A Question of Credibility - How Honest Was Matthew?

[DRMIZER]

It is a perfectly justifiable question to ask if the author of a story is credible. This is a standard that should be applied to anyone writing a historical work. History is a dangerous discipline; history has been used to justify ethnic hatreds and intolerance. Politicians, soldiers, and even unscrupulous historians have promoted ideological fictions as historical facts to a gullible public causing untold suffering. Let's look at the first three chapters of Matthew to determine if he was a credible historian, or a fiction writers producing a historical fiction. I used the NASB for both New Testament and Old Testament quotes, and to clarify a point further the Tanakh JPS (which is better translated than the Christian Old Testament) for comparison; also where applicable other sources will be used.

It is important to point out that the gospel of Matthew never identifies its author. It is tradition, which asserts without evidence that this particular gospel was written by the apostle of that name. Matthew starts with a genealogy tracing Jesus to Abraham. A list of names is provided which the author claims in verse 17 adds up to 42 generations [14 lists of names broken into 3 groupings is 42.]. It does not help his credibility that he only lists 41 names. The list of kings from David to Jeconiah is another interesting point.

Matthew's list of kings: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosphaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and finally Jeconiah. From David to Jeconiah there are 15 names listed and the author clearly makes one the product of the previous king. So it appears that there are no breaks in the genealogy.

The historical sources of the kings of Israel, and then later Judah, from David to Jehoiachin (an alternative spelling for Jeconiah) has a different list. The Bible Unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts [The Free Press, New York; 2001] on page 20 produces a complete list of kings based on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and Galil's The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. I am interested in comparing Matthew's list with the historical evidence, only the list of the kings from David to Jeconiah through the kingdom of Judah will be listed.

BU's list of kings: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehosphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Johoash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jeoiachin (aka. Jeconiah). Another king is listed, Zedekiah, but he is of no concern where this thread is concerned.

Matthew lists 15 names between David and Jeconiah, but the evidence list no less than 21 names! One is left to decide what is the better historical source: Matthew who cannot even count correctly or the list of kings constructed from the Jewish scriptures and some archaeological evidence. If one wants to argue that Matthew is correct then that person has the burden to explain why there is archaeological evidence listing more names than found in the gospel of Matthew. An additional note of interest is that a rival genealogy for Jesus is provided in Luke, but where Matthew lists 27 generations from David to Jesus, Luke places the number at no less than 42 -- a discrepancy of 15 generations. While the historical sources number the kings alone at 21. So far Matthew does not come across as someone credible in history or even arithmetic. He disagrees with the number of generations offered in Luke, and the number of kings listed in the evidence.

The gospel of Matthew then brings up a number of prophecies, which the author claims Jesus fulfilled. In order to determine if Matthew is quoting in context and correctly, it is necessary to write out what Matthew claims is a prophecy and compare it to the Old Testament to see if: 1) he quoted it correctly, and 2) he quoted it in context. The claims to Jesus fulfilling prophecy start in chapter 1.

Matthew 1:22-23, "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 `BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,' which translated means, `GOD WITH US'."

Although Matthew is claiming this "was spoken" by the prophet, it exists in a written form. The prophet in question is Isaiah and the verse in question comes from Isaiah chapter 7. Matthew is guilty of distorting the text and taking it out of context, meaning that he took one verse out of a three verse passage.

Isaiah 7:14-16, "14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds of honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

As can be seen, Matthew not only ignored two verses of a three-verse prophecy, taking it out of context in the process, but he substituted words even in the part he pulled out. Matthew changed the indefinite article "a" in Isaiah to "the" in his own work, In addition Matthew changed who would name the child Immanuel from "she" [the mother] in Isaiah to "they" in his own work. Just this alone damages his credibility. But if one compares it to the better translated Tanakh, the differences become even more shocking.

Tanakh Isaiah 7:14-16, "14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey. 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned."

[DRMIZER]

The Tanakh properly translates "young woman" vs. the Christian Old Testament mistranslation of "virgin". The primary sources used to translate the scripture in question contains the Hebrew word used for a young woman, the Hebrew word for "virgin" is not used. If the primary sources intended "virgin" then it follows they would have used the word. Also, the two verses Matthew left out, and which Christians ignore, discredit the very idea that Jesus was God. For how could God need to learn how to choose good over evil! If Jesus was God, then it follows he would have always known the difference and not need to learn it as a child.

[Slipped Mickey]

That's a broad question Dr.Mize. The Bible is instructive and contains much good advice but I'm not inclinded to accept it as documented history. I would venture to say that more has been omitted from the Bible than has been included. Having said that IMHO it is not the words in the Bible that are important but rather their message.

[DRMIZER]

That's a broad question Dr.Mize. The Bible is instructive and contains much good advice but I'm not inclinded to accept it as documented history. I would venture to say that more has been omitted from the Bible than has been included. Having said that IMHO it is not the words in the Bible that are important but rather their message.Interesting point but is does not change the context of the thread or the facts presented by the writer of Matthew. I'm sure you are correct. Much more has been left out of the bible than in it. But, IMO the writer(s) of the book had a responsibility to record factual information which was not done and therefore lends itself open to questions and criticisms.

[ukangel]

Whose saying the Tanakh is a better translation? You seem to be saying this as its a accepted wisdom. What are sources for this article? What are your sources for the historical information? What do accepted New Testament scholars say about this?

As far as I was aware the Tanakh refers exclusively to the Jewish faith and as such wouldnt include the New Testament.

[Jen]

Interesting point but is does not change the context of the thread or the facts presented by the writer of Matthew. I'm sure you are correct. Much more has been left out of the bible than in it. But, IMO the writer(s) of the book had a responsibility to record factual information which was not done and therefore lends itself open to questions and criticisms.

Hiya Doc,

Very nteresting points you've made, and thank you for raising the topic. Personally, while I agree with Slipped Mickey that the Bible's lack of factual accuracy doesn't make it an irrelevant document, I also think the discrepancies you've pointed out (along with many others, and the finding of the Gnostic Gospels) allows and should push Christians to rethink their interpretations of Christianity, and allow the new findings to illuminate their experience and understanding of their faith.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran have openned up the eyes of many Christians to the reality that early Christianity contained many disparite sects with their own 'gospels' written at different times, with different purposes, and attributed to different apostles, Mary Magdelen, and even the archangel Michael. All these documents offerred their own interpretations of the Christ story, with their own variations on the central tale.

There are several wonderful books on these new texts written by Elaine Pagels. My favorite is "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas." In the book, Ms. Pagels tells the story of the formation of "the church" prior to Augustine and the 'Nicene Creed'. She talks about the different sects that existed, the in-fighting that went on between the various groups, and the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans and other peoples at the time. The solidification of our current 'four gospel' unit, came about largely due to the necessity of a common belief set in order that 'the faith' would survive the persecution. The adoption of the Gospel of John in that four gospel set, was crucial because it was the only one of the four that took as it's premise the specific belief that Jesus WAS God.

She argues that the other three gospels, which take a far more nuetral approach to that question, are made to appear far more accepting of that premise primarily due to their association with John. John also was the only one who reorganizes the chronology of Jesus' life. In the other three gospels (and many of the gnostic texts) the story of Jesus overthrowing the money lenders tables in the temple was his last public act prior to his arrest. In other words, his outburst at the temple was the final straw which led to his arrest. John's text puts that story at the beginning, and has Jesus' raising Lazerus from the dead as his last public act. This was done to persuade people that it was people's fear that Jesus WAS God, that led to his arrest, rather than the far more likely and more mortal action of disrupting the money changers.

All this is only one aspect of Ms. Pagel's book, which I highly reccommend. One of the things she discusses at the outset is the discrepancy many Christians feel between the very compelling elements of the Christ story, and the ones that seem almost antithetical to Christ's message (ie the one's that are exclusionary and require merely belief IN Christ, rather than belief in how he was trying to instruct mankind to live and commune with God....)

This all refers back to Matthew in the sense that it's very important, I think, to look at the history of each gospel, when it was written, and what it was trying to achieve at the time. Many theologians feel that Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the four, in the sense that Matthew was written in an attempt to further convert the Jewish population that Jesus was part of. For it's important to remember that Jesus was a Jew, he was called rabbi, and was in essence, at the time, preaching a 'new' Judaism, or in his eyes, a furtherance of his own Jewish faith. In order to convince the Jewish people that Jesus' teachings were valid, etc., it was deemed necessary (by at least the author of Matthew) for Christ's story to have the appearance of following directly from the old testament's predictions about the messiah (i.e. connection with David, born of the virgin, etc, etc)....

Lastly, I think it's also important to recognise that those earlier cultures were far more open to, and accepting of metaphorical representations than we are today. They were willing to recognize truth in things that weren't necessarily "bogged down" in fact. This is why the Biblical and most other documents written in that period were often far more metaphorically based than they were reality based-- leaving them quite out of sync with our current literalist views.

In any event, I raise all this, because I think that the work illustrates my personal belief that these documents are documents of faith, which must of necessity differ from 'historical' documents. The study of their history, to me is crucial to understanding what they were trying to achieve and why, and where the core 'spiritual' message lies within the context of the mortal fallibility of the authors. All these books, the Bible, the Nag Hamadi and Gnostic Gospels, the Koran, the I Ching and the Dhama Pada, are documents of faith... Their primary purpose is to further mankind's approach to spiritual questions, which are ultimately subjective and unanswerable, though very much worth seeking. :)


I think it's great you brought this topic up. It's a fascinating one for discussion. Hope this hasn't been too long. :) Thanks.

[Larani]

Well said Jen I think a :clap: is in order for your well thought out and articulate post.

Interesting to hear about that Book your mentioned I might have to check in out.

I agree all literature needs to be read in its proper context. ie Time of writing, intent of authors, etc.

For my part I tend to view the Bible or its contemporaries as early versions of self-help books, that we have today lining the shelfs.

The spiritual component the God's will part I think helps the mind summon that which the reader finds impossible or helps the mind solve what the reader finds as a unsolvable dilemma. Also I believe by inserting the God's will part is helps combat egotism, and pride thus allowing the reader greater ability to express humility same with the teachings of forgiveness.

[DRMIZER]

Thanks Jen and welcome! It's nice to see that this was your first post and it was this thread. I agree with your further "reasoning" behind my intent. As I believe you know, in many instances, interjecting ideas into long held beliefs is sometimes received the same as altering history. But it isn't. WELCOME!

[2ruballa]

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

[cpwill]

Isaiah 7:14-16, "14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds of honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."


this strikes me as an excelent description of Jesus, particularly the repetitive reference to being able to refuse evil and choose good. the last prophecy is particularly poignant.

The Tanakh properly translates "young woman" vs. the Christian Old Testament mistranslation of "virgin".

that's correct, however, you may wish to take a look at when that translation was done, and whether or not the original hebrew word contained hints of both; for example, the english word "maiden" can refer both to a young girl and a virgin, or a person who is both.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran have openned up the eyes of many Christians to the reality that early Christianity contained many disparite sects with their own 'gospels' written at different times,

:confused: eh? the qumran texts from the essene community were translations of Old Testament Documents; they had little to nothing whatsoever to do with christianity. if you wish to take them to prove that there were many different sects within judaism at the time that's a given; however, they do not speak about the differences or lack thereof within christianity.

with different purposes, and attributed to different apostles, Mary Magdelen,

oh goodness, don't tell me i'm going to have to disprove the whole "davinci code" style conspiracy again;). redheat was so irritated last time.

the rest of the post i don't really have much of a problem with, except to point out that the earliest christian documents (the letters of paul) seem to include the message of Christs' divinity, and therefore it's rather unusual to claim that this was not yet a belief within the early christian community.

[Slipped Mickey]

Double post. Sorry.

[Slipped Mickey]

Hiya Doc,

Very nteresting points you've made, and thank you for raising the topic. Personally, while I agree with Slipped Mickey that the Bible's lack of factual accuracy doesn't make it an irrelevant document, I also think the discrepancies you've pointed out (along with many others, and the finding of the Gnostic Gospels) allows and should push Christians to rethink their interpretations of Christianity, and allow the new findings to illuminate their experience and understanding of their faith.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran have openned up the eyes of many Christians to the reality that early Christianity contained many disparite sects with their own 'gospels' written at different times, with different purposes, and attributed to different apostles, Mary Magdelen, and even the archangel Michael. All these documents offerred their own interpretations of the Christ story, with their own variations on the central tale.

There are several wonderful books on these new texts written by Elaine Pagels. My favorite is "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas." In the book, Ms. Pagels tells the story of the formation of "the church" prior to Augustine and the 'Nicene Creed'. She talks about the different sects that existed, the in-fighting that went on between the various groups, and the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans and other peoples at the time. The solidification of our current 'four gospel' unit, came about largely due to the necessity of a common belief set in order that 'the faith' would survive the persecution. The adoption of the Gospel of John in that four gospel set, was crucial because it was the only one of the four that took as it's premise the specific belief that Jesus WAS God.

She argues that the other three gospels, which take a far more nuetral approach to that question, are made to appear far more accepting of that premise primarily due to their association with John. John also was the only one who reorganizes the chronology of Jesus' life. In the other three gospels (and many of the gnostic texts) the story of Jesus overthrowing the money lenders tables in the temple was his last public act prior to his arrest. In other words, his outburst at the temple was the final straw which led to his arrest. John's text puts that story at the beginning, and has Jesus' raising Lazerus from the dead as his last public act. This was done to persuade people that it was people's fear that Jesus WAS God, that led to his arrest, rather than the far more likely and more mortal action of disrupting the money changers.

All this is only one aspect of Ms. Pagel's book, which I highly reccommend. One of the things she discusses at the outset is the discrepancy many Christians feel between the very compelling elements of the Christ story, and the ones that seem almost antithetical to Christ's message (ie the one's that are exclusionary and require merely belief IN Christ, rather than belief in how he was trying to instruct mankind to live and commune with God....)

This all refers back to Matthew in the sense that it's very important, I think, to look at the history of each gospel, when it was written, and what it was trying to achieve at the time. Many theologians feel that Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the four, in the sense that Matthew was written in an attempt to further convert the Jewish population that Jesus was part of. For it's important to remember that Jesus was a Jew, he was called rabbi, and was in essence, at the time, preaching a 'new' Judaism, or in his eyes, a furtherance of his own Jewish faith. In order to convince the Jewish people that Jesus' teachings were valid, etc., it was deemed necessary (by at least the author of Matthew) for Christ's story to have the appearance of following directly from the old testament's predictions about the messiah (i.e. connection with David, born of the virgin, etc, etc)....

Lastly, I think it's also important to recognise that those earlier cultures were far more open to, and accepting of metaphorical representations than we are today. They were willing to recognize truth in things that weren't necessarily "bogged down" in fact. This is why the Biblical and most other documents written in that period were often far more metaphorically based than they were reality based-- leaving them quite out of sync with our current literalist views.

In any event, I raise all this, because I think that the work illustrates my personal belief that these documents are documents of faith, which must of necessity differ from 'historical' documents. The study of their history, to me is crucial to understanding what they were trying to achieve and why, and where the core 'spiritual' message lies within the context of the mortal fallibility of the authors. All these books, the Bible, the Nag Hamadi and Gnostic Gospels, the Koran, the I Ching and the Dhama Pada, are documents of faith... Their primary purpose is to further mankind's approach to spiritual questions, which are ultimately subjective and unanswerable, though very much worth seeking. :)


I think it's great you brought this topic up. It's a fascinating one for discussion. Hope this hasn't been too long. :) Thanks.
Outstanding! Wow! I sincerely hope you will stay with us here for a while. I'd enjoy more of your insight. Tomorrow I am going to get Pagel's book. If she is half as eloquent as you I know I'll enjoy reading it.


Their primary purpose is to further mankind's approach to spiritual questions, which are ultimately subjective and unanswerable, though very much worth seeking.

Many paths, one destination. I like how you think. I am only concerned that each person discovers his or her own path. I do not care which one they chose.

[MikeD4o7]

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.


The problem with this "reutation" of the discrepency is that Mary is mentioned nowhere near that verse in the Bible, if it really was meant to describe the genealogy through Mary, you'd think that Luke would indicate it. Luke does not start with Mary, nor does he even mention Mary anywhere in that entire chapter. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the phrase "Jesus was the son, as was supposed of, Joseph" is an indication to Mary... it's blatantly obvious that the "as was supposed of" is reminding the reader of Jesus' virgin birth and that Joseph is not his biological father. The only reason apologists say that Luke is talking about Mary's descendents is because it's the only way it fits... but there's certainly nothing in Luke that would make the reader believe that.

[cpwill]

Outstanding! Wow! I sincerely hope you will stay with us here for a while. I'd enjoy more of your insight. Tomorrow I am going to get Pagel's book. If she is half as eloquent as you I know I'll enjoy reading it.

just make sure you do some of your own research and check her with acredited and recognized authorities in the field of biblical history:)
Luke Thomas is probably one of the best currently living; i'd recomend that you start with him...

Many paths, one destination. I like how you think. I am only concerned that each person discovers his or her own path. I do not care which one they chose.

and if my path is via blowing up abortion clinics or world trade centers?

[MikeD4o7]

oh goodness, don't tell me i'm going to have to disprove the whole "davinci code" style conspiracy again. redheat was so irritated last time.

the rest of the post i don't really have much of a problem with, except to point out that the earliest christian documents (the letters of paul) seem to include the message of Christs' divinity, and therefore it's rather unusual to claim that this was not yet a belief within the early christian community.


I believe Jen was pointing to one of the Gnostic gospels... not to anything directly related to what's described in the Da Vinci code. The gnostic gospels do indicate that there were discrepancies in thought among various early christians. I'm not giving any credibility to the gnostic gospels per say... but they do at least prove that there was not only one accepted tradition regarding Jesus.

[cpwill]

it was the mention of the "gospel of mary magdalene" that set me in the direction.

although, i suppse the focus in on the GThom (which is a bit anti-woman) should have clued me in that that's not the case.

and it depends on what you mean by "early"; the Gnostic movement didn't really get started until the 2nd Century. and they were never the accepted tradition within the church, as the writings of bishop ignatius, the marconian cannon, etc. show.

[MikeD4o7]

just make sure you do some of your own research and check her with acredited and recognized authorities in the field of biblical history
Luke Thomas is probably one of the best currently living; i'd recomend that you start with him...


I'd recommend that everyone read at least some of the actual documents that are being analyzed instead of just the analyzations themselves. This site, www.earlychristianwritings.com has usually several translations of all of the early christian documents we have in our possesion. Unfortunately when you read modern scholarship on this subject, it's virtually impossible to find an unbiased observer. Everyone who goes into studying the NT does it for basically one of two reasons; to disprove it, or to prove it... pretty much everyone goes in either looking to build a case around their belief, or to discredit that belief. If I were to write a book, I'm sure I'd fall into the same trap. Just read all modern apologists and critics with a very healthy dose of skepticism if you haven't read the actual sources they're commenting on.

This wasn't specifically aimed at anyone, I just know from personal experience that there were arguments used by certain Bible critics that I used to take for granted as truth... but when I read some of the actual sources for myself, some of the arguments were really stretching it, and others just completely absurd.

[cpwill]

trudat; however, also remember to look at the dates for those documents when you read them, and to what extent they are accepted as realistically what they claim to be.

[MikeD4o7]

trudat; however, also remember to look at the dates for those documents when you read them, and to what extent they are accepted as realistically what they claim to be.


Very true, and in dating many of the documents themselves I do usually have to look to what scholars say (I'm not knowledgeable enough about the history, customs, writings styles, etc etc to be able to date a document just by reading it). I try to keep my mind open about dating when it's uncertain and just take it as a range.

and it depends on what you mean by "early"; the Gnostic movement didn't really get started until the 2nd Century. and they were never the accepted tradition within the church, as the writings of bishop ignatius, the marconian cannon, etc. show.


From what I've read, several gnostic texts could possibly have been written in the first century (or up to almost 100 years after that)... but either way I agree that I don't think it can be succesfully argued that the gnostic texts precede the traditional ones.

[cpwill]

eh, i've never seen anything by anybody who wasn't trying to claim gnosticism as the "original" movement date gnostic documents or it as a movement at anything below the 100AD mark... however, you could certainly trace proto-beginnings of this movement perhaps as much as the 80's 90's (although this would not count yet as gnosticism, but rather a gnostic-y thread within the conventional church)

[MikeD4o7]

eh, i've never seen anything by anybody who wasn't trying to claim gnosticism as the "original" movement date gnostic documents or it as a movement at anything below the 100AD mark... however, you could certainly trace proto-beginnings of this movement perhaps as much as the 80's 90's (although this would not count yet as gnosticism, but rather a gnostic-y thread within the conventional church)


I think it depends on whether or not you classify the Gospel of Thomas as gnostic or not. All I can gather from reading what has been written on dating the Gospel of Thomas is that anywhere in a very wide range is very plausible.


"Determining a plausible date of composition is speculative and depends on a delicate weighing of critical judgments about the history of the transmission of the sayings-of-Jesus tradition and the process of the formation of the written gospel texts. The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings collections such as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be toward the end of the 2d century, prior to the copying of P. Oxy. 1 and the first reference to the text by Hippolytus. If Gos. Thom. is a sayings collection based on an autonomous tradition, and not a gospel harmony conflated from the NT, then a date of composition in, say, the last decades of the 1st century would be more likely than a mid-to-late-2d-century date." (p. 536)

"While the cumulative nature of the sayings collection understandably makes the Gospel of Thomas difficult to date with precision, several factors weigh in favor of a date well before the end of the first century: the way in which Thomas appeals to the authority of particular prominent figures (Thomas, James) against the competing claims of others (Peter, Matthew); in genre, the sayings collection, which seems to have declined in importance after the emergence of the more biographical and dialogical forms near the end of the first century; and its primitive christology, which seems to presuppose a theological climate even more primitive than the later stages of the synoptic sayings gospel, Q. Together these factors suggest a date for Thomas in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E. As for its provenance, while it is possible, even likely, that an early version of this collection associated with James circulated in the environs of Jerusalem, the Gospel of Thomas in more or less its present state comes from eastern Syria, where the popularity of the apostle Thomas (Judas Didymos Thomas) is well attested. " (p. 120)

Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus

[Jen]

Thanks Doc, Mickey,and Larani for your kind words. Truly appreciated after a first posting. I think this topic is so fascinating and so relevant, and it's an honor to find some like minds to chat with. Slipped Mickey, let me know what you think of the book! :) I think she's marvellous.

As to her education and 'authority,' Elaine Pagels recieved her bachelors and Master's degrees from Stanford and her doctorate in the study of religion from Harvard. She has taught at Barnard College and Columbia University, and is currently teaching at Princeton.

Mike D, thanks too for your information on the dating of Thomas, etc. Fascinating. And I agree, a look at the original documents is also a good idea whenever possible. Though in truth reading the "originals" is ultimately impossible unless one is familiar with translating Aramaic, ancient Hebrew, Coptic and the like. Finding a reputable translation is always a relatively subjective venture. :) One excellent translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls was done by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook in 1996, published by Harper Collins.

[Jen]

One more addition and correction. :) The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, as CP correctly pointed out, were Old Testament writings-- the ones I was thinking of were the thirteen codices found at Nag Hamadi in 1946, which included several gnostic texts and the only known 'complete' copy of the Gospel of Thomas. The texts were written in Coptic, but thought to have been translated from the Greek.

[mahayana]

"Everyone who goes into studying the NT does it for basically one of two reasons; to disprove it, or to prove it... pretty much everyone goes in either looking to build a case around their belief, or to discredit that belief. If I were to write a book, I'm sure I'd fall into the same trap. Just read all modern apologists and critics with a very healthy dose of skepticism if you haven't read the actual sources they're commenting on." Mike

I like the modern Paul Simon (interesting name, don't you think) take on this:

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." The Boxer

[Slipped Mickey]

just make sure you do some of your own research and check her with acredited and recognized authorities in the field of biblical history:)
Luke Thomas is probably one of the best currently living; i'd recomend that you start with him...



and if my path is via blowing up abortion clinics or world trade centers?
cp - I don't wish to divert the thread and this may be a good topic for another thread but I don't see people who blow up abortion clinics or WTCs in the name of God as religious. They are fanatics, fundamentalists whose claim connection to major religions. In practice these cults have more in common with each other than the faiths they claim to defend.

[Slipped Mickey]

"Everyone who goes into studying the NT does it for basically one of two reasons; to disprove it, or to prove it... pretty much everyone goes in either looking to build a case around their belief, or to discredit that belief. If I were to write a book, I'm sure I'd fall into the same trap. Just read all modern apologists and critics with a very healthy dose of skepticism if you haven't read the actual sources they're commenting on." Mike

I like the modern Paul Simon (interesting name, don't you think) take on this:

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." The Boxer
You are correct to point that out. I wonder how many people have changed their opinions either way after studying the NT. I like the Zen approach to placing too much importance into religious texts, "If you see the Buddha on the path, kill him."

[cpwill]

I think it depends on whether or not you classify the Gospel of Thomas as gnostic or not. All I can gather from reading what has been written on dating the Gospel of Thomas is that anywhere in a very wide range is very plausible.

and as you said, the problem becomes motivation. the motivation of the author you quoted seems to be to legitimize the Gospel of Thomas; here, is the other viewpoint, albiet not from an authoritative source.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_01_02.html

This work is intended as a supplement to Glenn Miller's research on the Gospel of Thomas (hereafter, GThom). The reader should first consult Miller's work for coverage of these topics not addressed here:

The story of the discovery of GThom;
An overview of its contents;
The dating of the available mss. of GThom. For reference, however, note that:
1) The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to the late fourth century.

2) Literary allusions to GThom are found in third-century documents.

3) Greek fragments of GThom are datable to the second century.

4) The bulk of scholarship dates GThom to circa 140 AD.

Our focus will be upon common arguments used to date GThom earlier than is usually assumed, pursuing arguments presented in a variety of relevant sources with a "pro-GThom" stance. Let it be understood, though, that the primary arguments are NOT for the ENTIRETY of GThom, especially GThom in its present form, being dated early - rather, it is usually argued that only PARTS of GThom may be traced back to an early date. There are a few hardy souls who opt for a "most/all of Thomas is early" view, and we will consider their point of view in turn. However, the main view we shall consider is that held by Helmut Koester and his students, among them, Ron Cameron (as expressed in Camer.FECy) and Stephen Patterson (Patt.JGThom).

Insofar as it touches on the matter of an early date, we will also be addressing matters of dependency. (In general, with the "early date" assertion [whether in whole or in part] comes the assumption that GThom is independent of or autonomous of, rather than dependent on, the canonical Gospels.) ....(snip)



etc....

cp - I don't wish to divert the thread and this may be a good topic for another thread but I don't see people who blow up abortion clinics or WTCs in the name of God as religious. They are fanatics, fundamentalists whose claim connection to major religions. In practice these cults have more in common with each other than the faiths they claim to defend.

however, here we definitely have people who are claiming (and truly believing) that "their path" involves these actions; so are you willing to now say that all paths' don't lead to the same destination, that there are limitations at which point your path is not leading to that destination. if so, what are these limits?

[mahayana]

I like the Zen approach to placing too much importance into religious texts, "If you see the Buddha on the path, kill him." Slipped Mickey

I have seen that book, it's about how being "religious" can distract you from being in touch with the here and now. Be kind, be concerned, be helpful.

One difficult teaching goes:
"Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinions."

[Redheat]

Great post! & Welcome Jen- I didn't quote it since others all ready have.

I will admit that for the most part this is a bit out of my realm. I've been slowly studying the subject from a different angle. That is reading books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and most recently the follow up book "The Messianic Legacy". I look forward to reading "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas."

Although I cannot address on the plane of many in here who clearly have a far more insightful look into the subject. I can say that I agree with those who state that the bible is a work of "faith" it cannot be looked upon as a hisotorical narration of events. Striving to find faith for one's personal journey is part of our humanity. Where I feel some get bogged down is the idea that their "faith" is truth/fact when it is not.

[crawfish]

Good thread.

The purpose of those genealogies, of course, was to give credence to Jesus' claim to be the messiah to the Jewish people. Many years ago, I studied this from the Jewish perspective, and was amazed at the complexity and importance of genealogy for the Jews. It's not as simple as connecting the dots from father to father to father to father. Both Mary's and Joseph's lineages are important to his claim of messiah, and so both are used in the Gospels (the use of each is indicitive of the purpose of each gospel - Matthew is about "Jesus, the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy", and thus uses the lineage from Joseph, while Luke is about "Jesus, the man" and uses Mary's to demonstrate his Jewishness (to be a Jew one's mother must be Jewish).

It was a fascinating study. I encourage anybody who's interested (or concerned) to take a look at it. There are plenty of detractors; but the fact is, in Jesus' time there were thousands of Jews who accepted his lineage, including many in the priesthood.