Tuesday, March 30, 2010

NT Pod 31: The Passion of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel

NT Pod 31 is the second of four back-to-back episodes on the Gospel Passion Narratives, this one on Matthew's Gospel.

It is thirteen minutes long. Please feel free to leave your comments below.



NT Pod 31: The Passion of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel (mp3)

NT Pod 31: The Passion of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel (mp3) (Alternative location)

Key texts: Matthew 26, Matthew 27, Matthew 28

Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.

10 comments:

  1. Another good one! Thank you. I had completely forgotten about the baptismal reference to the Trinity in Matthew. (Important.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The resurrection of the "sleeping Saints" from their graves in Mt 27:52–53 seems strange indeed, but also for another reason: This happens within the crucifixion account, immediately after Christ's death, but Matthew clearly writes that the Saints rose and appeared unto many after Christ's Resurrection. But the Resurrection wasn't until the third day. So there are two possibilities: (a) either Christ's resurrection happened there and then during the Crucifixion, or (b) Matthew antedated an incident after the (received) Resurrection on the third day and fitted it into the crucifixion account—for whatever reasons. (Maybe he thought it more logical for the earthquake to open the graves.) At the moment I think that option (b) is more likely because there is a logical flow in the text if you remove Mt 27:52 and 27:53, because the earthquake (in 27:51) is then immediately followed by the centurion and the others witnessing the earthquake (27:54).

    However, it still doesn't tell us what lies behind the waking/resurrecting Saints. Maybe it's meant symbolically, but it could refer to real persons, which are not (directly) mentioned in the Gospel, followers of Jesus that were persecuted or even killed and were finally redeemed upon Christ's resurrection—the ultimate proof that he was divine, and that their fellowship had been one of God, not some fake revolution. Cf. also the confession of the centurion ("Son of God"), which could have been the attractor for Matthew to antedate the incident. The fact that they are called "saints" and that they appeared unto many could also indicate that they was some form of public approval, finally the recognition that they had been on the right path by following Jesus. So maybe these (symbolically?) resurrecting Saints are actually the first unknown martyrs. (?? Just my 2¢.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I couldn't let go of the resurrection of the saints, so I looked into a few historical sources, and I actually found a very intriguing parallel, which can only mean a direct textual dependency, not a symbolic/fictional account: When Julius Caesar died on the 15 March, the sun went dark at the 6th hour, the land was veiled in darkness, an earthquake occured, stones were rent, a temple "veil" was torn in two, and (lo and behold!) the dead started to walk through the holy city (of Rome). From my own previous research I did expect something like this, but I did not expect to find accordances for each and every phenomenon—especially not with regard to the walking dead. (That was only wishful thinking until a few hours ago.) You can read the article here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Trinitarian formula in Matthew may be a later interpolation. The scholar F. C. Conybear conjectured, based on readings in Eusebius, that Matthew originally wrote:

    Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to ME. Therefore, go therefore and make disciples in all nations in MY name, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all the days until the end of the age."


    The logic of the passage supports this shorter reading. Since all authority is given to Jesus - no other name than his is needed. It is also interesting the all the examples in the book of Acts are of baptism in Jesus's name alone. It is also worthy of note that this conjectured shorter reading may have originally been from a song or poem, as it has a 4 line chiastic structure common to Hebrew poetry.


    There is some evidence from early writers to support this being an interpolation. For one, Eusebius gives the shorter reading (without any trinitarian formula) seventeen times in his earlier writings. But Eusebius goes on to use the longer reading (with the trinitarian formula) in his later writings. At some point he was either convinced or pressured to change how he quoted it.

    Other early textual for either reading is lacking. The passage simply isn't quoted in either form in any other extant texts from before Eusebius.

    Regarding manuscript evidence for the gospel itself: We have no manuscripts of Matthews gospel with anything other than the trinitarian reading. But those manuscripts all date after the council of Nicea. We do have several earlier copies of Matthew, including the Sinaitic Syriac and an old Latin Manuscript, but they *all* just happen to be missing their final pages, so we don't know if they contained the shorter or longer reading of this passage. (Some more cynical scholars have suggested that the last pages of these manuscripts were intentionally destroyed to hide the fact that they lacked the trinitarian formula. But that's not something we can actually prove.)

    But I think there is good case based on internal evidence alone, that Conybear was right and that the trinitarian reading must have been added to Matthew's gospel later, probably around Eusebius' time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On another point, I find that while Matthew added so much new content to what was found in Mark's gospel - material that has a lot of merit by its own right, being both inspirational and good storytelling - at the same time, Matthew destroys much of the deeper meaning Mark's gospel originally had. Matthew adds content that just isn't consistent with what appears to have been Mark's intent, and by adding content that doesn't belong, breaks some of Mark's literary devices. Basically, I don't think Matthew appreciated what Mark was trying to accomplish.

    For one, Mark cited or alluded to Old Testament scripture in a very controlled and specific manner. One aspect of this is that most of the OT passages Mark uses to build his story deal with God's judgement on the unfaithful. For example, the phrase "fishers of men" in Mk 1.17 is an allusion to Jeremiah 16:16 where God calls for hunters and fishers to catch men attempting to escape God's wrath. Another example is the naked man in Mk 14.52 is an allusion to Amos 2:6-16, another passage about judgement. Mark is overflowing with these kinds of allusions to the OT, and the passages Mark uses appear deliberately chosen as if they were essential to recognizing the deeper meanings of Mark's story.

    For an in depth analysis of Mark's use of the Old Testament:

    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

    Matthew and Luke, in contrast to Mark, both appear to site OT passages fairly randomly without any apparent concern for the context from which the passages are taken.

    Much of the deep allegorical meaning of Mark's gospel, Matthew seems to miss or change. For example, Matthew makes the cup at the last supper represent the new covenant and the shedding of Jesus' blood for the forgiveness of sins. In Mark's gospel it simply says "the blood of the covenant" and more likely symbolizes God's original covenant with the Jews.

    The last supper story in Mark represents the twelve (the disciples symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel) enjoying the benefits of God's covenant for the last time before God passes judgement on the Jews for their betrayal of God. (As warned over and over in the old testament passages Mark has been constantly alluding to.) Soon after, the temple is destroyed by the Romans, symbolized in Mark's gospel by the execution of Jesus. Jesus rises back to life, but the women at the tomb are afraid and abandon Jesus, just as Peter and the other disciples had been earlier.

    Mark's gospel ends abruptly at 16:8 with the women running away. Marks leaves the *READER* with the task of following the command to go and tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. If the reader understands the deep symbolic meaning of Mark's gospel, the reader would understand what that command entails.

    The longer reading of Mark and the endings to Matthew and Luke, all destroy the excellent literary technique Mark used of transferring the women's task onto the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found this podcast interesting. It was clear and consistent in some places but I found it harder in others.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I found this very helpful. I never actually knew about what happened to judas after betraying Jesus because in marks account he never really tells us what happened after or hints to us anything it was very interesting to find out that Matthews passion actually fills in gaps in marks account it was very intriguing to find out that Matthew actually has a story in his account of what happened to judus afterwards and I was very surprised to find out he had hung himself in remorse I did not know this at all and as you said Matthew does enhance the drama in the passages I agree with this because finding out there's more to the story of Judas' betrayed was very intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I found this very helpful. I never actually knew about what happened to judas after betraying Jesus because in marks account he never really tells us what happened after or hints to us anything it was very interesting to find out that Matthews passion actually fills in gaps in marks account it was very intriguing to find out that Matthew actually has a story in his account of what happened to judus afterwards and I was very surprised to find out he had hung himself in remorse I did not know this at all and as you said Matthew does enhance the drama in the passages I agree with this because finding out there's more to the story of Judas' betrayed was very intriguing.

    ReplyDelete