tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post5575182898563882404..comments2023-10-16T04:58:53.689-04:00Comments on Verily Verily: Tom Holmén on the criteria of authenticityRafaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-9527234638477914342011-08-04T15:15:29.578-04:002011-08-04T15:15:29.578-04:00I agree that it is important not to overstate the ...I agree that it is important not to overstate the differences between Matthew's formulation and Luke's. But it is alo worth noting that Matthew has a tendency to increase the value of money mentioned in parables, and to turn mentions of villages into refences to towns or cities, which seems likely to tell us about the Gospel's author, his context and his audience.James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-49082588110799885252011-08-04T14:57:00.688-04:002011-08-04T14:57:00.688-04:00Geoff,
Nice question. Most NT scholars, to my kno...Geoff,<br /><br />Nice question. Most NT scholars, to my knowledge, will interpret the phrase, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in terms of spiritual poverty. These would be the oppressed, marginalized, dispossessed, etc. In other words, the phrase "in spirit" is typically understood to modify "poor," not "blessed."<br /><br />Luke's Jesus, as I've mentioned in a number of posts now, says simple, "Blessed are you poor." So the question really is, When Matthew says, "poor in spirit," is he making a distinction from those who are simply poor, physically speaking? In my understanding, most NT scholars would say, Yes. Luke has a demonstrable interest in the poor; Matthew, who apparently does not share that interest (or so the theory goes), spiritualizes the blessing of Jesus that he found in his source.<br /><br />I'm not convinced, however. I think the difference between "poor" and "poor in spirit" is one of emphasis rather than substance. For example, it's not like Jesus is speaking the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) to the wealthy ruling classes and blessing them in terms of their spiritual poverty despite their material wealth. No, in Matthew 5 Jesus is speaking to those who are physically poor, and so the difference between Matthew's and Luke's first beatitude is, I think, negligible.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-65516267324901110932011-08-04T11:53:03.970-04:002011-08-04T11:53:03.970-04:00Rafael, Does the text originally mean, blessed are...Rafael, Does the text originally mean, blessed are the poor in spirit, implying that they are blessed by their own spirit by virtue of being poor? Or does it mean, blessed are the poor, in Spirit, implying that they are in effect rich because they have the Spirit of God?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-1723877088145734962011-08-02T07:21:07.006-04:002011-08-02T07:21:07.006-04:00Rafael,
I agree that oral tradition has impacted ...Rafael,<br /><br />I agree that oral tradition has impacted *all* the synoptic gospels more or less directly, but there are also clear cases of redactional adaptation of another evangelist's material. If the material can vary as much within an oral environment as much as you say it does, then why could not the same amount of variation obtain within the process of one evangelist directly using another? Are you assuming that the evangelists are strict copyists who would not have varied the material if they could help it? (There are still hangers-on to that way of looking at things, here some hundred or so years after that view should have disappeared forever--e.g., Delbert Burkett.) The simplest solution is that what looks like redaction *is* redaction.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-86794390057424820852011-08-01T20:21:36.056-04:002011-08-01T20:21:36.056-04:00Thanks for posting your thoughts on this! I have p...Thanks for posting your thoughts on this! <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/2011/08/01/rafael-rodriguez-is-wrong-on-redaction/" rel="nofollow">I have posted some thoughts in response on my own blog, and hope we can turn this into a conversation, hopefully with others joining in as well</a>.James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.com