Robert said

Only Matthew adds the question, “Which ones?,” to Mark’s account. That some early Christians took such an approach is certain; that this was the view of the historical Jesus is debatable (see, eg, Paul’s audience and opponents in Romans and Galatians and the later Jewish Christian groups that lasted for a few centuries). More importantly, you have not at all responded to my demonstration that your interpretation of Mt 23 contradicts other content of Mt 23 and thus is not even a candidate for a consistent interpretation, let alone ‘the only consistent interpretation of Mt 23’, as you claimed.

We’re not discussing the historical Jesus only Matthew’s Jesus.

Whether or not Matthew is adding “Which ones?” to Mark, or Mark is removing from Matthew, the account demonstrates Matthew’s Jesus’ subtle undermining of the law. Obey the commandments (not abolishing the law), which ones, all of them?, no just the ones the Messiah agrees with.

I thought I did respond to your demonstration. There are some laws like tithing he thinks are fine and should be obeyed. But agreement with part of the law does not imply full agreement with the law.

I responded to your claim that it is not the commands of the pharisees that block people from the kingdom but it is following their example and living like them that does. However the pharisees wont permit people to enter – that is their orders prevent them entering.

That is what you said: 

“Matthew 23:2-3 means they hold political authority by sitting in moses seat and that is why you must obey them but not moral authority. … Its not me limiting Moses’ authority its what chapter 23 means by sitting in the seat of Moses. It’s about christianity not be an insurrectionist movement – they obey the legal authorities. … ”  

Not sure what the issue is here. Jesus tells them to obey those who sit in Moses’s seat only so that they are not accused of insurrection against the state. Jesus does not believe the commands of those who sit in Moses’s seat will allow them to enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus commanding his disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees in tithing mint, dill, and cummin is only so they won’t be accused of insurrection? Really? So the men from James (Jesus’ own brother), the opponents of Paul in his letter to the Galatians, and all of the other Jewish Christians completely misunderstood Jesus’ as a practicing Jew? Really?

No Matthew’s Jesus agrees with tithing, he thinks its a good thing. The point of the opening of chapter 23 is that although he is about to call the pharisees blind guides who bar people from the kingdom of heaven, he wants to be clear that he is not calling for open insurrection. They have legal authority and should be obeyed.

James the brother of Jesus was accused of being a law-breaker and executed by the chief priest. His immediate followers were initially persecuted by a man self-confessed as being zealous and faultless in righteousness for the law. Undoubtedly the historic Jesus left some confusion among his disciples about exactly which laws should be continued to be followed. Exactly the kind of early nuance we see in Matthew.

There’s no question that Jesus is going farther than Moses in limiting revenge but that does not undermine Moses’ authority, it is merely a stricter interpretation of how far one should go to limit revenge.

Now, you’ve ignored the issue of divorce and vows. When are you going to demonstrate that Jesus’ process is so different than that of Shammai or from that which can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Seems like you would have to quote from them to show a fundamentally different process.  

In this instance it is the manner in which the point is made. “You have heard it said … ” is no way to speak of divinely ordained law.

Yes couldn’t find a direct quote but I’m assuming their process didn’t involve claiming Moses ignored God’s law and wrote down something to make it easier for people.

I thought this was the case you were trying to defend?

By the time, the gospel of Matthew was written, ‘Matthew’ and his community probably understood themselves to be a separate sect within Judaism … If the community was located in or near Antioch, they may have pointed to Peter as a guarantor of their interpretation of the binding nature of Jewish food laws, perhaps contrary to the practice of more Hellenistic, gentile communities.

So the idea that Matthew’s community would want guarantors for their interpretation of a binding nature of Jewish food laws is contradicted by Matthew’s general undermining of the moral authority of the Mosaic law and in particular

“What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.“

Paul would agree that not one iota or stroke of a letter would disappear from the law. For Paul the law is not abolished, it will remain for ever. And though the law can continue to be followed if people so chose christ’s death has freed believers from its yoke.

This is the dilemma for early Jewish christians, how to reconcile their movement away from the law with a respect for Jewish heritage and culture. Matthew’s answer was that although god was involved in Israel’s history not everything written down in the law specifically came from God. (“Moses wrote this down for you … “, “You have heard it said … but I say … “).

Robert said

So would Matthew and the Matthean Jesus. Obviously.  

Yes so for Paul and Matthew claiming the law won’t change does not necessarily mean you’re advocating adherence to it.

Yes and then Matthew’s Jesus immediately teaches his followers that anyone who obeys the command to issue his wife a certificate of divorce is commiting adultery, teaches that fulfilling vows to the lord comes from evil and teaches people that an eye for an eye is a false command.

Matthew wants to maintain the illusion the his christianity is a continuation of traditional judaism despite the fact that it has moved away from it. Paul arrives at the same outcome but by different reasoning.

The difference between the house of shammai and Matthew is that house of shammai tries to show that their position is the one Moses meant people to take, where as Matthew states what Moses’s position on divorce is and has Jesus disagree with it.

Shammai / Hillel argues over the meaning of Deur 24:1 “because he has found in her some uncleanness” and both claimed their position was the original intention of Moses.

However Matthew states the position of the law to be “whoever divorces his wife must give her a letter a divorce”. There’s no attempt to provide nuance or re-interpretation here. That’s what the law is understood to say. Matthew’s Jesus then disagrees with this “I however say anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her an adulterer” (aside: I think the exception here means the divorce is not the cause of adultery, rather than it is permissible in this case, ie its not the divorce that makes her the victim of adulterer)

Again in Matthew 19

Pharisees “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every reason?”

Jesus “No”

Pharisees “Why then did Moses command that she be given a bill of divorce and sent away?”

Jesus “Moses allowed you to divorce your wive because of the hardness of your hearts”.

The understanding of Matthew is clear, the law written by Moses allows you to divorce for any reason. Matthew’s Jesus disagrees with it. Anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

To the question at hand it is irrelevant what I or what Shammai or what Hillel thought Moses allowed. It is also irrelevant what the historical Jesus thought.

What matters is what the writer of Matthew thought Moses allowed and whether the writer of Matthew had his Jesus agreeing with this version of Moses’s teaching.

The writer of Matthew wrote that Moses allowed divorce in any circumstance and had his version of Jesus teach against that commandment.