Gospel of Matthew, Satire?

Are there any biblical scholars who've commented on this before?

Either way, Ruth had a previous husband and would not have been a virgin by the time she gave birth to Jesus' ancestor.

>What do you guys think of the theory that the Gospel of Matthew was a Jewish satire that gentile Christians unwittingly took seriously?

It's a sardonic mockery of as well as an attempt to correct Jewish "theology" by a divine King or someone very close to a divine King.

Read this passage in a sardonic tone.

youtube.com/watch?v=4jhy3Ie0Oc0

So? Judaism has never, to my knowledge, had any objection towards marrying a widow, or even a divorced woman. (With a few technical exceptions for people in the hereditary clergy, which Jesus wasn't part of anyway)

A. No women are mentioned in the bible by accident, as women were not recorded historically, are not competent witnesses, and are generally background noise. That Jesus has prostitutes in his lineage speaks the same as Jesus having prostitutes as friends. He did not come to heal the healthy, but the sick.

B. An angel told Joseph and Mary to flee to Egypt prior to Herod killing all the male children under 2 years old. When Herod died, the angel told them it was safe to return. Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, was called out of Egypt.

C. The OT speaks of a branch coming out of the house of David, branch being nazar, Jesus being the branch. Nazarene. i.e., a white trash Russian garrison, not the birthplace of kings.

D. Jesus appeared the day Daniel said the Messiah would appear, and was cut off the week Daniel said the Messiah would be cut off. Jesus was rejected by the people and murdered. Then he rose from the dead. As all fools, you cannot understand that Kingdom Age prophecies require the Kingdom Age to be here, and as yet, it is not. It is at least 7 years in our future.

Do try to learn something today; your ignorance is just willful and astonishingly massive.

If you were going to be picked up by soldiers and executed as a Christian literally any day, that's not really a good time to plan to start a family, now, is it.

No. Matthew was a Levite, and wrote his gospel in pidgin Hebrew as he was an outcast tax collector, a traitor to the Jewish people. He would have been barred from any synagogue and not allowed into the Temple.

And yet he wrote his gospel in Hebrew, to the Hebrews, to demonstrate that the very Hebrew Yehoshua, Yeshua, Jesus, was in fact the King of the Jews. Hence the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph back to King David.

Joseph and Jesus had a right to sit on the throne of Israel, but Joseph was a descendant of Jeconiah, and therefore cursed and disqualified, while Jesus, not being the biological son of Joseph, was not.

You don't have to be a scholar to see through bullshit.

>Also it's ambiguous whether Ruth and Boaz actually had premarital sex.

Only in your perverted eyes.

His point was that there is no meaning behind whether Ruth had sex with Boaz. Ruth had sex with Naomi's son, whom she had married, and who died.

it its with the theme of jesuses female ancestors being used goods

Bullshit. It shows them all as strong characters who displayed faith in God.

Tamar shamed Judah, who had falsely not given his son to her as a husband.

Rahab hid the spies, arranged for their escape from Jericho, and was thus spared. In the ruins of the walls of Jericho, that fall outward, one corner remained intact. That corner was where Rahab lived.

Mary agreed to bear the Messiah, not knowing what that would do to her life. It instantly made her a marked person, scorned, derided, and the target of assassination by a king.

Ruth said perhaps one of the most brave and endearing passages in the bible to her bereaved mother-in-law, who had lost all three sons and was doomed to die a peasant:
Ruth 1:16
ut Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God.

Bathsheba became the Queen of Israel, sired Solomon, the wisest man ever born, and is responsible for both the kingly line of David through Solomon, and the priestly line of David through Nathan.

None of you people are fit to tie any of those women's sandals.

>Russian
*Roman

I'm not aware of any scholars that have. But some have commented on Matthew's peculiar choice of women.

Morton Smith theorized that it might have been an attempt to excuse Mary's promiscuity, rather than shame her.

(Also noting that the fact that the townspeople referring to him as Mary's son rather than Joseph's son showed he had unclear parentage)

Mary's promiscuity? You absolute fool.

She would not have been betrothed had she not been a virgin. She would have had to prove she was a virgin a year later on their wedding night. Nobody would have taken her as a wife if she were not a virgin. And the bible clearly states that their marriage was not consummated until after Jesus was born.

You absolute fool.

White trash gossip that continues to this day. In this thread.

There is no evidence it was written in Hebrew. it was written in Greek

My buddy has a copy of it in Hebrew, the original language, as lamented by Papias who had to translate it from Hebrew into Greek, noting that they did the best they could with what they had.

That's called eyewitness testimony, and the document actually speaking for itself.

Modern scholars doubt the Papias quote and are fairly confident the document was not translated from Hebrew or Aramaic.

I don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks, and neither should any other sane person.

Jonah is considered by many scholars to be be satire so maybe.

...

Ehrman, who I didnt get this from, is not some lone loon. Most historians agree with him on the broad strokes. He is within the mainstream.

Why someone would choose religious tradition over modern scholarship still baffles me.

er I don't think it's just one guy who proposes that...

kek

You got it from Ehrman, who is a lone loon.

...

go through the citations yourself

You have an underlying assumption that is a problem. You think "scholars" can tell you what the bible really means.

If those "scholars" are not born again Christians filled with the Holy Spirit of God, they literally cannot tell you what the bible really means because they have no way of knowing themselves.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It doesn't say "unless he has a few Ph.D.'s to his name". It's any natural man.

The bible cannot be studied like Moby Dick and be understood by the lost children of the devil. It just cannot be, by its very nature.

It is for the family of God, and us alone, to help enlarge the family of God.

I don't need to.

Matthew 12:39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

-Jesus of Nazareth

(That sign being three days dead in the belly of the beast, and then raised from the dead on the third day. Which, of course, both Jonah and Jesus were.)

You: Bart Ehman and wiki

Me: Jesus Christ and the bible

1st paragraph: oldest cite is 2003

2nd paragraph: all cites 2003

3rd paragraph: all cites 2000

3rd paragraph: foolish assumption that Jonah survived for three days and nights in a fish. He did not. He died and was raised from the dead, as Jesus would die and be raised from the dead.

Your "scholars" are 21st century antitheists.

If you dont take historical scholarship seriously you dont belong on Veeky Forums

Actually it was because he, like Jesus thought the world was about to end

no it's because Joseph died

And they suddenly forgot he existed?

Only a fucking yidd would post something like this.

Basically this, best post in thread

>my wife's son is over 2000 years old
Truly there is nothing new under the sun

>in semitic usage
lmao

This may come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was Jewish and the New Testament takes place in Israel

Got a problem ya pussy?

Bump

the real joke is that he'd rather people didn't get married, but said it was fine to get married anyway. it was a shitpost

look into his warning about the times of trouble
"if you are on the roof, don't go into the house, if you are in the fields don't return to collect your things"
he's talking about two things at once, the fall of Jerusalem during a Roman invasion and the end of times
"woe to those who are pregnant or carrying young children"
There was a time pretty soon after the final books of the bible where the city of Jerusalem fell. it was pretty brutal also

I thought the Gospel of Matthew was a (revised and re-edited) version of a gospel used by a Jewish Christian sect that kept the law and rituals.