian or even an NT source attests to. Herod killing babies (Mat. 2:16) 10) Moreover, if Matthew edited Mark by adding guards then Matt. thought the original Gospel of Mark wasn’t convincing enough in the face of skepticism 11) Half of the NT scholars deny the guards are historical (Craig says so in Case for Christ) Peace Thus we have solid reasons for not lending creedence to Matthew's story of the guards.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2007, 11:57 PM	#77
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I do not assume that canonical Matthew was first written in its current form. I wonder about the possibility of this story being inserted later - so that if it did reflect current Jewish stories, it might reflect the state of the argument in the mid-2nd century. What do you make of the phrase "to this very day" in Matt 28:15? It indicates that the narrative is being written well after the claimed events. But it could be 50 years or 150 years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.