Loading...Given the importance of following the law for Matthew (especially as seen in 5:17-20 and in the Antithises), if we had no indication that Christianity spread among non-Jews soon after Jesus’ death, we might simply assume that Matthew’s community was comprised of Jews who continued to adhere to the law even if they disagreed with the Pharisees over how best to do so. But Gentiles *were* joining the Christian church well before Matthew wrote his Gospel; indeed, at this time there were probably more Gentiles who claimed to be followers of Jesus than Jews. Does Matthew think that these Gentiles Christians are to keep kosher, to observe the sabbath, and, if male, to be circumcised? It is an intriguing question because, as we will see in a later post, the apostle Paul was adamant that they should *not*.
It is unfortunate for us that Matthew does not address this issue directly. In this Gospel Jesus does give numerous indications that Gentiles will become his followers and inherit the kingdom of heaven; but nowhere does he indicate whether or not any of these converts will be required to be circumcised or to keep sabbath or to keep Jewish food laws. Consider one of the most dramatic statements concerning the heirs of the kingdom to come from Jesus’ lips, a statement in response to a Roman (non-Jewish) centurion’s trust in his powers:
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
In Matthew, do we have any idea how Jesus would have learned the Law the way he did, and develop his ideas about it the way he did. He seems to have known more than the average Jew.
No, we don’t know what Matthew would have thought about that….
I had asked on a previous post about the reason Matthew would expect followers of Jesus, at least the Jewish ones, to continue to follow the law if it doesn’t save them. I think perhaps I see the answer here, that following the law in this new, perfected, Sermon on the Mount kind of way is what Jesus came to teach. Without that teaching, they couldn’t follow the law correctly. Is that your understanding as well?
Yup, that’s part of it!
Khabouris Codex Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Manuscript
Bart, thank you for your earlier response about the above. I’m having a “argument” with a Messianic Jew about whether the New Testament was originally written in Greek. I say yes, he says no. Could help me out here. Thanks much. Ron Crowley-Koch
Well, I don’t know a single New Testament scholar who thinks the NT was written in Aramaic. One may exist, but I don’t know of him/her. The arguments are overwhelming, but they are long and involved and require knowledge of the languages.
Interesting that he’s said to mention the Trinity! That wasn’t a Jewish teaching, was it? And the Son of Man in connection with the “Last Judgment” – do you think this author believes Jesus *is* the Son of Man?
Matthew never speaks of the Trinity per se; but yes, son of man in relation to judgment was Jewish.
Good series of posts. Thanks.
Does it seem odd to you that Matthew is both full of Jewish emphasis (as you have described) and yet also repeatedly refers to the kingdom of heaven. Is this a reference to life after death, and if so, isn’t that in a way not so Jewish (I didn’t think life after death was much of a topic in the Hebrew bible). Is the author of Matthew blending the Torah with Paul’s Christianity, or maybe I am off base here?
Kingdom of heaven is just a euphemism for kingdom of God, which is certainly a Jewish idea. In any event, I don’t think Matthew was seeing eye-to-eye with Paul, if he knew about him.
this might be off topic, but since you mentioned Matt 25:31-46 and Matt 28:19-20, I’d like to ask a question. In one of your books you say that Matt 25 as being something that Jesus very likely said (using your historical criteria). I have read that some question whether or not matt 28:19-20 was originally in the gospel. Can you speak about that? It seems to me to be suspicious .. since that line is the only mention of what would become the trinity in the gospels. I can’t remember what you said about it in your book. I don’t recall much detail. Thanks…. I really enjoy your blog.
Well, it would be more convenient for my views if 28:19-20 was not in the original of Matthew, but I’ve never been convinced (yet) that it was missing….
Hello Dr.Ehrman,
If Matthew 28:19 is authentic, then wouldn’t that mean the disciples are disobeying Christ:
Acts 2:38 King James Version (KJV)
Acts 8:12 King James Version (KJV)
Acts 8:16 King James Version (KJV)
Acts 10:48 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Acts 19:5 King James Version (KJV)
Notice there is not a SINGLE occurrence of baptism actually being performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost despite the so-called order being given in in Matthew 28:19. To conclude, if one believes that Matthew 28:19 is ORIGINAL to the text (and not a fabrication), they would have no choice but to believe that the disciples were disobeying the last words and orders from Jesus Christ.
It is usually thought that Matt 28:19-20 is referring to the practice in Matthew’s own community, some 50 years after Jesus’ death, not to the words Jesus himself actually spoke.
So if the practice was not UNIVERSAL among the disciples (and only restricted to the community of Matthew), then the command to baptize in the trinity was not so important. And if anyone believes that Matthew 28:19 is a Trinitarian proof text, they would have to admit that the doctrine was not taught to all disciples. I think that would be quite problematic for Trinitarians to explain.
Also I wanted your opinion on the REV, not sure how authoritative it is,( or what denomination it represents). But this is what they have to say about Matthew 28:19 (https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter28/19)
(I have only taken a bit the article is too long)
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations in my name,a
“in my name.” We have translated the text according to the evidence we have that there were early Greek texts that read that way, and also according to what the Apostles did in Acts. They made disciples in the name of Jesus. We admit that there is no extant Greek text that says “go and make disciples of all the nations in my name,” they all read “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy spirit.” Nevertheless, we believe that the historical evidence, as well as the evidence in the Bible itself, supports the conclusion that the common rendering is a very early addition to the text, and the original reading was “in my name.” We give the following evidence to support our conclusion:
Also what is your view of the Shem Tov on Matthew 28:19?
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Thanks to the Internet I managed to get my hands on a copy of Shem Tob’s (or Shem Tov) Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. For Matthew 28:19-20,tt doesn’t even have the short reading of “baptizing in my name.” Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads “Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.” It mentions nothing of baptizing at all, let alone the trinitarian formula.
How authentic is the Shem Tov/Tob , especially in terms of Matthew 28:19?
If you’re referring to the Hebrew Matthew, it is a translation from the middle ages. It does not preserve the oldest form of the text.
The discussion following this comment (about Matthew 28:19) is interesting, and I find myself wishing for a blog series on “Things That Are Inconvenient For Bart’s Views”. That would be fun. I wonder how hard it would be to compile a shortlist…
Ha! I”ve never thought of doing that, but it’s an interesting question!
Matthew 28:19 has been disputed on textual grounds. There is grave doubt whether they (the traditional words Father, Son and Holy Ghost) may be regarded as the actual words of Jesus (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1980 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 35).
All ancient manuscripts, which contain the original words of Jesus found in Matthew 28:19, were either lost or destroyed. We have no complete manuscript older than the year 400 (Hibbert Journal, F. C. Conybeare, 1902 Bound Edit., p. 108). In all still existing MSS (manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19) the text is found in the traditional (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) form (Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In the only codices (manuscripts) which would be likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 108). To settle the question about the baptismal formula, we must turn to the earliest quotations of the original text.
The noted Greek scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 270-340), who lived in the greatest Christian library of his time, had access to much older MSS than currently exist, and also exegesis of Origen, of Clement, of Alexandria, of Pantaenus and of many other ancient works (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 104). Eusebius quoted from Matthew 28:19 many times in his writings, in which he clearly revealed that Jesus commissioned the apostles to use a singular name—“His Name.” The following is an actual quotation taken from the ancient manuscripts of the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19: “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” (Demonstratio Evangelica, by Eusebius, A.D. 300-336, col. 240, p. 136: English — The Proof Of The Gospel, Translated by W. J. Ferrar, 1981 Edition, p. 152,159,179).
In “The Proof Of The Gospel” Eusebius emphasized, “He (Jesus) did not bid them (Apostles) simply and indefinitely to make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of ‘IN MY NAME’ ” (p. 157). Any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nicaea. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age he used the common (traditional) reading (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 105). This of course reveals that he was persuaded to replace the original text with the traditional wording.
Bart what about Isafel’s July 4 comment ? It appears well documented and is a ” mind blower ” to me for it appears to prove conscious non-accidental redaction of an existing Gospel to prove a ( then ) newly adopted theological doctrine . I realize critics of Christianity have long alleged this type of thing , but this is the first proof I have seen where an absolutely key doctrine gets ” proof texted ” out of thin air and quite possibly changes the entire meaning of the Gospel in question . Kind of knocks ” sola scriptorum ” into a cocked hat . Have I been incredibly naive all these years ?
For years I have “wished” that I could be convinced that Matt 28:19-20 were not original. Maybe they’re not. But it’s really hard to demonstrate, given the fact that every single manuscript on the planet in every ancient language has the verses, and Eusebius’s quotations cannot be trusted. So my hunch is that it is better to figure out what Matthew means by the verse (he does not mean the doctrine of the Trinity; he never says that all three are God and that all three are One, for example), than to conclude they can’t be original.
Hi Bart
what about the verse in matthew 15 (26 i think) where Jesus says that the kingdom is only for the sheep of Israel and ” the dogs” ie non jews are only welcome to the crumbs under the table? Why did Matthew include this in if he is trying to include gentiles into the christian-Judaic faith following jesus? and do you think this is actually what the historic jesus really said as opposed to the verses in matthew which seem to suggest that he included gentiles also?
thanks
Sam
Possibly it was because during Jesus’ own public ministry the good news was to go to Jews; but then when it was rejected widely, after his death, it was meant to go to gentiles.
In general, Matthew agrees with the historical Paul that Jews remain Jews, Gentiles remain Gentiles. Remain in your current status until Jesus’ return. Which will be soon. Also, has anyone wrote about the correlation with Matthew’s gospel and some of Paul’s church communities (Thes.)? Thanks.
Im not sure if Matthew agrees with that line of thought or not; he never says!
As you so capably discuss in “Lost Christianities” whether or not Christians had to be Jewish was a big issue among the early Christianities.
I am now reading Spong’s new book which you discussed in two past posts. I think the ideas that the Gospel of John may have had multiple authors and may contain much that is legendary seem like reasonable points. What seems less reasonable to me is trying to build a “new” Christianity on a foundation of myth and legend. It’s like building on shifting sand, isn’t it? If, indeed, much of Christianity is not historically true, as Spong contends, then it loses a lot of its attraction.