I had forgotten how far Matthew focuses on Jesus' ministry, the biography being little more than a sequence of anecdotes of his adult career leading up to a brief narrative of his trial, death, and resurrection.
The story is full of miracles, mostly of healing but there are a few exorcisms (and much talk of demons) and the story of the loaves and fishes, lots of parables, but also other teachings - famously, the sermon on the mount - and gnomic sayings.
The parables of the Kingdom to be consummated with the end times that Jesus repeatedly says, in this gospel, some of his auditors will personally live to see, are often perverse.
Only when asked to perform miracles does Jesus reward sheer faith.
He does not do so in the parables of the Kingdom, which emphasize works and personal desert.
Duplicate anecdotes and conflicting theological points hint at multiple strands in the text, even to the unstudied, casual reader.
Wikipedia reports a point I noticed that seemed especially interesting.
According to Dale Allison, Matthew, unlike Paul and like Luke, believed that the Law was still in force, which meant that Jews within the church had to keep it.[58]
Wikipedia reports a point I noticed that seemed especially interesting.
According to Dale Allison, Matthew, unlike Paul and like Luke, believed that the Law was still in force, which meant that Jews within the church had to keep it.[58]
And there is plenty to lend plausibility to something like the original hypothesis concerning the messianic secret.
Wikipedia has several very interesting and informative articles on the gospels and other contents of the New Testament, which I first read in its entirety in a one semester course taught by a Protestant scholar at Holy Cross College, during my undergrad years there.
For that and for a mad-paced, two semester course on the OT taught by a Jesuit, we used a hardcover edition of the RSV of the OAB.
The entire OT plus secondary reading adds up to a huge burden for a single two semester course, especially given at the time the required load was five three-hour courses a semester.
Anyway, since then I have gone through the whole Bible twice more, once using the Access Bible (a newer and more popular, leather bound version of the RSV) and once using a pocket, red-letter NIV.
This time I'm using the Access Bible, again, and a compact edition of the NAB for convenience.
Trifocals and arthritis in the hands are a deadly combination for reading anything as big and heavy as the Access Bible.
It's a bit over-annotated and the extensive commentary is often too written-down, anyway.
Reading the New Testament.
Bud Light, by the way, though certainly drinkable, seems inferior to Coors, in turn inferior to Miller Lite.
Don't even consider IC Light.
Wikipedia has several very interesting and informative articles on the gospels and other contents of the New Testament, which I first read in its entirety in a one semester course taught by a Protestant scholar at Holy Cross College, during my undergrad years there.
For that and for a mad-paced, two semester course on the OT taught by a Jesuit, we used a hardcover edition of the RSV of the OAB.
The entire OT plus secondary reading adds up to a huge burden for a single two semester course, especially given at the time the required load was five three-hour courses a semester.
Anyway, since then I have gone through the whole Bible twice more, once using the Access Bible (a newer and more popular, leather bound version of the RSV) and once using a pocket, red-letter NIV.
This time I'm using the Access Bible, again, and a compact edition of the NAB for convenience.
Trifocals and arthritis in the hands are a deadly combination for reading anything as big and heavy as the Access Bible.
It's a bit over-annotated and the extensive commentary is often too written-down, anyway.
Reading the New Testament.
Bud Light, by the way, though certainly drinkable, seems inferior to Coors, in turn inferior to Miller Lite.
Don't even consider IC Light.
No comments:
Post a Comment