(12 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...I have been talking about contradictions and their value for knowing about history — about what actually happened in the past. There are lots of other kinds of ways that passages of the New Testament are at odds with one another. Sometimes, and more important for many people, they can have very different theological views, sometimes on absolutely key and important issues. That is a matter I addressed many years ago on the blog, in this post:
**************************************************************************************
One of my major goals as a professor of New Testament is to get my students to understand that the NT is not a single entity with a solid and consistent message. There are numerous authors who were writing at different times, in different parts of the world, to different audiences, and with different – sometimes strikingly different – understandings about important issues. In fact, about key issues, such as who Jesus was and what his role was in salvation.
One of the assignments that I used to give was to have students compare Matthew’s view of salvation with that found in Paul. Specifically, what is the role of doing what the Law demands and of doing good deeds? If someone abides by the law and does good deeds for others – will that bring about salvation?
The way I get them to think about those questions is by looking at two passages, one in Matthew and the other in Paul. The first is Matthew’s version of the “rich young ruler” (he’s actually not a “young ruler” in any of the Gospel accounts; in one he’s young and in another he’s a ruler: but that’s just what the passage is typically called). According to this passage, how does one receive eternal life? Here’s the passage.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong, why not join? It won’t cost much, you’ll get tons for your money, and every thin dime goes to help those in need.
Are you familiar with good Christian scholars who have attempted to harmonize this passage or others like it (Sheep and Goats, Good Samaritan) with the ‘salvation by faith’ passages? How do they attempt to harmonize them?
One way is to say that Jesus was speaking before Easter and Paul after. The problem is that if Jesus were *right* (that one could be right with God by keeping the law), why would he have to die?
With an understanding that all cells have consciousness, that we are a “gestalt” awareness composed of other consciousness, that we create our reality individually and collectively, the riddle is resolvable.
We presume (cannot be proved) awareness is eternal, the outer world temporal. You can logically see that loss comes when temporal things decay and die or are no longer visible. Love of course bind us — formless beings emerging and reemerging to show and better themselves within stable temporal worlds — and so our productive resources are to love one another (even our enemies), redirecting our desires away from the temporal and toward the eternal. Losing attachment to temporal forms we become “perfect”. and with perfection we have an abundance.
Simple, isn’t it?
I believe this was the Jesus teaching, and that Paul sensed it but could not grasp it, and so taught “devotion” (through the Cross), devotion being a more earthy path to perfection.
I don’t believe Jesus was crucified for reason you give.
are you saying that obeying the law can save you therefore jesus did not need to die? jesus is not needed , the law is needed to get right with god?
I’m not saying that that’s my belief. I’m saying that if Jesus/Matthew were right that obedience to the law could bring salvation, then it’s hard to see what the point of Jesus’ death is.
I think the logic is that no one can keep God’s law perfectly. None of us loves our neighbors as ourselves, nor honors our parents all the time etc., hence the need for a savior.
I think Jesus believed faith and good behavior went together. Not religious dogma–that isn’t what Jesus meant by faith.
A Canaanite woman (most likely a polytheist) comes to him to heal her daughter, and he rejects her in a brusque manner, calling her a dog, which can be interpreted in various ways, none of them polite. (I take it as a compliment myself, being a dog person.)
And her response delights him. She says even a dog can eat the scraps from the master’s table. He tells her to go home, her daughter has had the evil spirit cast out from her. Now we don’t have to believe all that happened to know what the story means. The story means that faith is what matters. But faith applied to good works–in this case, helping her daughter. The fact is, she’s shown more understanding of his mission than many eminent members of his own religious community. And there must have been incidents like this in Jesus’ life, and they must have affected his sense of his own mission, and he conveyed this to his followers, creating this tradition (and making Christianity better able to reach out to gentiles).
A Non-Jew might have faith, an outwardly devout Jew might have none. He identifies as Jewish, thinks that is the religion that’s come closest to understanding God, but his experience told him that men and women of good will–and their antithesis–can exist anywhere.
By their fruit shall ye know them. If you judge people only by beliefs they profess to have, you have failed to understand (we can argue all day about who Jesus was, and what we think about him and the religions he spawned, but this is simply the truth).
A person who professes no faith, but acts as if he has faith, is superior to the person who professes deep faith, but acts as if he has none. Deeds are the only proof of faith. All else is meaningless.
But religions require adherents to survive as institutions. If there is no preferential treatment on the basis of membership, the membership will dwindle. This is the problem you refer to.
Thank you. That was very thoughtful.
The most noteworthy difference here is that Matthew is recounting a story, in which Jesus tells someone what to do in order to gain salvation–and it’s really hard. It’s probably the one passage in the New Testament that gives Christians the most trouble. Because very few people could come close to living up to these strictures.
Even worse–Jesus says he himself is not good. Even though he’s presumably following the commandments, and has no possessions other than the clothes on his back. Only God is good. And Jesus is a man.
While ‘Matthew’ may not have believed Jesus was God, he did believe he was the begotten son of God, born of a virgin, so I don’t think this story would be in there if some version of this conversation wasn’t already well known in the Christian community. It does in fact sound like the kind of provocative thing Jesus would say.
Paul is just giving us his take. He only encountered Jesus in a vision. He’s not putting words in Jesus’ mouth, not telling a story, and indeed he only rarely tells stories in his epistles, and never at any great length. He is not a gifted storyteller, as the gospel authors were–his talents lie elsewhere.
He believes that he has been divinely delegated to interpret Jesus for us, and since he believes he achieved salvation by coming to believe in Jesus, he is prescribing the same path for everyone else. (This is a nigh-universal human trait–if something works for us, whether it’s a home remedy or an exercise plan, we assume it’ll work for everybody).
Paul doesn’t care about stories, because he’s more interested in the ideas he’s come up with himself, that he believes were part of a divine revelation granted to him and him alone. Both writers go to their strengths, their primary areas of interest. As all writers do.
Matthew’s Jesus is less human than Mark’s, but more so than Paul’s, if only because Matthew is out to tell a story–not lay out the foundations of a new understanding of Jesus, based not on recollection and anecdote, but rather on internal reflections and insights.
Thanks …….great insight.
Paul would certainly not have disagreed with the Matthean Jesus’ “advice’ to keep the moral commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, honoring one’s father and mother, or the love commandment: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mt 19,19 = Gal 5,14). Loving one another, bearing one another’s burdens is what Paul refers to here as the messianic law (6,2) and God’s final judgment against the unrighteous who do not ‘do the law’ is a fundamental part of Paul’s gospel preaching (Rom 2). For Paul, those who do the law shall indeed be justified. (οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται). Paul upholds the law,. None of this is what he means by ‘works of the law’ such as circumcision for Gentiles.
If you still seem to cling to a Lutheran caricature of justification by faith alone as the valid interpretation of Paul, you will always be a recovering fundamentalist. I desire that you finally be free of these childish things.
What Paul means by ‘works of the law’, such as circumcision for Gentiles, is not the moral or Messianic law. It seems to be comparable to the ‘works of the law’ in the Qumran MMT text, ie, matters of ceremonial purification for priests, which Paul would also not impose on Gentiles.
No, but Paul would *not* have agreed that this is how one attains eternal life. And that is no Lutheran caricature! I haven’t held to a traditional Lutheran reading of Paul for forty years!!
“No, but Paul would *not* have agreed that this is how one attains eternal life. …”
So does Paul really think one can attain eternal life without upholding the moral commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, honoring one’s father and mother, or the love commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself?
No, not in my view. What he thought was that anyone who was baptized into Christ received the Spirit and was thereby (and by no other way) empowered to do the will of God as embodied in the Torah.
“.. What he [Paul] thought was that anyone who was baptized into Christ received the Spirit and was thereby (and by no other way) empowered to do the will of God as embodied in the Torah.”
Oh, so not really at odds with the Matthean resurrected Jesus’ ‘great commission’ in Mt 28,19-20 to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
Matthew certainly doesn’t have Paul’s theological understanding of baptism.
“Matthew certainly doesn’t have Paul’s theological understanding of baptism.”
We don’t really know much about Matthew’s underlying theology of baptism. That was not my point. But you’ve acknowledged (here and previously) that Paul and Matthew both taught the importance of following the moral commandments in general and Jesus’ love commandment more specifically. I think some of your readers assume a Lutheran interpretation of Paul as a too easy way of differentiating between Paul and Jesus or between Paul and Matthew.
I said that only because I thought you were saying that Matthew and Paul were on the same theological page because they both speak about baptism.
I agree, but these are difficult issues, and it’s best not to characterize one’s struggle to understand as “childish”.
rjeffrey:
“I agree, but these are difficult issues, and it’s best not to characterize one’s struggle to understand as ‘childish’.”
Sorry, that was merely intended as a humorous allusion to Paul’s own language in 1 Cor 13,11
Jesus cited 7 of the 10 Commandments ,the Golden Rule, and forsaking material possessions. Do these constitute the “works of the Law” that Paul referred to? I got the impression Paul was talking about Jewish food restrictions, sacrificial rituals, circumcision, etc. Could one propose that having “faith” in Christ could be construed as believing compliance with the Mt 19 instructions will guarantee, through Jesus, “eternal life”?
That’s right. But he certainly did not think that “keeping the Ten Commandments” was the key to eternal life. It it were, there would have been no reason for Christ to die.
Is it likely that Matthew is preserving, at least in spirit, an actual teaching of Jesus? Perhaps he kept the tradition without fully considering the theological implications? Similar to the “Son Of Man”, and “the Sheep and the Goats” teachings.
Yes, my sense is that htis is something Jesus could well have said.
Dr. Ehrman,
Would it be correct to conclude that the resulting orthodox church tended to use Paul’s theological perspective and views more than the Gospel writers, at least the views they attributed to Jesus?
Thanks
Yes, I would say so.
Jesus told him,
“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
It was a test.
“Do you love me?”
“Huh?”
“Do you love me?”
“Um, Sure. I’m being good, man. Sup?”
“No, I said, ‘do you love me?'”
“Love you? Of course, all my life I’ve done what I’m supposed to do.”
“Great. Wonderful. O yes, one more thing. Sell your junk and give all the proceeds to the poor.”
“What? You’re kidding!”
Now, these days, since Jesus bled and died and became alive again, we can go to Him boldly and say,
“Lord, I ain’t cutting it. Please help me. I try and try and I just screw up big time. No matter how hard I try, I blow it. I steal, I cheat, I’ve lied all over the place, I hate people. I’ve hated you. I hate everything!”
“Now you’re talking. You want my help?”
“Lord, I do! I do! Please help me!”
“Cool. Now, let go and I’ll come to you. (It’s hard to save a drowning man when he’s squirming and flipping and flopping all over the place.) I will hang out with you. We’ll eat breakfast together. The two of us can make it, just like I showed Paul.”
Nice.
I wonder how many people (it must number in the millions) have died because of this particular NT contradiction. Roman Catholics follow Matthew’s idea. Protestants follow Paul’s. A very bloody history over this issue. This is one NT contradiction that has had tragic consequences.
How much of a distortion of what might have happened at the Jerusalem Council do you think the account in Acts actually is? Might it in reality have been totally acrimonious, a definite split, and a rejection of Paul? Or is that going too far?
thanks
I think Paul is more likely to have given a better sense of what happened, since he was actually there (though he clearly would have portrayed the moment from his own perspective, and possibly slanted it accordingly).
Even in the Gospel of John there are hints of salvation by works: “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29) Do you think the book of James was written at least in part to enter into this debate of works vs. faith?
Yup!
I am imagining what an apologist might say…Jesus wouldn’t have said his death brings salvation during his lifetime because he didnt die yet. And the issue isnt that obeying the law cant bring salvation. It would if people only followed it. But all have fallen short, which is why Jesus had to die. So obeying the law could bring salvation in theory but in practice only faith in Jesus does.
I agree though this likely reflects conflicting understandings of salvation. Much like you’ve said with the sheep and the goats story, do you think the apparent conflict within Matthew (not just between Matthew and Paul), i.e. quoting Jesus as he does while also understanding Jesus’ death as bringing salvation, suggests that the quote goes back to the historical Jesus?
Yes, that’s a typical explanation. But it leaves unexplained why, if Jesus was right, he would have to die. Why not just tell people to behave?
I think they would say the law already tells people how to behave, the problem is that people are unwilling or unable to follow it, so that’s why Jesus is needed. I suppose Marcion took the unable approach and many people still take the unwilling one. I realize that the argument from free will can’t explain all of the suffering and evil in the world, yet I agree that if there is a God I doubt he would want to “create robots.”
Do you think the historical Jesus really said something along the lines of “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” I get the sense that there is not only conflict between Matthew and Paul on the idea of salvation, but perhaps even within Matthew. If this quote is part of the problem, does that suggest it goes back to Jesus on the basis of dissimilarity?
I doubt if Jesus said exactly this, but it’s hard to say. Matthew in particular stresses the need for “perfection,” so this may be his editorial addition.
Dr Ehrman,
This advice to give everything away and become poor reminds me of Dr Lambert’s posts on repentence. He said that wealthy/powerful people had to make themselves needy (e.g. donning sackcloth and fasting) to receive God’s help. Do you think this would explain that passage?
Interesting idea.
“I think they would say the law already tells people how to behave, the problem is that people are unwilling or unable to follow it, so that’s why Jesus is needed”
but that’s not what jesus thought and the torah did not think that either. we have examples in isaiah 52 where people are able to keep the law and don’t need jesus.
I agree there are conflicting messages in the New Testament and these are a good example. I wonder if another issue compounding the problem is Martin Luther? Having been raised Catholic I was taught that Salvation was a combination of works and grace which I think such teachings attempt to resolve the discrepancies and tension between the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Do you think the reasons your students do not see any tensions in these two Scriptures are party due to the influence of Luther’s doctrine of salvation via faith and grace that has been the foundation of Protestantism for the last 500 years?
I’m not sure. I think a Lutheran would especially see the problem, if Jesus was thought to teach that “being good” would bring salvation.
When I believed the Bible was inerrant, I would have thought, “There MUST be a way they are consistent!”. It would not have occurred to me that a perfect God wouldn’t have put two things in the Bible that are apparently inconsistent. And God wouldn’t be doing that to “test my faith”. Because God is supposedly all-knowing – he would know if I was faithful or not, no tests necessary.
“…that Matthew too thinks that Jesus’ death brings salvation;”
Yes and no, because in Matthew’s version realy Jesus, who dies on the cross. But this not the same as Paul. Because according to Paul God, who handed Jesus to death, on that night, when he took the bread (in 1Cor11:23). Then Jesus could not die on the cross. This is the differenc.
“So are Matthew and Paul reconcilable or not?” Not. Only are Luke and Paul reconcilable. Luke, as Paul too, thinks that Jesus’ death on the cross dont brings salvation. Because Luke thinks like Paul, Jesus handed by God to death, the previous night.
Therefore it has in Luke, the curtain of the temple was torn in two before the death, and therefore it has in Luke, sweat was like drops of blood. The Son of God have not blood. Because the Son of God was only in the likeness of sinfull flesh. Sweat was like drops of blood: is the Christ
The another very important different between Matthew and Luke (actually Paul) the centurion’s words.
In Luke 23:47: “Surely this was a righteous man.”
In Matthew 27:54: “Surely he was the Son of God!”
Its clear. Luke (actually Paul) dont says: Jesus in the cross: Son of God true? This said only Matthew. Why?
Mark has “Son of God” as well.
Yes of course, but this shows, that Luke, and only Luke changes that in this phase. This dos it mean, Luke had a another/different “Quelle”? If yes, in my opinion this was Paul, or the Pauline letters/teaching.
Prof, re this excerpt related to the centurion’s declaration at Jesus’ death:
1. where in Mark and Mathew the centurion states “Son of God,” and Luke has “righteous man”: is there a reason why Luke does not aver Jesus’ divinity?
2. is there a reason why John makes no mention of any centurion?
I ask because Luke’s difference vs Mark/Mathew appears to be somewhat significant, but at least the synoptics all script a cameo appearance for John Wayne. But no so much in John’s gospel; John’s silence is, well, deafening.
1. Luke stresses throughout his passion narrative that Jesus was completely *innocent*. That’s what he wants to emphasize time and again; 2. It’s not clear that John ever heard that part of the story.
In 1Cor11:24 “This is my body (σῶμα- soma, and not σάρκα- sarka), which is for you…”
Why did not say flesh (σάρκα- sarka)? What does it mean? It’s mean, that for the Jesus (as Son of God at the Paul), has not flesh, what he could give it, because he is “only” the likeness of sinfull flesh (as Son of God, Rom8:3; Fil2:7).
Therefor God gave to death (the σῶμα- soma), on the night, when he took the bread (in 1Cor11:23). It’s: the σῶμα- soma, which gave it to death by God. So “being made in human likeness” (ὡς ἄνθρωπος- as antropos), as Christ (in Fil2:8).
Who is the righteous man in the Pauline doctrine? Who is righteous by faith, true? Who believe in the Christ.
Why do need the Crihst- faith, to get righteous? Because of Paul’s gospel: “For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last (from faith for faith)” (Rom1:17) The first: from Christ-faith (from the visible); to last: Son of God- faith (to the not visible).
Therefore in Luke, the centurion can not say: Son of God, only righteous man.
In 1Cor11:26: “…you proclaim the Lord’s (Jesus, as the Son of God, in the likeness of sinfull flesh) death…”. What did say as well? Actually, nothing else, as necessary proclaim Jesus’ death, that is the Christ. But this is not death on the Cross. This is death the previus night.
Have you written some posts on what Jesus may have meant by “eternal life”? Would his contemporaries have understood it as a post-mortem state, namely, heaven as envisaged by many Christians today?
It depends on which Gospel you’re reading, but for the most part it means something like “life with God in heaven forever.”
i was under the impression that you thought
>Jesus . . . meant by “eternal life”
life on earth
rather than
>>something like “life with God in heaven forever.”
Ah, right — sorry, I was thinking only of the Gospel of John and wrongly speaking for the others. For them it means a joyful life forever in God’s kingdom.
Paul and Matthew both emphasize love of neighbor (not purity) as the greatest focus of life (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8, Galatians 6:2 / Matthew 7:12).
Yup! But Paul thinks it’s possible only by being empowered by the Spirit, received at baptism after believing in Christ.
Are there any other indications in Matthew that Matthew’s Jesus was simply out to save the Jews alone, that his entire mission was JUST to direct and save the Jewish people for whom God was THEIR God and not the God of gentiles? Thank you. I am not saying that the example you give here is evidence that Matthew’s Jesus was just for the Jews, but are there instances in Matthew or the other Gospels that Jesus was simply there to deal with the Jewish people and forget the goyem!
Matthew 10:6; 15:24.
Since the “holy spirit” is part of the trinity, are you planning to write a trade book on this subject?
Most Christians are taught that the spirit in the OT was only available for limited specific purposes while it resides continually in theNT believer revealing all truths.
Nope, no plans to write about the early Christain understandings of the Spirit. Interesting topic: but I have other things I feel more driven to write about just now.
Your discussion of contradictions in the Bible has been fascinating. Perhaps you should consider a future trade book on this subject. I suspect there would be considerable interest in the topic.
Do believers typically reconcile the passages with the idea that before the death of Jesus “acts” were required for salvation, but after (and because of) the death of Jesus, acts were no longer required? So Jesus was right about the requirements at the time that he spoke the words in Matthew’s passage, but the requirements later changed? Or is that not a plausible reconciliation?
Yes, that’s a typical way of reconciling the passages; but it it were true, then it would be hard to explain why Jesus had to die in teh first place. Instead he could have just told people to behave.
I have heard some Christians believe that Jesus was teaching his Jewish followers the Old Covenant (a works based salvation) because he hadn’t died and resurrected and established the New Covenant yet.
To me that makes no sense whatsoever. Why spend your time teaching a method of salvation that will be obsolete in a very short while? To me the more logical explanation is that two different methods of salvation are in the New Testament.
Moreover, why bother to die if salvation was available otherwise?
if the instructions of god could help save people and god gave them, then the people who received them would think that doing them would save them.
quote :
Think about it. The more airtight Paul makes his argument (by citing the Old Testament) that it has been Godʼs plan all along to show no partiality (2:11; 3:21-31) to Jews, the more Jewish followers of Jesus might want to ask, “So, was all that back then about keeping the covenant just a big smokescreen? And what about all those Jews over the centuries who lived their lives according to Torah, some of whom were martyred—does that mean nothing?”
there are christians who say that the law does not help one get right with god, but then it would mean that god gave law which could not help people get right with god . then why didnt he give the jews easier laws?
THe laws aren’t particularly hard. You shouldn’t murder or sleep with your neighbor’s wife; if your ox gores your neighbor you have to make reparation; take a break one day of the week; don’t worship other gods, etc.. The Jewish laws aren’t any where NEAR as stringent as AMerican laws, and we have no real trouble keeping most of ours!
I suppose the reconciliation would be that salvation comes from following Christ. If one follows Christ, one will follow the commandments as set forth by Jesus. If one doesn’t follow the commandments, it is evidence that one doesn’t REALLY believe in Jesus. You simply collapse faith and works into one.
Similarly, in OSAS (once saved always saved) theology, if a person commits a sin or becomes an athiest, you simply say they never were saved in the first place. (Likewise, a Catholic marriage is for life, but whenever a Catholic wants to get divorced then magically there never was a marriage in the first place and it can be annulled.)
A bit off-topic, but can we tell when the poor refers to a sect called the Poor like early followers of Jesus or Essenes and when it refers to the actual poor (not rich) people in the original manuscripts?
Since they are never called “the Essenes” in the NT, it seems unlikely that Essenes were in view.
My understanding is that no sect is called as Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls either. The group that wrote the scrolls referred themselves as the Poor or the Poor in Spirit based on many sources. Hence, when Jesus says “give your money to the Poor”, “blessed are the Poor in Spirit” or when James says “remember the Poor”, it makes me wonder if it is the same Poor that also lived in Qumran that they refer. Is your view that Essenes did not write the Dead Sea Scrolls because they are not mentioned in the scrolls?
No, I think a group of Essenes did produce the DSS. I’m just saying that if someone refers to “the poor” that doesn’t necessarily mean “the Essenes”
The challenges to the accuracy of the N.T. and the resulting potential negative ramifications for the Gospel message itself will be and are contributing to the greatest evangelical breakthroughs since John Wesley’s revival that transformed and saved England.
As the N.T. errors that Bart and other secular biblical scholars have highlighted and promulgated to our modern culture, are exposed and refuted, an avalanche of renewed desire to know the risen and forgiving God/Man Christ will surge throughout the States and likely the entire world. Thanks in part to Bart’s wonderful writing skills, the issues of biblical inerrancy and unreliability are generating and encouraging widespread interest in fundamental, basic spiritual matters not seen in hundreds of years, at least in America.
As Christianity has demonstrated throughout its brief history during times of severe challenge, waves of revivals are to be expected and will soon burst forth on an unprecedented, massive scale. A few of us alive today will see the greatest explosive influence that Christ has had in the entire world in 2,000 years.
I don’t mean to frighten anyone, although I’m sure some will misinterpret the writing on the wall. I am not suggesting that there is any reason to be afraid. I can assure you that the ensuing spiritual awakening is not something to dread no matter your views on God. The manifest power and love of God through the Holy Spirit that will breakout in our midst will come in a quiet, peaceful but thoroughly ravishing fashion.
“Moreover, if Luke is right that they return to Nazareth a month after Jesus’ birth, how can Matthew be right that they fled to Egypt (they’re obviously doing this on foot…” “…when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.”
Bart, can you help me find where it says they returned to Nazareth a month after His birth, please? I can’t figure it out.
See today’s post!
The truth is, Christianity is declining. The most recent studies have shown that even evangelicals have dropped in numbers.
https://religionnews.com/2017/09/06/embargoed-christian-america-dwindling-including-white-evangelicals-study-shows/
Isn’t Matthew reporting Jesus as saying: you need to follow the law AND you need to give up your wealth to follow me in my (proto-Christian) community.
Paul is saying: following the law is not enough, you need to have faith in Jesus (which presumably means following his additional requirements).
Read this way, aren’t the two views consistent?
Wouldn’t a consistent reading be something like: you need to have faith in Jesus, in spite of his execution, which means you need to follow the laws (which alone are not enough) AND you need to give up your wealth to follow Him in a Christian community.
That’s not quite how I’m reading it. Jesus appears to be saying that the way to have eternal life is to keep the commandments (and if you want true riches in heaven, give away everything here). Paul would never say such a thing, I should think.
if Matthew equates “eternal life” to “a joyful life forever in God’s kingdom on earth”; I wonder how that person giving all away and following Jesus accesses his “riches in heaven”?
confusing . . .
much simpler, in my opinion, to abandon the speculation that “eternal life” should be interpreted as “immortal physical life” . . .
So here’s an interesting question, since we are on the topic of ideological ideals. So Jesus told the individual to obtain eternal life, you are to keep the commandments of the Law. But then he goes further and says, to be perfect you must sell your possessions and give to the poor and follow him. This is a 2 step process. One is to obtain eternal life, the other is to obtain perfection. Now if Paul is right, why would Matthew write about works for eternal life? If Matthew is right, the why would Paul write about faith? And the next question is I find it interesting in Paul writing gs that he does not keep to the same terminology for Jesus. He says Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, then Christ. I wonder why?
On the latter question: for Paul these are all simply variants on Jesus’ name (along with “the Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Lord” and… other things!)
But not Jesus of Nazareth!
This is not directly related to the current thread, but is in fact an illustration of many of the discussions here, except about Homer, not the Bible.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oldest-greek-fragment-homer-discovered-clay-tablet-180969602/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07/11/2018%20Daily%20Newsletter&spMailingID=35105399&spUserID=NzQwNDU4Nzc4NTMS1&spJobID=1321199653&spReportId=MTMyMTE5OTY1MwS2
I can’t think of a better parallel to discussions on this blog about the NT, or other sources re the OT. Oh, re the latter, thanks for reminding me of Friedman’s excellent book, Who Wrote the Bible. I read it again after you mentioned it in a post.
Whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle, it has been attribute to him and reflects the Galilean community it originated from and reflects their understanding of the Gospel. Completely consistent with the beliefs of the Jewish people of that region…outside of Jerusalem….yet with first hand, lived experience and knowledge of Christ during His earthly life.
Paul’s writings are written by someone who never knew much less heard the Gospel of Christ while He was alive. Paul, a member of the Herodian party of Jerusalem, who had been openly hostile to James the Just and the local community of early Christians…who ALSO were not part of the Galilean community and only had limited interaction with Jesus during His life (and who did not believe in Him during His life, only after His resurrection) had built their religious lives and beliefs around the diligent, strict observance of the Law (especially the liturgical ones) where the main audience for Paul’s teaching. Also, consistent with his understanding of the Gospel of Christ, which he learned through study and prayer not personal observation.
Paul was NOT preaching the Protestant notion that notion that simply believing in Christ was enough. He was NOT teaching against the moral law, only that the liturgical acts of sacrifice and ritual purity would not save someone.
It is easy to pit Matthew and Paul against each other, when we twist the words of Paul to mean something that only Protestants from the 16th century taught and held. But there is only a difference in emphasis and focus that actually exists and no contradiction in meaning is necessary no matter what people raised in Protestant faiths want to give them or world views that were formed by their teaching.
In my opinion.
I don’t have a Lutheran view of Paul’s doctrine of justification, but I do think that he would never ever have thought that being moral could bring salvation apart from faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Bart,
I’ve recently stumbled across an interesting assertion on origin of the New Testament gospels. You are probably aware of it. Theorized is:: Joseph of Arimathea is a code word for “Joesphis Bar Mathias”, the Jewish historian who, in captivity, cooperated with Roman Emperor Flavius, creating a fake religion to discredit the Jews, and with it a fake city name as a code word to identify him as the real author.
Here’s a link to one site, but there are others including a full length documentary on YouTube:
https://destee.com/threads/josephus-bar-mathias.75631/
Do you give this any credibility?
I’m afraid it can’t work, chronologically. Josephus bar matthias was born in 37 CE; Jesus’ had to have died at least five years before then.
Well, the YouTube documentary version has Josephus writing his gospels under pressure of the Roman emperor in about 66AD, backdating the events. The theory is Emperor Flavius was intent on discrediting the Jews, who were in revolt, and so had Josephus write fake gospels of a peaceful Jewish Messiah. The documentary does not mention Paul, however, who would seem problematic.
Maybe that’s because I’m not an extraordinarily conservative evangelical Christian for whom, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that you “believe the right things.” Bart
There’s a difference between “believing the right things” and finding and believing the truth. Aren’t you are an extraordinarily liberal agnostic/atheist who at the end of the day refuses to consider the possibility that miracles were performed by Jesus Christ?
“Its value for them is not history per se. It’s theology, a belief they want to “prove.” It’s rooted in belief, not in history. And that necessarily makes it suspect – not theologically but historically.” Bart
Rejecting any possibility that Jesus performed miracles is a form of limiting what history may reveal. Is it open-mindedness or a form of the very finest scholarship to close one’s mind to potential evidence? That is suspect. It is rooted in the tradition of historians.
There are logical steps to establish whether or not miracles occur according to the rules of evidence. Legal scholar, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, decided to put Jesus’ resurrection on trial by examining the evidence. He wrote, “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”, which has been called “the greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure.” The U.S. judicial system relies on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf.
So, what was that evidence? Greenleaf observed several dramatic changes that took place shortly after Jesus died, the most baffling being the behavior of the disciples. It wasn’t just one or two disciples who insisted Jesus had risen; it was all of them. To this brilliant legal scholar, it would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ. See his book, “The Testimony of the Evangelists.”
Many Christians have bias, but so do secular scholars. Let’s not be naive. We are all human. To accept criticism may lead to deeper understanding and a better, cleaner picture of the facts, the whole truth which we all agree is our mutual goal.
Studying the case three-and-a-half years later, Detective Smit found a crime scene photograph showing a window screen slightly out of alignment and a set of fingerprints that couldn’t be matched and solved the murder of 13 year old Heather Dawn Church.
I should think that “the right things” normally are understood to be “the truth”
If I may: in Greenleaf’s disquisition, where he buttresses his thesis primarily upon the validity of the four gospels, he posits that we may accept the gospels and the gospel writers as witnesses:
“Our attention will naturally be first directed to the witnesses themselves, to see who and what manner of men they were, and we shall take them in the order of their writings; stating the prominent traits only in their lives and characters, as they are handed down to us by credible historians.
12. Mathew, called also Levi, was a jew of Galilee …
15. Mark was the son of a pious sister of Barnabas …
18. Luke, according to Eusebius, was a native of Antioch …
23. John, the last of the evangelists, was the son of Zebedee … “
171 years since the publication of the Second Edition, as we understand by the lights of current research, it is accepted—if not argued—that the names of the original evangelists remain anonymous.
Thus, if we may harbour doubts about the validity of the evangelists as witnesses, in spite of the erudite Greenleaf’s prowess as a jurist, his thesis falls into question.
Dr. Ehrman, I recently joined the blog and I am a newbie to much of your work and I am certainly no scholar. I was introduced to your work by watching your great courses class at my church. I am addicted to listening to your interviews and debates! And I am reading two of your books. (One on audible -misquoting- when I drive and one -forged- in paperback.) So that is a picture of where I am with your work. I preface all this because I’m afraid I will ask I stupid question that you have answered many times. If so just refer me to wher I should go to find the answer.
One of my questions regarding contradictions; Is there historical evidence that supports either of these two images of Jesus; the idea that Jesus was a peaceful, humble teacher who wanted to primarily serve others? Or that he was a charismatic, politically outspoken, kindof angry and willing to overturn tables and cause a big ruckus, kind of guy? It’s possible he could have been both of these things as we all are multifaceted, but I’m wondering if the most reliable writings would support one view over the other?
Thanks.
Not a stupid question at all. A rather difficult one, in fact. My view is that he could have been both things, and probably was, because neither one of these is actually the *defining* feature of who he was. I spell it out in my book Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, but the basic line is that Jesus was expecting an imminent end of history by a cataclysmic intervention by God to destroy the forces of evil in the world. Humans could not bring the end by violence, so he didn’t preach violent resistance to Rome. But many among the Jews had gone astray from God and would be on the wrong side when judgment hit, and that occasionally made him angry.
I must confess, as someone who grew up Jewish, listening to Christians earnestly argue about whether Jesus’ death “brings salvation” is like listening to children argue over whether you can actually summon a ghost by saying “bloody Mary” three times into a mirror. I mean no offense by this. It just sounds extremely bizarre to me to hear adults debate something that sounds borderline absurd. Maybe if I grew up Christian it would have become such a part of my DNA that it would feel reasonable. But as of right now, this is what this discussion sounds like to me.
A: “Oh my God, Reggie was just killed by the police!”
B: “Oh no! Why would God allow this to happen to such a good person as Reggie?”
A: “Well, there is a purpose for everything God does.”
B: “So what could be the purpose for Reggie’s tragic death?”
A: “Maybe Reggie’s death was meant to bring salvation to humanity.”
B: “Hmm, that does make sense.”
Well some Christians think that Jesus’ death was an example, that he trusted God even through the most severe kind of death and horror. All the way to the atonement theory that he died for our sins and relieved our debt for them in a metaphysical way.
I love all varieties of church music and only occasionally am put off by a specific theology. One of those is “my sins drive the nails in your hands” and suchlike. It’s bad enough to be a sinner but to imagine that you are hurting someone who is God each time you do it..
Sometimes it’s hard to see the first century Jewish teacher through the layers of randomly imposed later theological ideas.
If you were brought up Jewish, Tal, it looks like no one told you much about the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scripture. Do you ever recall being told about the animal sacrifices which constituted so much of the Jewish law and life? Anything about the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, the one who was pierced for our transgressions and on whom the Lord laid all our iniquities (v5); the one who was cut off from the land of the living (8) and who was made for us a guilt offering (10)? What about the claim in Leviticus that it is the blood that makes atonement (17.11)? The idea of substitution seems pretty clear when the priest had to lay his hand on the scapegoat and confess the sins of the people over it and “put them on the head of the goat” (16.21). With this much Hebrew background it is very understandable how Jesus’ first followers could point to him as the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sins of the world (John 1.29). No, they couldn’t say this of just anyone who was killed, it had to be someone with pretty special credentials: at least a capable teacher, maybe even a miracle worker; but likely more than anything else, someone whose followers were very sure they saw alive and conversed with after his public execution (1 Cor 15.3-8).
You have some interesting points here. But please do be respectful of others in phrasing your question. We like to keep this blog (unlike so many others) as civil as we can.
My apologies to Tal if he or she took this as disrespectful. Maybe my incredulity (paralleling Tal’s) should focus on contemporary Judaism. How has it been able to so completely wipe clean its bloody foundations as to raise children who see nothing other than a bloodless works-based religion? It was certainly different at the time of Jesus. Of course we all know that after the Temple’s destruction, Judaism had to take radical measures to redefine this aspect of its theology. Still. . . .
It’s not clear what you’re asking. It sounds like you’re saying you have trouble believing the Jewish theology of the past 2000 years!
I didn’t see a place to reply to your last comment to me, Bart, so I’ll do it here.
You said, “It’s not clear what you’re asking. It sounds like you’re saying you have trouble believing the Jewish theology of the past 2000 years!”
Not really a question, Bart, more of an observation—and a sense of incredulity with the observation. Judaism had to remove blood from its theology as much as it could after the destruction of Jerusalem since there was now no place to sacrifice. It succeeded to the degree that Tal (talmoore) could grow up as a Jew (I’m assuming as some kind of religious Jew) and be totally unaware of the Jewish idea of substitutionary death which is so clear to their scripture. Talk about how someone’s death could bring salvation sounds like childish hocus pocus to Tal, but not at all to the Jewish mindset of Jesus’ day or for centuries prior.
I have a very strong suspicion that Tal is fully aware of Jewish ideas of sacrifice….
Bart, do you think that Matthew 28:16-20 was added on to Matthew’s gospel later on? Or do you think it was original to Matthew? The reason I’m wondering is because of its reference to making disciples of “all nations”, where throughout the rest of Matthew’s gospel he indicates that Jesus was sent only for the Jewish people.
I think it’s original. The idea is that during Jesus’ life his ministry was for Jews only, but after his death it was to extend to all others.
I was noting this morning the lengths to which the author of Colossians, whom you and many other experts say is almost certainly not Paul, goes to give the impression that he is Paul, especially the excessive name-dropping and reference to a personal inscription in ch. 4.
The question, for those who seek to discern some authority or inspiration in these texts is, how seriously can one take the moral or spiritual advices of such a deliberate liar? I know you no longer have a chicken in this fight (I’m from SC, so I adapted the metaphor) but how did you, or how do believing critical scholars deal with this?
I think you would have to concede that these writers were concerned principally to speak the truth, and felt they had to lie to do it.
I believe Jesus died because the authorities thought he was attempting to overthrow their government. It had nothing to do with personal salvation….. in my opinion. Of course, I don’t believe in an afterlife. I believe this is all there is.
So do I, but I’m not sure that has any affect on the question of whether Jesus was looking for a military solution.
Continuing with Jesus advice to give everything to the poor and repentance behavior. I might be stating the obvious, but in the Beatitudes, Jesus tells people to go further than expected. The rich man can take off the sackcloth once he gets what he wants. Once everything has been given away, there is no going back. That is perfection. I would link that thought to Matthew 18:3, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” I will let it go at that.
Dr Ehrman:
In Matthew, Jesus answers a question of “eternal life”.
Paul, on the other hand, is clearly talking about “justification”
And yet – you’re bringing this up in this context: “One of the assignments that I used to give was to have students compare Matthew’s view of salvation with that found in Paul. ”
So, the *context* has to do with this thing called “salvation”.
Yet, neither Jesus nor Paul say a thing about “salvation” in either of the quotes you use as your materials.
Paul doesn’t mention “eternal life”, Jesus doesn’t mention “justification”, and neither mention “salvation”.
I guess I fail to understand this (seeming) “theologic conflation” (I guess it might be called) of eternal life, justification and salvation, as if somehow they all are supposed to mean the same thing.
Jesus answer to the young man (the first part, anyway) regarding eternal life is what I’d consider “stock and trade” for one Pharisaic Jew talking to another Jew. “Eternal life” was a given, except for the truly evil. But, the *quality* of that eternal life had dependencies.
“Salvation” – There are many, many indications that salvation is a process, not an event.
“Justification” – this is more of an event.
But you’re asking students ” If someone abides by the law and does good deeds for others – will that bring about salvation?”, but, the two scripture you want them to “compare and contrast” don’t even *mention* salvation at all.
How can there possibly be anything remotely resembling a correct answer to a question like that, if those two scriptures are the materials they have to work with?
What am I missing here?
For Paul being justified meant not only being right with God in the present but having “salvation” in the coming apocalypse (it is what *will* happen when the cosmic catastrophe comes: some will be saved from destruction). and life eternal in the presence of God later. He definitely thought that followers of Jesus would live with him in blessedness forever (see 1 Thess 4:14-18).
I would agree that there was an aspect of “salvation”, for Paul, that had to do with “being saved” in the coming apocalypse. But, when he talks about “sorrow… leads to repentence.. to salvation”, and “work out your salvation w/ fear & trembling”, I don’t see that this is connected at all to an apocalyptic event. Salvation, to Jews, generally means salvation from very concrete, day to day problems we face. It can also mean salvation from the “worldy system” (corruption, etc). And, of course, with Paul, it could also mean salvation from the apocalypse. But, I don’t think Paul uses “salvation” exclusively in this last sense, by any means.
In Rom 10, he says “for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness [ justification ], and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation [ something different from justification, and not necessarily connected to an apocalyptic event ] He treats justification (a resultant righteousness) and salvation as two different things.
And eternal life? Jews had no dogma (and still have no dogma) regarding the afterlife. If we are to take any of Jesus’ quotes as “gospel”, then he gets pretty dogmatic about it. And Paul – post-resurrection – is exceedingly dogmatic about an afterlife, which we’ll spend in “resurrected form”. But, does this afterlife have a dependency on justification? I’m not at all sure that it does. Everyone gets resurrected and “judged according to his works” (according to both Jesus and Paul). Jesus (resurrected), though, is the *assurance* of not only that resurrection, but also, of a great reward in the afterlife. But, justification has as much, if not more, to do with a relationship to God in the “here and now” as it does with the afterlife.
But, honestly, I don’t want to get in a theologic back-and-forth. Clearly, if someone already agreed with your theology, they would be likely *not* to come up with an answer to your question to students.
Me? I’d look at the test question and ask “what th’???” To me – from my very humble, uneducated, and ill-informed view – it looks like a quote about baseball, then a quote about geology, then a question about Alexander the Great.
Just very different theologies, I suppose.
The key to know what Paul thought about what it meant to be “saved’ is to look at the *verb*. It is always in the future tense (there is only one exception that can be explained). That’s why he clearly is thinking of it as a future, not a past, event. That’s the irony. If a born-again Christian were to ask Paul “Have you been saved” he would reply “Of course not.” (Because for him, it is something that was *going* to happen at Jesus’ return) (all the references you give can indeed mean that; the verbal uses absolutely do)
The question is “saved from *what*?”
I do understand that Paul did await an apocalypse, and, figured on a salvation *from* that apocalypse.
But, as in the scriptures I mentioned previously, as well as in a couple of following examples, I do not, by any means, believe that Paul *limited* his use of the word “salvation” or “saved” (etc) to refer only to an upcoming apocalypse. “Salvation”, and the idea of “being saved” or “will be saved” or “have been saved” is written all over the OT
2 Cor 2:15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; [ here, salvation is a current event – and juxtaposed against “those who *are perishing* – currently. It’s got nothing to do with a future event. ]
1 Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [ here, salvation is a current event; nothing to do with the apocalypse in the future ]
1 Cor 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
[ what’s notable about this verse is that it’s doubtful that Paul is talking about “being saved” either from an apocalyptic event OR from an eternal judgement. Here, in this very practical application, it appears he is talking about simply being “preserved” – “saved”, in the sense of “the man will be saved (preserved) though his work is lost”. This has nothing to do with an apocalypse, nor does it have anything to do even with being saved from “sin” ]
I just can’t bring myself to put the rigid “apocalypse-only” understanding to “salvation”. “Salvation” had to do with God doing *something* on behalf of someone to “save them” from *something* – bondage in Egypt, or a coming apocalypse, or from falling into temptation, or from pursuing Egyptians, from judgement, from “troubles in general”. And, it appears to me that Paul uses both “salvation” and “be(ing) saved” in any number of ways which don’t have anything to do at all with an apocalypse.
Are you familiar with Barrie Wilson’s “How Jesus became Christian”? I’m about 1/3 of the way through it and he also contrats Matthew’s Jesus with Paul’s Jesus— he seems to use some sensationalized language and he mentions an Aramaic gospel of Matthew— I thought the proof/evidence of an Aramaic gospel was disproved.
Yes, but I haven’t read it (I don’t read trade books as a rule). And yes, the idea of an Aramaic original to Matthew is floated around sometimes still, but there is compelling evidence against it, and very, very few scholars buy it. (I don’t know of any Matthean experts who do)
My attempt to answer this problem seems to be too long for your word limit so I’ll put this in two parts.
PART 1
“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Mt 19.17
“No one will be justified by doing the works of the law.” Gal 2.20
May one be accepted by God by merely following the Mosaic law alone as Matthew seems to be saying? That no Christians accept since Paul and the rest of the NT (including some of Jesus’ statements, I would claim) say otherwise.
On your blog, caesar asked what other Christian scholars have said to defuse this problem. You replied that some have said that Jesus is speaking of before Easter and Paul after. But then, you ask, if one need only keep the law, why would Jesus have to die?
Here thinking about some other events in the Gospels might suggest a possible answer. On the mount of transfiguration Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus about his coming death (Luke 9.30-31). Presumably, neither Moses nor Elijah knew anything about Jesus before they died. They both believed and obeyed God implicitly during their earthly lives. They both kept the law and accepted that the animal sacrifices cleansed them of their sins and made them acceptable to God. It was because of their solid and unwavering trust and obedience that God accepted them even before they had complete knowledge of what would save them, the atoning death of Jesus. Because they obeyed and trusted God so completely before their deaths, God knew they would obey once they were shown after death what they must do to be accepted by God. There was simply no question that they would obey once they were told that they must trust in Jesus’ coming death. They had before believed that the animal sacrifices removed their sins, now they understood what the sacrifices pointed to and represented.
PART 2
“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Mt 19.17
“No one will be justified by doing the works of the law.” Gal 2.20
It was understood that any Jew who kept the Mosaic law would keep the full summary of the law Jesus commanded, to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves. To love God means also to obey God and to will to do God’s will. According to John 7.17 then, anyone who would do this will discover that Christianity is true and, by implication, will trust in Jesus and his atoning death for salvation. For those living before the time of Jesus this would occur after death; for those living after, they will discover Christianity to be true during their life times. Well, I guess we aren’t told explicitly that every seeker will discover during their life times, but it seems safe to infer that most (or at least many) will. At any rate any earnest seeker who loves God and wills to do God’s will and obeys at least the moral law of the OT will be accepted by God and, sooner or later, become a believer.
This procedure for attaining salvation appears to apply to Gentiles as well as Jews. Peter told Cornelius that God accepts anyone who fears God and does what is right, that is, lives as closely to their innate moral awareness as they can (Ac 10.35). Paul, speaking of the condition of Gentiles—past, present, or future—says one need merely seek God to find him (Ac 17.27; the need for a moral life being either implicit in this statement or something which will soon follow as God moves upon the heart of the earnest seeker). Whether Jew or Gentile, one who follows this twofold procedure will eventually find and be accepted by God.
So the rich young ruler will be accepted by God if he keeps the Mosaic law, but it is not that which saves him. It is the death of Jesus which saves him. God will eventually show him this and that he must believe in Jesus and he will be saved as he does so. He will have faith in Jesus because he had shown by his willingness to keep the Mosaic law that he was willing to obey and believe anything God would show him.
Dr. Ehrman. Do you think Matthew liked the idea that gentiles will be the bearers of Jesu’s message in the future? Did he like the Gentiles?
Yes, 28:19-20 shows he was very much in favor of the gentile mission. I”m inclined ot think his audience was gentile.
Dr. Ehrman,
As we know the undisputed letters of Paul were written first. Is this how you would date them and their locations?
1 Thess. 50CE from Corinth, 1 Cor 54CE from Ephesus, 2 Cor 55CE from Philippi, Phlm & Phil 55 CE from Ephesus, Gal. 56CE from Ephesus to Modern Northern Turkey, Rom 58CE from Corinth
I don’t think we can be certain about the exact dates or, even more, places.
Dr. Ehrman,
What is your viewpoint on the view held by some in the Jesus Seminar that Judas was likely a later invention, including the “betrayal” itself and even his name. They say Mary Magdalene was also a later invention because she bridges the gap between the arrest of Jesus and the resurrection appearances because the reality was the apostles fled? Are these theories convincing or do these theories go too far left?
I discuss it in my book on Judas. I don’t buy it. (But I don’t remember any members of the Jesus Seminar arguing this. Whom are you referring to?)
L. Michael White, and Dennis MacDonald both go in this direction of extreme skepticism about the Gospels.
This discussion was very helpful to me. Thanks for all you do, Bart.
Mark 10:20 “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Matthew 19:20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said.
Bart I wonder if there might be an explanation in the Greek as to why these phrases differ. Could the author of Mark perhaps originally called “the ruler” a young man, as Matthew does?
Thanks!
-matt
It’s because in Matthew he is a young man and in Mark he is not. A couple of times in this story Matthew keeps an idea of Mark’s but modifies it: e.g., instead of the man calling Jesus “Good teacher” and asking “what must I do” he says “Teacher” and askes “what good thing must I do.” Keeps the word but shifts it. Same in teh casee you’re mentioning. It’s just Matthew’s way of retelling the story.