Was Matthew really Jewish?

[whollygoats]

And...Can someone explain to me why it was necessary to bring the Romans in on killing a blasphemer?

I mean, it seems that they are killing adulterers on the streets willy-nilly with stonings. What's the special deal with blasphemers going to the Romans, who couldn't give a pig's patoot if the poor clown dissed YHWH.

And...Can someone tell me who the narrating witness is for the storyline from just before the arrest. In the Garden of Gethsemane, where we are told all the apostles fell asleep. And Jesus, begged for the cup to be taken from him. Who was the witness keeping track of all this? Then, before the Sandhedrin. Before Herod. Before Pontius Pilate. All the highest authorities present in Jerusalem at the time. We are told that the apostles fled. Yet, we still have the intrepid anonymous witness. A witness of amazing ability and social reach, don't you think?

It was almost the festivity, and it was not allowed to kill a blasphemer at that moment. Religious stuff that you might don't understand.

They should have waited a few days.

As you should have.

Yeah, I might don't understand. Particularly when you put it in your own inimitable style.

 

[whollygoats]

I imagine a lot of folks here have read Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

I suspect that humbleman has not run across it yet, so I'm interesting in his taking it on. Anybody else, for that matter.

Bah! you don't understand the scriptures.

Jesus resurrected and closed the door after going away. You know, someone can come and steal the aromatic herbs and other goods.

When the women came later on to the tomb, an angel opened the door again so they can check no one is home.

Follow the instructions, humbleman.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And...Can someone explain to me why it was necessary to bring the Romans in on killing a blasphemer?

I mean, it seems that they are killing adulterers on the streets willy-nilly with stonings. What's the special deal with blasphemers going to the Romans, who couldn't give a pig's patoot if the poor clown dissed YHWH.

And...Can someone tell me who the narrating witness is for the storyline from just before the arrest. In the Garden of Gethsemane, where we are told all the apostles fell asleep. And Jesus, begged for the cup to be taken from him. Who was the witness keeping track of all this? Then, before the Sandhedrin. Before Herod. Before Pontius Pilate. All the highest authorities present in Jerusalem at the time. We are told that the apostles fled. Yet, we still have the intrepid anonymous witness. A witness of amazing ability and social reach, don't you think?

You are asking a question about standard fictional writing and your question concerns point of view. The gospels use omniscient point of view because the narrator can tell us what motivates the characters' behavior, literally what they are thinking.

 

[whollygoats]

And...Can someone explain to me why it was necessary to bring the Romans in on killing a blasphemer?

I mean, it seems that they are killing adulterers on the streets willy-nilly with stonings. What's the special deal with blasphemers going to the Romans, who couldn't give a pig's patoot if the poor clown dissed YHWH.

And...Can someone tell me who the narrating witness is for the storyline from just before the arrest. In the Garden of Gethsemane, where we are told all the apostles fell asleep. And Jesus, begged for the cup to be taken from him. Who was the witness keeping track of all this? Then, before the Sandhedrin. Before Herod. Before Pontius Pilate. All the highest authorities present in Jerusalem at the time. We are told that the apostles fled. Yet, we still have the intrepid anonymous witness. A witness of amazing ability and social reach, don't you think?

You are asking a question about standard fictional writing and your question concerns point of view. The gospels use omniscient point of view because the narrator can tell us what motivates the characters' behavior, literally what they are thinking.

This kind of writing is not common in historical chronologies...even biographies...is it?

This is more something I'd find in comic books, isn't it?

 

[Iznomneak]

And...Can someone explain to me why it was necessary to bring the Romans in on killing a blasphemer?

I mean, it seems that they are killing adulterers on the streets willy-nilly with stonings. What's the special deal with blasphemers going to the Romans, who couldn't give a pig's patoot if the poor clown dissed YHWH.

And...Can someone tell me who the narrating witness is for the storyline from just before the arrest. In the Garden of Gethsemane, where we are told all the apostles fell asleep. And Jesus, begged for the cup to be taken from him. Who was the witness keeping track of all this? Then, before the Sandhedrin. Before Herod. Before Pontius Pilate. All the highest authorities present in Jerusalem at the time. We are told that the apostles fled. Yet, we still have the intrepid anonymous witness. A witness of amazing ability and social reach, don't you think?

You are asking a question about standard fictional writing and your question concerns point of view. The gospels use omniscient point of view because the narrator can tell us what motivates the characters' behavior, literally what they are thinking.

All you need to do is throw a miracle at it. That'll fix it. Miracles can be used to fix or explain just about anything.

 

[whollygoats]

And...Can someone explain to me why it was necessary to bring the Romans in on killing a blasphemer?

I mean, it seems that they are killing adulterers on the streets willy-nilly with stonings. What's the special deal with blasphemers going to the Romans, who couldn't give a pig's patoot if the poor clown dissed YHWH.

And...Can someone tell me who the narrating witness is for the storyline from just before the arrest. In the Garden of Gethsemane, where we are told all the apostles fell asleep. And Jesus, begged for the cup to be taken from him. Who was the witness keeping track of all this? Then, before the Sandhedrin. Before Herod. Before Pontius Pilate. All the highest authorities present in Jerusalem at the time. We are told that the apostles fled. Yet, we still have the intrepid anonymous witness. A witness of amazing ability and social reach, don't you think?

You are asking a question about standard fictional writing and your question concerns point of view. The gospels use omniscient point of view because the narrator can tell us what motivates the characters' behavior, literally what they are thinking.

All you need to do is throw a miracle at it. That'll fix it. Miracles can be used to fix or explain just about anything.

Fishslap! Mackerel snap! Shake it all about!

 

[whollygoats]

This place has no :fishslap: emoticon?

My dawg....What have I done?

 

[humbleman]

This place has no :fishslap: emoticon?

My dawg....What have I done?

You just have proved Mathew was a Jew, that's all.

No big deal... no news around... same old same old...

 

[whollygoats]

LOL. And what is it you are smoking?

 

[Learner]

I imagine a lot of folks here have read Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

I suspect that humbleman has not run across it yet, so I'm interesting in his taking it on. Anybody else, for that matter.


Follow the instructions, humbleman.

Haven't yet thoroughly read this, but the gist I gather so far of the challenge, quickly browsing over is; what humbleman has indicted previously: These look more like four individual's recollections of the same event i.e. four individual perspectives.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

This is hardly the BIG STOPPER by the mere minor issue - non synced / precised timing - given that in light of scholars who insist these texts were written many decades later were still remarkably close as recalled events from four various individual texts. And not being identical which would otherwise be suspect.

 

[whollygoats]

I imagine a lot of folks here have read Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

I suspect that humbleman has not run across it yet, so I'm interesting in his taking it on. Anybody else, for that matter.


Follow the instructions, humbleman.

Haven't yet thoroughly read this, but the gist I gather so far of the challenge, quickly browsing over is; what humbleman has indicted previously: These look more like four individual's recollections of the same event i.e. four individual perspectives.

Well, duh. They all draw upon GMark, sometimes verbatim. It's no surprise they sorta look the same. Then, they each rearrange it and add their own pieces. And guess what? Most of the stuff that they fill in to add detail to GMark's sparse story line comes from the same source! (aka Q)

Of course, when the time came to gather all the stories together, they were forced to pick and choose between the ones they were to keep and dispense with the rest. My supposition is that they went with cobbled versions of the four most popular versions (like GMark, the core and muse for the other gospels, got a tacked on ending) with the most practicing 'christians' at the time of official adoption. That's four out of dawg knows how many different versions of the stuff. It could be that the ones kept were the most similar....well, John stretched that. So many that "just weren't credible".

Remember, the second through the fourth centuries were the heyday of rampant heresy. Hells bells, even the faithful fell subject to heretical temptations. Like, Origen himself.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

This is hardly the BIG STOPPER by the mere minor issue - non synced / precised timing - given that in light of scholars who insist these texts were written many decades later were still remarkably close as recalled events from four various individual texts. And not being identical which would otherwise be suspect.

You pick out one of a myriad of details and suggest that it was a minor issue. Of course it was. It's not one issue that is a stopper, it is the entire construct of multiple misrepresentations and contradictions that run throughout. The similitude to that of fictional construct....hero biography, a common form of literary entertainment throughout the Grecophonic world, thanks to the Homeric traditions...well, it is striking. Built upon a structure lifted from the Elijah-Elisha narratives in Kings and Chronicles of the Hebrew Bible (in Greek, of course, the Septuagint)....that's Q. You have, in consequence, a Hellenistic rendering of an Israelite hero biography heuristic. You might as well dub the comic book series, **Messiah** and put a cape on him. "Here he comes to save your soul!" Ready made for Saturday morning cartoons.

 

[Learner]

Well, duh. They all draw upon GMark, sometimes verbatim. It's no surprise they sorta look the same. Then, they each rearrange it and add their own pieces. And guess what? Most of the stuff that they fill in to add detail to GMark's sparse story line comes from the same source! (aka Q)

It should also be "no surprise" and quite a normal thing in everyday life, for example: several people recalling an event or witnesses seeing a crime appearing at a court whereby each witness giving their statement .. would also be expected to "look the same" - but not identical - with non affecting discrepancies from individual perspective standpoints just as I can see it with the four gospels.

Of course, when the time came to gather all the stories together, they were forced to pick and choose between the ones they were to keep and dispense with the rest. My supposition is that they went with cobbled versions of the four most popular versions (like GMark, the core and muse for the other gospels, got a tacked on ending) with the most practicing 'christians' at the time of official adoption. That's four out of dawg knows how many different versions of the stuff. It could be that the ones kept were the most similar....well, John stretched that. So many that "just weren't credible".

Remember, the second through the fourth centuries were the heyday of rampant heresy. Hells bells, even the faithful fell subject to heretical temptations. Like, Origen himself.

Well its a point of view of many including mine still currently debateable. Christianity was already spreading during the times of Jesus and during the first century. That then, would be before the heresy you mentioned and long before the combining of the four gospels.. and in most part... are dated from the first century! The heretics were a little late.

You pick out one of a myriad of details and suggest that it was a minor issue. Of course it was. It's not one issue that is a stopper, it is the entire construct of multiple misrepresentations and contradictions that run throughout. The similitude to that of fictional construct....hero biography, a common form of literary entertainment throughout the Grecophonic world, thanks to the Homeric traditions...well, it is striking. Built upon a structure lifted from the Elijah-Elisha narratives in Kings and Chronicles of the Hebrew Bible (in Greek, of course, the Septuagint)....that's Q. You have, in consequence, a Hellenistic rendering of an Israelite hero biography heuristic. You might as well dub the comic book series, **Messiah** and put a cape on him. "Here he comes to save your soul!" Ready made for Saturday morning cartoons.

The "woman visiting the tomb" was the top of the list in the link you provided, but yes you're right .... I didn't get to the others further down (which is a lot to post, at least for me).

Hellenistc but still "Jewish" - translation in Greek of the biblical texts doesn't seem to be really problematic imo although its debatable.

Heroes appear all the time throughout human history and is just as valid as Kings and other past characters.

All we are saying is : to Christians, Jesus is the mightiest of heroes!

 

[bilby]

Heroes appear all the time throughout human history and is just as valid as Kings and other past characters.

All we are saying is : to Christians, Jesus is the mightiest of heroes!

The power of a hero is typically inversely proportional to the truth of his legendary exploits; So the more powerful a hero is said to be, the less likely it is that he is real.

Jesus is said to have done physically impossible things; That makes him a lot less likely than the guys who won VCs at Rourke's Drift; a little less likely than Batman; and on a similar level of plausibility with Superman.

But if Christians think Jesus is the mightiest of heroes, then they are failing to account for the fact that there is absolutely no record in the Bible of Kryptonite - so Superman would kick his arse in a fight.

 

[whollygoats]

Well its a point of view of many including mine still currently debateable. Christianity was already spreading during the times of Jesus and during the first century. That then, would be before the heresy you mentioned and long before the combining of the four gospels.. and in most part... are dated from the first century! The heretics were a little late.

Well, Jesus, if he even existed, wasn't a Christian, now was he?

But every evidence we have is that heresy was right out there before the rounding the first turn. I've already pointed out that the author of the Pauline epistles notes it himself in 2 Cor 11:4. Preaching other Jesuses was popular enough to be a problem for the likes of Paul, reputedly in the mid-50s. I cannot help but wonder how many different Jesuses there were, competing for new followers in the far reaches of the Greek peninsula.

Then it was the actions of a raving heretic at the front end of the second century who set things in play by creating the first 'authorized version' of the story in his Evangelion and Apostolikon...Marcion. He set the proto-orthodox world on its ear by attempting to push his christology through influence-peddling. When rebuffed by the proto-orthodox, he set up his own christian church, gathered his own scriptures....the epistles of one Paul and a gospel said to be an ur-Luke. The problem from the proto-orthodox view was that Marcion's theology was tres heretical. He was basically docetic, but even more unusual, he was something of a gnostic in outlook and believed that the spiritual Jesus sent as a savior, came at the behest of the good god which was NOT the YHWH of the Hebrews, which he considered an evil demi-urge intent upon enslaving the divine spark in....you fill in the details, it ain't kosher. The other christians, the ones we now call proto-orthodox, had to shuffle fast, collect their best, redact and edit like mad men and come up with an authoritative source in short order to meet the competition of Marcion. Hence, the slipshod collection. Who knows how many really low-grade 'gospels' didn't make the cut. By that time, they not only had the Marcionites to deal with, they had the Adoptionists. And the Gnostics. And Ebionites, And the Docetics. Quibbles over the phrasing and interpretations of the documents being collected, collated, and canonized would muddy the waters even further.

And, of course, there are modern scholars who openly call Paul of Tarsus "the First Christian Heretic", and with good reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

I tend not to think of the writer of Matthew as being Jewish. He coulda been, but.....

27:25 is arguably one of the most anti-semitic verses in the whole NT:

22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.[d] You see to it.”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

It is one thing to be sectarian, to be critical of other members and opposing factions within Judaism, but it's another thing to damn all Jews generally.

 

[ruby sparks]

And, of course, there are modern scholars who openly call Paul of Tarsus "the First Christian Heretic", and with good reason.

It certainly is not hard to see 'Paul' as opposed to the prior Jerusalem group mentioned in the text, and James in particular, who in the epistles seems to be their main man. It isn't even all that hard to see them as out-and-out rivals in fact.

I read recently (in Eisenman's 'James the Brother of Jesus') that 'Paul' did not have a Letter of Introduction (from James) as was apparently the common way for a travelling preacher/apostle to show his credentials to a new audience, and that 'Paul' argued that he didn't need one, but I can't find the passage(s) at the moment. If there is such a passage or passages, it would be indicative of 'Paul' not being a 'proper apostle' at all.

 

[whollygoats]

Saul of Tarsus = Simon Magus?

Simon Magus = Marcion of Sinope?

 

[ruby sparks]

I would have to think about those.

I have in the back of my mind that Paul might be Saul the Herodian, from Josephus. They're both contemporaneous Sauls.....

How did we get onto Paul in a thread on Mathew?

 

[whollygoats]

I would have to think about those.

I have in the back of my mind that Paul might be Saul the Herodian, from Josephus. They're both contemporaneous Sauls.....

How did we get onto Paul in a thread on Mathew?

Thread wandering. At least we have yet to launch in to 'outer space'.

And I have in the back of my mind that Jesus might be Jesus bin Ananus, from Josephus. Or, at least the passion scene was lifted from Joe on JbinA.

 

[whollygoats]

Re: Matthew being most Jewish....It seems that the author(s) of GMatthew, let's call them Matt, relied upon Septuagint translations for their 'it is written' citations, not the Masoretic text. So, Matt relied upon the Grecophonic source document instead of a Hebraic one. I just think that Matt may have been more familiar with Hebraic traditions than was AMark (not a big surprise, because AMark was a bit estranged from those traditions) and felt the need to correct and upgrade what Mark had written. That does not mean that Matt was a Hebrew...they may well have been Samaritan, or married to a Jewess, or a Jewish father, or a Jewish brother-in-law. They certainly didn't trust the priests of the Temple and selected foreign holy men to confirm the divinity of their savior in their version. And then the zombie scene at the demise of Jesus is just ludicrous. A real kidder, that Matt.