JAS said
jakejones said
And matthew demonstrated that by saying “and some doubted” ?
Matthew demonstrates that it is not a matter of significant disagreement precisely by not launching into an extended discussion about it.
But it is just as plausible that it was a notorious and undeniable fact that some of the apostles did not ascribe to belief in the resurrection, and that he didn’t argue the fact that there were apostles who didn’t accept the resurrection because he couldn’t plausibly make that argument. In a sense his hands are tied; the best he can do is recast their denial as uncertainty about what they had experienced.
If someone chooses not to argue directly with someone else, it could be because they are known to agree, but it could also be that the first person realizes he can’t win the argument directly; the established facts aren’t on his side, the most he can do is to suggest an interpretation of those facts that is less harmful to his own position.
Porphyry said
But it is just as plausible that it was a notorious and undeniable fact that some of the apostles did not ascribe to belief in the resurrection. He can’t argue the fact that there were apostles who didn’t accept the resurrection. In a sense his hands are tied; the best he can do is recast their denial as uncertainty about what they had experienced.
If someone chooses not to argue directly with someone else, it could be because they are known to agree, but it could also be that the first person realizes he can’t win the argument directly; the established facts aren’t on his side, the most he can do is to suggest an interpretation of those facts that is less harmful to his own position.
Except that there would be no reason to mention it if it really detracted from the point the writer of Matthew was making, which clearly seems to be in favor of the resurrection as a real event. If he had felt compelled to mention it because it was a lingering debate, which itself seems odd since by the time Matthew was written down all of the apostles quite likely deceased, it would be reasonable to present that argument as well. I think the only plausible explanation is that it is mentioned as a concession to those who would hear or read the account as it was then transmitted. As such, it serves a very typical tactic of persuasion.
JAS said
Porphyry said
But it is just as plausible that it was a notorious and undeniable fact that some of the apostles did not ascribe to belief in the resurrection. He can’t argue the fact that there were apostles who didn’t accept the resurrection. In a sense his hands are tied; the best he can do is recast their denial as uncertainty about what they had experienced.
If someone chooses not to argue directly with someone else, it could be because they are known to agree, but it could also be that the first person realizes he can’t win the argument directly; the established facts aren’t on his side, the most he can do is to suggest an interpretation of those facts that is less harmful to his own position.
Except that there would be no reason to mention it if it really detracted from the point the writer of Matthew was making, which clearly seems to be in favor of the resurrection as a real event. If he had felt compelled to mention it because it was a lingering debate, which itself seems odd since by the time Matthew was written down all of the apostles quite likely deceased, it would be reasonable to present that argument as well.
Yes, that is just what I’m suggesting.
Imagine a situation in which Peter was the only actual apostle who claimed unambiguously to have seen the risen Christ. And James the Just plus Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. And imagine that John and Mary Magdalene were generally on board with these claims, whether they claimed personally to have been witnesses of the risen Jesus or not.
But there were a bunch of apostles who had just flat out left the Jesus movement and gone back to their lives, disappearing from the record, conspicuously absent from the nascent prost-crucifixion church. Perhaps there were some who stayed in the broader movement, but didn’t teach the resurrection.
Assume for the moment, that, although the apostles are dead by the time Matthew writes, all this is still, more or less, known to the first century Christians (they wouldn’t have been dead that long, and reputations of major figures can last for some time)–people knew who Peter, James, and John were: they were pillars of the Church only recently deceased. But the rest were either all but completely unknown, or known to have been part of a different version of the Christian movement.
For Matthew and his audience this would have been the elephant in the room. Matthew–who believes in the resurrection–needs to explain the rather awkward, known fact that a bunch of apostles didn’t teach the resurrection (whether that is because they just left the Jesus movement and didn’t teach anything or have any other subsequent evident involvement in the movement, or because they belonged to the proto-Ebionite version of Christianity and which explicitly denied the resurrection).
His hands are tied–he can’t just make all the apostles into fierce defenders of the resurrection, though he might wish to, because everyone knows that isn’t true, but he has to say something to explain why the other apostles didn’t vocally and visibly bear witness to what he is claiming they witnessed. The solution he came up with: they did see it, but they weren’t certain of what they were seeing. It’s the best he can do, and it ended up being good enough.
I think this works especially well, when read along side the last verse of Mark–which would be wrestling with the same awkward situation and solving it in a completely different way (a way, which, BTW, only works on its own, but not in conjunction with the other gospels).
Stephen said
I am not a specialist but apparently there are translation issues at play in ** you do not have permission to see this link **. The word here translated as “doubt” is not the typical word used in the NT. It seems the word actually being used is more like hesitation born of astonishment rather than lack of belief.
Interesting; do you have a source you are get that from? I’d be interesting to see what is says.
I was referencing information from memory gained from published commentaries. I can recommend the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary and the one from Hermeneia. I just did a quick search on the internet and there are more hits about this verse than you can shake a stick at. You’ll probably have to wade through a lot of evangelistic rubbish unfortunately.
Stephen said
Stephen said
I am not a specialist but apparently there are translation issues at play in ** you do not have permission to see this link **. The word here translated as “doubt” is not the typical word used in the NT. It seems the word actually being used is more like hesitation born of astonishment rather than lack of belief.
Interesting; do you have a source you are get that from? I’d be interesting to see what is says.
I was referencing information from memory gained from published commentaries. I can recommend the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary and the one from Hermeneia. I just did a quick search on the internet and there are more hits about this verse than you can shake a stick at. You’ll probably have to wade through a lot of evangelistic rubbish unfortunately.
1) I know that listening to yourself speak in recording is supposed to be painful, but boy, reading myself in that quotation was cringe.
2) Just checked the Anchor Bible volume on Matthew (vol. 26), in loc., and it didn’t mention any translation issues–it only commented that Matt seemed to be familiar with a tradition, seen in other gospels, of people being skeptical about the resurrection. Relevant Hermeneia volume is downloading slowly; will report back if it says anything interesting. And yeah, google gives a lot of evangelical rubbish, which I don’t really feel like sifting through.
.
jakejones said
“If it were seen as a disagreement of some importance, I should think so.”why?
did matthew say all of them doubted?
Really? This is getting to be like a discussion with a 2 year old who just responds to everything with “why”. Whoever took the time and effort to write what we now call the gospel of Matthew was presumably doing so because it was something he saw as being important. Consequently, I presume that most of what that writer considered of importance and that might need explaining would be included. If there were serious and persistent doubts among the apostles, that would seem to be something that would important. If you agree, then I need make no further argument. If you disagree, I cannot help you.
The relevant bit from Hermeneia, vol. on Matthew 21-28 (sorry, Greek characters didn’t survive digitization–sorry–I’m not going to take the time to enter it all by hand):
That brings us to the second issue, the question of
the meaning of OWTC):!;W.
The lexicon offers: “to doubt, hesitate.”59 Various
modern interpreters prefer the meaning “hesitate,”
because “doubt” is too much influenced by modern
subjectivism and brings the disciples close to disbelief.6o
While that is probably right, “hesitate,” on the
other hand, is too weak as a translation. One sees that
in l4:29-31: Peter did not hesitate to walk on the
water, but he looked at the wind and not only at Jesus
and thus became “conflicted.” Ancient dictionaries
give us synonyms to OtCJTdivided between two opinions”), a7r0pEW (“to be
helpless”), aIL<Pt{3aAAw (“to be uncertain”, “in
doubt”),61 aIL<PtCJ{3rrTEw (“to disagree”, “dispute”), EIIootatw (“to be at a loss”), aIL<Pt’Y”oEW (“to be doubtful”).62 I give preference here to the German
translation “zweifeln” (= “to doubt”), because the German word “zwei-feln” is still suggestive of the “Zwiespiiltigkeit” (“discordance”, “conflictedness”) and the
“being divided or split” that is characteristic of the
“doubter.”
The ambivalence of the disciples in v. 17 is part of the
Matthean concept of “little faith.” With Matthew the disciples’ faith is not a certainty elevated beyond all conflictedness; it lives between trust and despondency,
between certainty and faith. The “person of little faith”
prays repeatedly to the Lord. 63 Little faith is not conquered by jesus once and for all-for example, with a
miracle; it happens over and over. Here Matthew even
forgoes having jesus overcome the little faith/doubt of
his disciples-for example, with a gesture of blessing or
with an invitation to touch him as is the case in many
appearance stories.64 Instead, he lets his disciples remain
in their conflictedness and turns to them with his word .
TL;DR–distazo means conflicted–which is pretty close to doubt. It does not mean outright denial; but that isn’t what “doubt” means either. Some have had problems with saying that some apostles doubted, but U. Luz thinks this fits the general Matthean theme of the apostles being of “little faith”. He also suggests it is significant that Jesus doesn’t do something to settle their doubt.
Robert said
Porphyry said
Can we put these pieces together and suggest that “some,” perhaps really “most,” of the apostles didn’t accept the resurrection and either weren’t part of the earliest Jesus movement …
That’s my view as well.
That counts for something.
Are there reasons other than those mentioned here that pushed you to this?
“. If there were serious and persistent doubts among the apostles, that would seem to be something that would important.”
“If it were seen as a disagreement of some importance, I should think so.”
Whoever took the time and effort to write what we now call the gospel of Matthew was presumably doing so because it was something he saw as being important. Consequently, I presume that most of what that writer considered of importance and that might need explaining would be included
according to you, important stuff against a belief requires detail.
does it for the writer of matthew?
matthew needs a ressurection . matthew is an apologist for ressurection of jesus. if there were serious and persistent doubts, why would matthew go in detail ?
jakejones said
matthew needs a ressurection . matthew is an apologist for ressurection of jesus. if there were serious and persistent doubts, why would matthew go in detail ?
If you accept that Matthew is an apologist for the resurrection, the better question would be why mention “serious and persistent” doubts without an argument to rebut them? That is bad apologist technique. You only mention them because they are neither “serious” nor “persistent.”
JAS said
jakejones said
matthew needs a ressurection . matthew is an apologist for ressurection of jesus. if there were serious and persistent doubts, why would matthew go in detail ?
If you accept that Matthew is an apologist for the resurrection, the better question would be why mention “serious and persistent” doubts without an argument to rebut them? That is bad apologist technique. You only mention them because they are neither “serious” nor “persistent.”
People try to “get out in front” of damning stories all the time.
Sometimes you cant plausibly deny the key facts (e.g. that some apostles were conspicuously not part of the Jerusalem community that preached the resurrection) but you can try to gently and discreetly recontextualize those facts to minimize the harm they will do to your cause (they did see the risen Jesus, but they had had doubts all along, and they were always second tier apostles anyway–the apostles who were close to Jesus, the ones whose faith he promised to fortify, did believe).
If you want a more extreme but still analogous case, take their treatment of Judas Iscariot.
It is quite embarrassing to have an apostle not just betray Jesus but turn on him so totally that he would hand Jesus over for crucifixion.
They can’t deny that one of Jesus’ most devoted followers turned completely against him. So they vilify him–he had been consummately wicked for a long time, so no big surprise that he would do something so malicious.
In fact, the same dynamic is going on in the treatment of the Jews in John–how could the Jews not recognize their own Messiah, clearly prophesied in their scriptures, after he lived, taught and.workwd miracles among them? The failure of the Jews to convert en masse was an embarrassing but undeniable fact. Answer: they are just perfidious and wicked and they had been all along: they were of the world, they were sons of the devil, etc.
You can’t change the known facts, but you can change the context so they fit your narrative.
JAS said
Porphyry said
People try to “get out in front” of damning stories all the time.
But you try to “get out in front” with your own version. You don’t just give space to an opposing view of substance and not address it.
The gospel is his (or his community’s) version.
The inconvenient fact (on this reading) is that–in marked contrast with Peter and John — most of the apostles simply weren’t part of the Jerusalem community that preached the resurrection. This would naturally raise questions — hey, Peter and John were a big part of this movement, but what the heck happened to the rest of the twelve? Kinda weird that they just disappear from all the stories in this community.
Matthew’s answer: they were never really insiders, like Peter and John were, and they had always struggled with faith, both during Jesus’ public ministry and even when they saw him risen.
Leave it to Hermeneia to probe the depths. I think it is best to assume that the author is deliberately using the term he does and there is probably some nuance we’re not getting because we aren’t native speakers. I doubt this account is a historical memory however. As the commentary hints this is most likely a theological narrative choice, like Mark having Jesus’ family suspect his sanity.
Porphyry said
The gospel is his (or his community’s) version.
Of course it is. I should have thought that obvious as a starting point.
Porphyry said
The inconvenient fact (on this reading) is that–in marked contrast with Peter and John — most of the apostles simply weren’t part of the Jerusalem community that preached the resurrection. This would naturally raise questions — hey, Peter and John were a big part of this movement, but what the heck happened to the rest of the twelve? Kinda weird that they just disappear from all the stories in this community.
You want a comprehensive historical account. We don’t have that. Not all apostles were active in all communities. The idea that they got somewhat siloed is perfectly reasonable. They were very few, with limited resources, so presumably there was some intentional effort to spread out.
Porphyry said
Matthew’s answer: they were never really insiders, like Peter and John were, and they had always struggled with faith, both during Jesus’ public ministry and even when they saw him risen.
I do not think that this is “Matthew’s answer” because I don’t think Matthew is giving an answer, or thinks one is needed.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)