Matthew 22:1-14 is a parable, and it has nothing to do with ceremonial symbolic underwear.
We are told in the New Testament to put off the old man (Colossians 3:9 and Ephesians 4:22) and put on Jesus Christ (Romans 13:13 and Galatians 3:27).
The man without the wedding garment is cast out because he hasn’t been called by God and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The problem is not that he is wearing the wrong underwear, it’s that he wasn’t invited to the wedding feast.
Look at Ezekiel 16–the whole chapter is absolutely beautiful–God finds us wretched, filthy, and playing harlot, and He dresses us in glorious new clothing and makes us his bride.
Rituals and ceremonial objects won’t save you. Only the grace of God and the blood of the Lamb will.
(This post is adapted from a comment on Wheat & Tares, and that comment was mostly a paraphrase of John Calvin’s commentaries).
Sailing to Byzantium 
You are as right as rain, Kullervo.
There are no ‘secret’, or hidden things in the Christian faith. Jesus put it all out there for everyone to see.
Not that we shouldn’t wear pants.
I am not sure you have an open and shut case here. While I would agree that Mormons do not necessarily have an airtight case for their practices, they do have a legitimate argument that special ecclesiastical clothing has a strong basis in both Near Eastern culture and Christian history. Jewish practice of wearing the tzitzit and other Christian ceremonial clothing (as well as Muslim clothing, or even Zoroastrian for that matter), which has continued to even the modern Evangelical practices, are good examples of this type of paraphernalia, so your argument fails to recognize this tradition. It is not that you are wrong, but that your argument fails to recognize the rather significant holes in your positions.
As for Theoldadam’s comment, are you ignoring the times that Christ actually told people to NOT tell things? If you consider the Bible authoritative, Christ actually contradicted you, so….?
Joseph,
That was a matter of timing. And I’m quite sure that Jesus knew they couldn’t keep a secret, anyway.
When they had Jesus on trial and asked him what he was teaching and preaching, Jesus said, “Go ask around. Everyone knows.” (in essence)
As far as the way Christians worship and practice their faith…there are NO secrets. No need for them.
We are just a bunch of ungodly sinners who know who their Savior is. What’s there to hide?
So Jesus told people to keep quiet but really intended for them to say something? That does not make sense.
Also, you are somehow either unaware or invalidating huge swaths of Christian history that would disagree with you. Are you unaware of it, and if so, why? If you are aware of it, why ignore it?
While I would agree that Mormons do not necessarily have an airtight case for their practices, they do have a legitimate argument that special ecclesiastical clothing has a strong basis in both Near Eastern culture and Christian history.
Even if they did, that would not be the same thing as a legitimate argument that Matthew 22:1-14 is about temple garments.
I think you are dramatically overstating the significance of these “holes.” The fact that many of the world’s religions use ceremonial clothing is only barely relevant, if at all, to the question of whether Matthew 22:1-14 is about Mormon temple garments.
Joseph,
There are huge swaths of Christians throughout history that say and do some really stupid things.
That doesn’t make them right.
I agree, it does not make them right, but you cannot ignore it either. I am not seeing a lot of historical understanding in your comments, you make sweeping generalizations that are clearly contradicted throughout Christian history that you seem completely unaware exists.
Such as?
___
We have to generalize otherwise we wouldn’t be able to discuss anything.
Could you elaborate? Assuming that Christianity is a homogeneous mass is fraught with problems. Do you disagree with this?
Were Christ’s commands not to tell things particular to those instances or do they set the precedent for keeping secrets?
Does Christ’s command in Mark 1:43 fit into a particular circumstance where the incarnate Lord does not want his miracles to overshadow the pronouncement of the coming of the Kingdom even though he know that the leper will tell everybody anyway?
Or
Does Christ’s command in Mark 1:43 set the precedence for people miraculously healing lepers to keep it a secret?
Or
Is Christ’s command in Mark 1:43 the exception that proves the rule that there really are not doctrinal and liturgical secrets in Christianity?
What do you think Mark 1:43 is really about? Why was the priest involved?
Why wouldn’t the priest be involved, its required under the law (Leviticus 13:2-14:32)?
I think from the context of the Gospels Christ never made his miracles the center of his ministry. As a conformation of his divine authority his mighty acts only reinforced his teaching. Christ heals the leper in Matthew’s gospel immediately after the Sermon on the mount and there was already a recognition by the crowds “he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.”
All and all it is a far cry from a proof text for keeping doctrinal and liturgical secrets.
There is an alternative interpretation that I got from Reza Aslan’s book that I thought was really interesting. It has nothing to do with secrecy at all, which is why you bringing it up is interesting.
Here is the Jewish perception of leprosy…
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_12153.html
the ritual is complicated, and very, very expensive. Jesus telling the former leper to go tell the priest is a bit of a snarky joke. Sort of like saying “look what I got for free…?” I was not sure if you were familiar with it.
But to the topic at hand, you are ignoring Christian history if you do not think there were selected teachings that were deemed “secret”.
Enlighten me.
I am not sure where to start. There has always been a sort of Christian Mishna that has existed, to include the ECFs and other writings that no longer exist. Most of the older Christian faiths would readily accept this. Protestantism is in something of a pickle since it cannot accept this theologically, so it is sort of ignored logically.
For example, what happened in the 40 days post-resurrection for Christ? There is little in the Bible, but logic would dictate that something of note happened. With sola scriptura, however, it is somewhat impossible to accept that anything happened, since nothing really shows up in scripture. It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that aspect.
Except that Mishna are not secrets. And if the ECF were secret I guess the Protestants spilled the beans when they translated them into English.
The Mishna is the oral tradition, something passed down from the learned to the unlearned. This is a form of “secretive teaching”, even if printed is certainly not readily available. In truth the Bible is a secretive teaching, since most people today, particularly Americans, are so historically and theologically illiterate that they have no business reading the Bible, since they cannot understand it.
The history Christianity is replete with knowledge that is not considered widespread. Christian mystics, though not as prevalent as their Muslim or Jewish cousins, certainly existed, and did so within the realm of orthodoxy (since I assume you would disregard Gnostics and similar groups, which would be incorrect).
I think we may have different definitions of “secret”. Passing down oral traditions from the learned to the unlearned and compiling them in a written form (the Mishna) is not really secretive.
In any case we simply apply the original question I asked to the new context.
Are mystics, Gnostic, or other forms of hermetic Christianity a precedence for keeping secrets or the exception that proves the rule?
We may, but I think I have a closer interpretation to Christ.
“10And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12″For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.…”
What are the mysteries that some are to know, but not others? Would this sort of thing not be indicative of something “secretive”, even if out in the open?
Also, Mystics, Gnostics, and others are actual historical expressions of Christianity, those that you may not agree with (not that they would have approved of your worship either, but…), but still expressions of Christianity. I am not sure you can ignore them.
Who is ignoring mystics, Gnostic, or other forms of hermetic Christianity?
No this would not be indicative of anything more secretive.
First and most obviously this is all written down and preserved in a most public document, not exactly the way to keep a secret.
Then we have to ask ourselves if the context of the passage is descriptive of a particular unique instance (the exception that proves the rule) or the prescriptive command to keep a particular secret. Obviously it cannot be the prescription to keep a particular secret if Matthew so diligently reports it in his Gospel.
Finally a verse or two latter the Lord explains the unique circumstance further…
“Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.””
But that is not historically correct. What you think of written down and preserved was not necessarily true. The books that make up the Bible were written decades after Christ, and as such, Early Christians relied of verbal transmission to both tell these stories and explain them. This necessitated the master/student paradigm. Furthermore, once actually written down, they were hardly public. Most of the populace could not read them even if written down, and most would not have had access to begin with.
This is not necessarily bad, however. Today the Bible, which does not exist in the conception you seem to be using, is written in most vernaculars, but is so far divorced from modern culture that most have no business reading it, because of gross miscomprehension issues. Anyone actually seeking to read the Bible should be steeped in histories and backgrounds that take considerable time and effort, and should honestly probably learn a little Greek while they are at it. Very few take this time, despite claimed reverence for the tome.
But to the scripture in reference, the sayings of Christ were as public as could be, but still contained mysteries. This would hardly invalidate the concept of higher level teachings. Furthermore, if we examine historicity, we will see that multiple groups both within and without orthodoxy interpreted the text in this same way.
It is not that your interpretation is wrong, it is that it lacks historical background to make it reasonable.
I get it, you think people are too ignorant to read the Bible, but when I examine a historical thesis I ask myself what evidence should we expect to find if this is true and what evidence should we find if it’s not true. So far all you have done is tell me I’m to “d-u-m” to understand. Basically you have me wondering if this isn’t just a parallelomania bait and switch that you picked up on the Huffington post rather than the Didache.
You are taking it too personally. I am simply saying that the simple work that goes into reading any ancient and foreign work is bypassed when the Bible is involved. When I studied Beowulf in High School we spent a week talking about the history, culture, beliefs, geography, religion, etc… The same can be applied to the Koran, Tao Te Ching, Plato’s Republic, Shakespeare, etc…
When it comes to the Bible people assume they can read it, because it is a part of their culture, but it really is not. The Bible is still a Semitic document that comes from a time, place, culture, and even geography that is completely alien to most people, particularly Americans who tend to be more culturally unaware than most.
You might want to ask yourself the simple question of whether or not anything I said was untrue. You said, directly, “First and most obviously this is all written down and preserved in a most public document, not exactly the way to keep a secret.”
Was scripture that publicly available? Did the “common man” have access to it? The linguistic abilities to read it? The historical understanding? The cultural understanding? The religious understanding (most people, particularly Christians, are very poorly educated on Judaism, which is a major component of the Bible).
You are angry you made a mistake, but I am not picking on you. I am not calling you stupid, you just were not aware that you were making the mistake. My comment is that it is probably something you should put some study into. That could probably be said about most people, myself included.
I’m not taking this personally at all. What gave you that idea? What mistake did I make again?
You are probably not the first person to decide that to better understand the Bible you might want a clue about the cultural influences of the age, or that commentaries lexicons, histories etc. are helpful. So I guess we can all agree that the first century Roman Empire is quite distinct from 21st century America. We can also agree that literacy, education and access to documents would be a systemic issue for the transmission of doctrine.
Now what any of that would have to do with a general prescriptive command and prevailing practice throughout broader Christianity to keep doctrinal or liturgical secrets, is anybody’s guess.
Well, to be specific, you said,
“this is all written down and preserved in a most public document, not exactly the way to keep a secret”
This is untrue.
Scripture was not exactly public. In cases where it was publicly available, it would be indecipherable for most of its existence. You could do as much with a copy of the Koran in Arabic that was readily available, assuming you cannot read Arabic (most cannot, and even for those who can, the Arabic in the Koran is difficult at best).
So what you said was completely untrue.
But there is a lot more wrong with it.
For one, Christ had just finished speaking publicly. Everything said was as public as you, incorrectly, assumed scripture was, but there was still a deeper meaning. The Apostles where charged with finding the deeper, deliberately hidden, meaning, through struggle and effort. Ijtihad, if you will.
Also the scripture you reference came into existence a few decades after the
events in question, so the wisdom, knowledge, and even hidden meanings, were part of a tradition and history that predated scripture. You are failing to acknowledge this existence, in the same way that you cannot allow for a “Mishna” of Christian teaching.
It is all a very difficult scenario for Protestant theology, truth told.
First the Misna is a written document. A preservation of Jewish oral traditions. I do not deny Christian oral traditions, only that they were secret. Second, you are committing a category error. You are confusing accessibility with secrecy.
The Mishna is currently written down, but it is/was an oral tradition. And were not the words of Christ completely available? After all, the verse above occurred immediately after Christ gave a very public address, but expected his Apostles to understand the mysteries, where the common Jews were not expected to hear the same.
They even used the term “mysteries”, which sort of indicated something a little secretive. I think you are really stuck on this one.
Stuck on what?
The command from Jesus is “He who has ears let him hear.” I would imagine the illusion to the Isiah should be obvious?
Is Matthew 13:11 a prescription to keep secrets or a description of secrets being revealed? When reading narrative the distinction between indicative and imperative is important.
And of the 27 occurrences of mystery (mystērion) in the bible how many of them a prescription part of a command to keep secrets and how many are part of a description of mysteries revealed?
Matthew is nothing more than a tacit admission that there are in fact secrets inherent in religion, in this case inherent within Christianity. If one studies Christian history, these secrets are usually contained in the oral traditions. Protestants have a limitation in that they cannot claim an oral tradition, having created sola scriptura as a source of authority, with all of the problems inherent in this decision.
Since we can reasonably conclude that there are hidden meanings, and secret teachings, even if in plain sight, then the whole line of argumentation you have engaged in, is ultimately pointless.
I have had more than a few people tell me that the Holy Spirit reveals this, only to have that same person butcher the meaning of something (usually with a 20/21st century interpretation).
You keep asserting that there are secret teachings but offering no proof. You say Matthew implying secrets when he says he is revealing them. This is really basic grammatical historical hermeneutics. To be honest it really looks like a dodge from the text.
Why can’t Protestants claim oral traditions?
I did not say there were secrets. Christ did, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”. There are in fact mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Some people, not all, but some, are to know them.
Now, there are two possibilities here. One, all of these mysteries were written down and encapsulated in the Bible (which is fraught with issues, but this is largely the Protestant position), or these were passed down verbally and are not all contained within the Bible, which is far more logical and, as a point of reference, far more Semitic.
I was unaware that Protestantism traced their oral traditions back to the ECFs. From where does the Protestant “Mishna” come?
Yes, Christ said the disciples were “granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Not keep secret the mysteries of heaven. So what we have, to use Paul’s words is the, “revelation of the mystery”. Indicative not imperative. Grammer and context matter.
Why wouldn’t Protestants trace tradition back to the Church Fathers?
Actually I would need to look it up, but I thought that Christ said the Apostles and direct disciples were to know the mysteries of Heaven, not everyone. Again, since the Bible did not exist at this time, there was a senior/junior, master/acolyte, giver/receiver, etc… relationship that existed. This is also VERY Semitic (which sort of makes sense…). This is actually why Paul was writing.
Also Paul states that it is the Apostles and prophets who the mysteries have been revealed to, not everyone.
As for Patristics, most Protestants have no connection. Most of the liturgical denominations have some contact, the Anglicans in particular, but the more Evangelical mix that exists in America has failed by and large to produce any significant Patrictic scholars. I think there is a decent Evangelical Scholar in Baylor, but I forget his name.
What makes you think that a senior/junior, master/acolyte, giver/receiver, etc… relationship doesn’t continue to exist even with the Bible?
What does most Protestants even mean? Most adherents of any religion don’t study the history of their doctrine.
You need to clarify. If you mean with the Bible as the Master, then you have a LOT of issues with the inability of most people to read and/or understand the Bible. You also make a lot of assumptions about scripture that are historically problematic.
Most Protestants really refers to Evangelicals mostly. The language was not that precise. The more liturgical Protestants still maintain some decent scholarship and intellectual rigor, but Evangelicalism has created an unfortunate situation where there is not a lot of rigor in theology or philosophy, and the results are pretty bad.
What assumption about Scripture am I making? Are most American evangelicals Protestant? I thought they were anabaptists.
The authority of the bible or the perspicuity, sufficiency, inspiration etc. do not negate the vital role of the teacher/student, pastor/flock, master/disciple, catechist/catechumen in the church.
I am not sure what assumption you are making, that is why I asked you to clarify. Most Americans are actually not religious, the majority of the rest are a strange mélange that is really hard to discern.
Anabaptists are totally Protestant.
Kullervo
I would imagine that would depend on how you define Protestant. If Protestant means not Roman Catholic then sure Anabaptist are Protestants. If Protestant means holding to five solae or the formal and material principals of the Reformation then, not so much.
It’s not a judgement call its a distinction.
Joseph,
So basically you entire point is most people are just to “d-u-m” to understand.
I’ve never heard anyone cite the five solae as strict boundary markers for Protestantism. I suppose I define “Protestant” to include the churches that arose out of the Protestant Reformation (including their descendants) and demonstrate some continuity with the historic catholic church going back to the apostolic era. So proper Restorationists are a separate category.
I believe that summarizes his point pretty well.
I don’t know if the five solae are a strict boundary, but it seems there is some form of doctrinal boundary or the Socinians are Protestants too. The 16th century Anabaptist distinguished themselves from the Reformers, historically it doesn’t seem controversial to maintain the difference.
Not something I would go to the mattresses over.
Not something I would go to the mattresses over.
I’d go to the mattresses for any reason whatsoever.
Gundek, I think you are correct, but reading insults because it is easier. Yes, study is important, and yes there are holes in your arguments that study could not have fixed, but which would have pointed out the holes. But this is the problem overall.
As I have said before, no one would read Beowulf without first attempting to understand the culture and society. No one would attempt to understand Shakespeare without some background. Likely because of familiarity, most do NOT put this effort into the Bible, and the mistakes naturally follow. I have not said that anyone is “d-u-m”. I am saying that the historical background contradicts you (and Kullervo), and you do not seem to be aware of it.
Your comments are, themselves, an attempt to avoid this issue. It is easy to claim insult and then not answer, rather than engage the historical record.
So when I said…
“Actually I would need to look it up, but I thought that Christ said the Apostles and direct disciples were to know the mysteries of Heaven, not everyone. Again, since the Bible did not exist at this time, there was a senior/junior, master/acolyte, giver/receiver, etc… relationship that existed. This is also VERY Semitic (which sort of makes sense…). This is actually why Paul was writing.
Also Paul states that it is the Apostles and prophets who the mysteries have been revealed to, not everyone.”
You have not engaged with this.
I’m not insulted. Do me this favor though, rather than tell me there are holes in my argument, or that most people can’t understand the bible, or that most evangelicals are not intellectual or most Protestant theology isn’t Mishna enough, why not point out a specific flaw in my argument and then back it up with some (any) evidence.
From where I am sitting you suffer from a confusion of categories, having confused (a) difficulties of transmitting information with (b) a deliberate command to keep information secret. I also think you have difficulty with exceptions that prove a rule, such as the Gnostics. No one would claim that the Gnostics didn’t have secret higher teachings but the obvious question remains, are their practices normative?
I don’t know how you want me to interact with your comments but my initial thought is to tell you to go ahead and look it up, because what Paul says is that the secrets “[have] now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God”
What more evidence do you need?
You said above, “This is really basic grammatical historical hermeneutics”. This is likely something you heard before, but the documents you are referring to were written in a language other than English, so you are drawing grammatical arguments, that do not really exist, from a translation of what is likely a translation. It is something of a nonsensical argument unless you are referring to the original language.
This is a simple example of a rather egregious historical error. I did not see any reason to point it out, but it is there. Is this enough?
What evidence have you presented? And what are you trying to demonstrate? Break it down for us carefully, because we are d-u-m.
So…your evidence it that there is no indicative or imperative in Greek, no way to distinguish between a description or a command?
Grammar doesn’t matter in Greek?
Oh, silly wonderful and demonstrably untrue Mormon polemics. I hope you never change.
Um…..English did not exist when the books of the Bible were written….? This is not polemics, it is sort of history.
Oh, Gundek, were you referring to the Greek? If so, where specifically?
Right, that’s not what I mean.
BTW, Grundek, if you could also provide evidence that Matthew was originally written in Greek, that would be helpful.
So, there weren’t Greek polemics. Matthew didn’t have an agenda? And no way in the Greek lexicon to determine an indicative?
Do you think Matthew was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Dutch? Are we unable to distinguish between an imperative, indicative and subjunctive?
But off the top of my head I think by starting with the familiarity of Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch with Matthews gospel is probably the best starting point to reason about the original language. Honestly outside of my skill set.
I am not sure you can call the Gospel of Matthew a piece of Greek polemic. Also if you have an original copy of the Gospel of Matthew, I know a number of people who would like to meet you.
But as it is, since you are referring to a translation of a translation, likely of a copy of a copy, and so on, I am not sure you have a lot of room for claims of “grammatical historical hermeneutics”. I am also not sure why this would not be immediately obvious.
Also, if you are going to cite Edouard Massaux you should probably give credit. FWIW
Did I cite Maxssaux?
Just so i understand you we don’t have the originals of most documents so why study history? Basically the study of manuscript traditions, textual criticism, palaeography etc is pointless.
This is why i so enjoy Mormon apoligists. To prove temple garments you want to reject the manuscript tradition of the bible.
Yes, you directly cited some parts, and paraphrased others, in the preface to “The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus”. It is on page 17 of the preface. Technically it is plagiarism, you should try to avoid it. I would just cite the applicable portion, otherwise it looks like you are trying to claim expertise without really having any.
You miss the main point in your plagiarism, however (which is why one should never plagiarize, you do not learn anything). It is possible to discuss Matthew, but you failed in not appreciating the nuances and obvious holes in your textual criticism, some so woefully obvious it actually makes one uncomfortable to even bring it up. I am not trying to be mean, any more than I want to point out plagiarism, but your arguments are very, very bad.
Your failure here is also that none of this is about apologetics, either. This is part of your problem, you do not know the material well enough. My comments are drawn from a study of, among others, Bruch Metzger. This is actually history, not apologetics, and the fact that you keep reading apologetics into everything is indicative of a world view that really lacks significant depth. Apologetics is a waste of time, it is far more worthwhile to engage religion on its own merits.
Of course this is about apologetics. You have the typical approach of most Mormons apologists, parallelomania, squirrel chasing, claims of not understanding, and character assassination.
First this is the comments section of a blog not a scholarly paper, I have made and make no claims to original scholarship. I haven’t seen any citations in your comments, nor would I expect them.
I haven’t done any textual criticism, scholarship or plagiarism. Much in the same way that you haven’t backed up any of your conclusions.
Having for the first time read Edouard Massaux this morning and page 17 of “The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus” in particular, I don’t see it. Massaux is discussing Matthews influence, all I said was these earliest Greek writers have a familiarity with with the Gospel.
It is common knowledge that Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch made use of Matthews Gospel among other ECF. And at least in English this has been accessible since 1873 and is discussed in just about every commentary on Matthew when discussing the provenance of Matthew.
As I am sure you are aware there is a tradition that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek. This comes in part from a quote of Papias by Eusebius. Once again very common provenance issue, not my original research. Based on a combination of the lack of an early Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts (not the best argument), a familiarity of Matthew by early Greek writers (a better argument), and linguistic arguments (an argument outside of my ability) I believe it is most probable that Matthew was written in Greek.
Before you accuse me of plagiarism again let me post this disclaimer.
It is my understanding that what I have posted above is basic knowledge to someone who has read a commentary on Matthew or a high school intro to the New Testament at least in the Carson and Moo style. I make no claims that any of this is my own research, scholarship, or the product of any research or scholarship that I have participated in. The lack of proper citations comes from the media being used (a blog comment) and my own laziness. Any errors are completely my own.
By the way,the Early Church Fathers were brought to you in English by Protestants.
It is my understanding that what I have posted above is basic knowledge to someone who has read basic Christian Church History or a high school intro to Christian History at least in the Justo Gonzalez style. I make no claims that any of this is my own research, scholarship, or the product of any research or scholarship that I have participated in. The lack of proper citations comes from the media being used (a blog comment) and my own laziness. Any errors are completely my own.
Sorry for the late reply, work this week was busy. As for your plagiarism, I could quote what you said and what was plagiarized and let others decide. I was not trying to shame you, but if you would rather me spell it out directly, I can do so and let others decide for themselves, but it is pretty clear…?
As for your argument, it is something of a mess. You started by saying “Were Christ’s commands not to tell things particular to those instances or do they set the precedent for keeping secrets?” when Christ specifically said there were secrets that some were to know, but not others. Paul said the same. You have tripped over this, seemingly unaware that the injunctions existed and that there is no evidence that there is a release of the concept.
You started talking about grammar in Matthew, seemingly unaware that Matthew is a translation of a translation of a ultimate manuscript that does not exist anymore, and attempting to draw “grammatical historical hermeneutics” from it, a phrase I believe you have heard of, but are not really aware what it means.
And so on…
Then you get insulted when these errors are pointed out.
Since my whole élan is that Protestant Christianity is a pale representation of Christianity in general, and that the modern incarnation is a shadow of even that, I am not sure if you are aware that you are supporting my thesis.
Post away, I don’t have any of Edouard Massaux book’s so I can’t.
I have to assume that it is your desire to prove Protestantism is a pale representation of Christianity, (sounds an awful lot like apologetic) that gave you the impression that grammatical historical hermeneutics wouldn’t take into account original languages, translation and transmission of the Bible?
Frankly the fact that the original manuscripts no longer exists argues as much against your position as it does mine. If you assume the Bible is so corrupt we cannot tell the difference between a command to keep secrets and the process of revealing mysteries we don’t even know there were mysteries to begin with.
Very well, what you said was…
“the familiarity of Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch with Matthews gospel ”
What Dr. Massaux said was,
“the use of the Gospel texts (particularly the writings he deems the oldest: Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch) thanks to a certain familiarity with the Gospel of Matthew”
It is odd that you use the exact order of names, along with the topic of Matthew and familiarity.
As for the pale representation of Protestantism and Christianity, that is actually the position of many, including a lot of Protestants, as I mentioned. The historical errors you have made is evidence enough, but others have discussed the phenomenon as well (Dr. Dean). The frustrating thing is that it is completely self-inflicted. There is still excellent scholarship out there, but largely unread.
It probably becomes a lot less odd when you are familiar with the primary material (ad fontes). The order used is the same order the writers appear in the ANCF and the generally accepted chronological order. Nothing mysterious it is a basic provenance issue for the Gospel of Matthew.
Hope that helps.
Not really. The almost identical wording is pretty obvious. I taught grad school for a while, and I failed students for much less. It was also familiarity with the subject matter that made it so obvious.
You failed students for blog comments?