About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Quote by Holding
"Most scholars consider this passage as genuine once certain Interpolations are removed".
He then goes on to attempt to make his point by dissecting the difference between an Interpolation and a Forgery. He then frames this passage as a minor Interpolation by only removing one or two words/terms and not entire phrases.Now although most scholars do consider this passage as an interpolation there is ongoing debate as to whether or not it is a forgery. In my humble opinion if you look at the phrases in question:
if indeed one ought to call him a man
He was the Messiah
On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him
(I need to point out that at this point in time it is very difficult to where an Interpolation in this text begins and ends. I am in no way trying to frame this argument in my favor but instead to allow the reader to decide for himself if this passage can be trusted at all)
One is left to wonder if this passage should be accepted in any amount or form. Also, when a reader looks at the phrases in question then the only conclusion an unbiased person can come to is to call this "Interpolation" what it is: A FORGERY. This passage was doctored with the intent to deceive. J.P Holding then frames his argument and this video with an intent to deceive by proclaiming himself as the one who can sit in judgment here and call this "Interpolation" as minor and not an effort to deceive. This is nothing but biased Christian wordplay and it should make any and every person looking for facts and truth sick to their stomach.
The case against Josephus (in Basic)
1.Josephus writes extensively about important events before and after the alleged life of Jesus and he writes about not so important events and details during this time. He covers some myths/legends like the Flood story and the alleged Ark of Noah and he also writes about verifiable events from history like the siege of Jerusalem. While Christians are grasping at straws to use Josephus to prove the existence of their Messiah they are tripping over roadblocks that seem to prove the gospel story as myth. Here is one example:
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.(Matt 27: 51-53)
To make my point as simply as possible: why is this event NOT mentioned by Josephus? Why is this event not mentioned by ANY FIRST CENTURY HISTORIAN? If someone wanted to use prove the reliability of the gospels they would need to come up with a lot more then what they currently have. I want to see some documentation from a first century historian that verifies this claim that at the death of Jesus the earth shook and dead people started popping out of their graves and came back to life. Not only do we NOT have this verified by anyone who lived and wrote during that time but you don't even have it discussed much by scholars outside of closed circles. So in short; we have Josephus ( a Pharisee) calling Jesus the Messiah (which a Pharisee would never have done), writes that Jesus won over many Jews and Gentiles (but never mentions even one of them) and then goes straight to he rose 3 days later and never mentions the Zombies coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem.
2.Early Christian writers like Origen and Justin Martyr never mention this passage even though they are familiar with the work of Josephus. In fact, since both of these men worked to establish Christianity in Rome and were involved in debates regarding whether or not Christianity was based on rumors or fact it would have behooved them to mention this text from Josephus as evidence for a historical Jesus as mentioned in the gospels: THEY DID NOT!
3.Eusebius (about 324 CE) is the first person to ever mention thispassage and ironically enough it is in its complete form. He quotes it verbatim as the same text we have today. So it is reasonable to assume that this passage didn't exist prior to 324 CE.
VERDICT----- FORGERY!
Conclusion
Nothing frustrates me more then guys like J.P Holding (the guy in the video) framing an argument to make skeptics look unreasonable and silly for disputing their proposed "evidences". Either Mr. Holding isn't aware of the case against Josephus' reliability or he is intentionally being deceptive in order to sell books, videos or internet adds. I find this despicable. I have read this passage many times and even while I was a Christian I doubted it's authenticity. I have been a skeptic of the proposed Josephus evidence for most of my adult life and I challenge all of you who care one way or the other to read it for yourself and decide. If one looks at the whole picture here one must lean toward the conclusion that this passage is a forgery.
ATTN CHRISTIANS
Current mood: Heading to work!!
Category: Heading to work!! Religion and Philosophy
ATTN CHRISTIANS!
Stop sending me this crap unless you want me to continue exposing all of your "facts" as lies and half-truths.
New Video- Same Old Lies.
Part I
Please watch the first 2 minutes.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Setting the record straight
The Peter Jennings quote
It is true that a majority of historians believe in a literal Jesus who lived in Palestine during the 1st century CE. I will not argue that but I do want to point out that this quote by Peter Jennings was cut and inserted here in order to imply something that is rather deceptive: A literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible really existed. Is this a fact? No, it is not. Historians who believe or accept the belief in a literal Jesus can be sub-divided into many category's. Some believe that he must have existed because of the number of followers a century later; some believe he might have existed because it was such a common name and to say that "Jesus" didn't exist is wordplay; some believe that a Hebrew teacher named Jesus existed but he wasn't as described in the Bible; etc and etc. The point here is this: with the lack of solid facts regarding a literal Jesus any belief system that can be argued with conviction will develop a following. In other words, if someone can sound like they know what they are talking about they will develop a following. I don't have a problem with this until facts are twisted to make points that are incorrect. That is what is happening here. Let me show you.
Peter Jennings: "…. All but the most skeptical historians believed that Jesus was a real person. Even though when you come here you do not find any physical evidence."
Voice over guy: "It's good that Jennings admits that Jesus was a real person."
Hold on a minute!
Is that what he said?
Did Peter Jennings say "I investigated this and discovered that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person"?
NO!
What he said was in essence was that most historians believe in a literal Jesus on some level even though there is no physical evidence.
Fact 1:
Peter Jennings is a reporter and not a historian.
Fact 2:
There is no physical evidence for a literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible.
Fact 3:
Most historians still accept the idea that he existed on some level.
Fact 4:
Without physical evidence all we can do is look at bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence and speculate our conclusion.
Now most Christians believe that they have a personal relationship with this Jesus and for them that is the only piece of circumstantial evidence that they need. For the rest of us, we want more then a hunch or feeling or Goosebumps on our arms while someone is "Beautiful Savior" on Sunday morning. We want to know if what we are being told in church, Sunday School, BibleSchool and Seminary is true! I have read, studied and searched for answers on these issues for more then 15 years and I personally no longer believe in a literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible. I can not be considered a historian and can not be considered a Bible Scholar but I am somewhere in between the two. I am not just a man with a baseless opinion. I know what I am talking about and if you listen and look for facts you will see that I am in no way trying to mislead you.
Back to the video
Voice over guy: "The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the 1st Century is overwhelming."
Overwhelming???
Are you sure???
What is this overwhelming evidence?
He then goes on to make the bold assertion that "Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians".He then goes on to mention Tactius, Pliny the Younger and Josephus as his "overwhelming evidence" that the Jesus of the Bible was a historical figure. Lets look at this and decide for ourselves whether or not these men and their writings can be considered "overwhelming evidence" for a literal Jesus.
What can be considered overwhelming?
Is first person testimony overwhelming to you? If I told you that I saw a UFO last night would you believe that UFO's are real because of my testimony? Probably not, although my testimony may cause you to rethink your view on UFO's you will not change your view solely based on my testimony. I guess what I am trying to say is this: first hand testimony is good but on it's own is not enough to prove anything. Study after study has shown that first hand testimony is unreliable and can't be trusted in and of itself.
Is physical evidence overwhelming?
In most cases, Yes it is. If I told you that ancient Egyptians built pyramids you may or not believe me based on my word but you would be forced to accept the evidence of a pyramid still standing in the valley of the kings. Both my testimony of the pyramid and the pyramid itself can be considered evidence yet only the pyramid still standing can be considered "overwhelming".
Remember: during the Salem Witch trials over 150 people were convicted of witchcraft and 20 of those put to death based solely on the testimony of 2 girls. There was no physical evidence of witchcraft only circumstantial evidence like testimony and innuendos.
That being said lets look at the historians mentioned.
Tacitus: In Annuals (cc. 116 CE) Tacitus writes about the fire of Rome in 64CE and Nero's persecution of the Christians. That is the extent of any evidence he brings to the table regarding a literal Jesus. If you look at Tacitus the first thing you will notice is that he was born in 56 CE and wrote about issuesthat took place prior to his birth. Annuals covers the reign of Augustus to the time of Claudius but should be noted that several of his writings are missing. Now if Tacitus choronicaled the life of Jesus during the life of Jesus, that would be good evidence but he didn't. Christians believe that Jesus died in 29 CE and Tacitus was not yet born. In fact, since Annuals was written in 116 CE and Jesus supposedly died in 29 CE one would have to conclude that any evidence that Tacitus brings to the table is weak at best. All this passage proves to us is that by the time of his writing (116 CE) people in Rome believed that Nero blamed the Christians for the Fire in Rome roughly 50 years prior. This is by no means overwhelming evidence for a literal Jesus. In fact, I have to point out that since NO EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITER quotes Tacitus on this passage one would have to look at the possibility that this passage was forged later by Christian writers in attempt to put evidence where it does not exist.
Pliny the Younger: He was a friend of Tacitus and also born at least 30 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Pliny the Younger was a lawyer and in his writings to the Emperor Trajan he discusses the fact that he has never been to a trial of a Christian but goes on to attempt to speak on their behalf to prevent further executions based on belief. Again this is not "overwhelming evidence" that a literal Jesus ever existed but only that roughly 70-80 years after the alleged death of Jesus there were people who believed in him (to some degree or another). We will look at the different belief systems that existed during the first, second and third century CE at another time but for now we can not draw false conclusions about the existence of a literal Jesus based on a second century definition of what a Christian was nor can we say that a literal Jesus must have existed because we have a second century writing that uses the term "Christian" in it. At best, both PTY and Tacitus are evidence that people who are now called Christians died at the hands of Nero but even that is debatable since the writings were 50 years after the alleged incident. Evidence but not strong evidence much less overwhelming.
Josephus:
There is so much to discuss here and I really don't want to take the time but I will hit on a couple of points and then in part II discuss a little more. First of all Josephus didn't write a thing until about 70 CE or so and the passages claimed by many Christian Scholars weren't written until around the year 93 CE. These passages have been discussed as forgery's for more then 300 years! We have several reasons to believe that they might be.
A)In one of the passages Josephus himself claims to be a follower of Jesus and this is in direct contradiction to everything that he writes both before and after this passage. Josephus considered all of the Messiah figures to come out of Judea to be troublemakers and no where else does he claim to be a follower of any of these guys. I will go into this in more detail on part II.
B)NO EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITER QUOTES JOSEPHUS ON THIS PASSAGE! It is not until 324 CE that this passage gets quoted and passed off to us as proof in a literal Jesus and that is by Eusebius. So it appears as though this passage didn't exist prior to 324 CE.
C)Whether you read this passage in English or Latin it will be obvious to you that words and phrases where added to the original passage. I can not emphasize this enough: read the passage for yourself and then read before the passage and after it before you try to tell me that it is authentic. I have read it; have you?
I am going to leave it at that for now because I have to go to work but I will try to respond to all comments and also try to post part II within the next week. I will not censor any comments posted on this except those that go purpose to go outside of the framework already listed here. In other words….. stick to the topic or I have the right to remove your comment.
I had the opportunity to hit the Bourbon trail last week with two friends and wanted to share a few things with you all. I plan to write a bit on the experience by sharing the best distilleries to tour, the best event to hit at the Bourbon Festival, the best bar to hit in Bardstown but first off is my Fav 5 Bourbons and the ones you got to try before you die.
Our first day in Bardstown we hit the Old Talbot Tavern where I sampled 5 bourbons for $24.95 (5 shots and a souvenir shot glass to keep). I will be writing more about OTT in a later blog but for now the important point is that I jumped on the chance to have the 5 shots and try some new bourbons (4 of the 5 I had never sampled before). Now because there are some variations in the Bourbon recipe there are variations in taste. If you get the chance to sample all five on this list it will no doubt allow you to pick a favorite bourbon also, or at the least lead you toward a bourbon style that you will enjoy. Not all of these are readily available at your local liqueur store but should be available for purchase online.
I read this today and wanted to share it with my blog readers. It may be a tough read in parts and difficult to understand in areas but read it, see what jumps out at you and then let it speak to you. This is what I love about poetry; unlike a how to manual or a self help guide that gives you steps to follow in order to see a result, poetry allows you to take from it what speaks to you and set aside the rest. The ability to stop everything else around you and just focus your attention on that inner voice that speaks to you can and will change your life. I hope you enjoy this read and the inner journey that will follow as much as I did!
The Heart Sutra
Body is nothing more than emptiness, emptiness is nothing more than body. The body is exactly empty, and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence -- feeling, thought, will, and consciousness -- are likewise nothing more than emptiness, and emptiness nothing more than they.
All things are empty: Nothing is born, nothing dies, nothing is pure, nothing is stained, nothing increases and nothing decreases.
So, in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will, no consciousness. There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no imagining. There is nothing seen, nor heard, nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined.
There is no ignorance, and no end to ignorance. There is no old age and death, and no end to old age and death. There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow. There is no attainment of wisdom, and no wisdom to attain.
The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom, and so with no delusions, they feel no fear, and have Nirvana here and now.
All the Buddhas, past, present, and future, rely on the Perfection of Wisdom, and live in full enlightenment.
The Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest mantra. It is the clearest mantra, the highest mantra, the mantra that removes all suffering.
**Kudo's to an unnamed friend who shared this with me. You know who you are.**
Awaken My Friends!!** Updated**
Current mood: optimistic
Category: Life
Humanism
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. (Taken from www.iheu.org)
Hey Everyone,
I made this slideshow a couple of months back on kind of a whim but with World Humanist Day approaching it gave me an idea…….. Now hold that thought while you watch the slide show and then I'll tell you how you can help.
So here is my idea: maybe we can make a change by making a statement this World Humanist Day. I am hoping to do this by posting videos, slide shows and blogs that promote Humanism, Fair and ethical treatment for all and World peace. Would you consider doing one of the following between now and June 21st (World Humanist Day)
Post this slide show as a blog ( I made it and I give you permission).
Post another video, slideshow or blog that promotes the cause. If you do, please let me know so I can promote yours also.
Over the next 2 weeks we have the opportunity to change the way people perceive humanism and bring awareness to a world wide cause.
Will you consider helping me?
**6/6/08 Update** We have the following bloggers that have joined the campaign. Please visit their blogs and comment . Should you decide to join us please leave a comment and link so we can add your blog below. Please post in the "Life" category. We would love to have at least one blog a day up until the 20th and then repost all of them on the 20th so they can be up for World Humanist Day. Thanks again Everyone.
This section starts out with Dr. Levine stating that there is variation in every fragment known to us (over 15000) prior to the Guttenberg era. She is quickly cut off and then they smooth over her statement with something like "The important point here is that even if there are variations most scholars agree that the text is morally certain". Honestly, I am not sure what they are trying to say here. There are many different directions that this could go. I am going to tackle this point from the direction that I think they intended.Ithink what they are trying to say is that the variation doesn't change the overall picture of the gospel story. Is this fact, possible, probable, or fiction?
Answer: This is a partial truth and thus I consider it an irresponsible and unfair statement.
Here is why: The gospels that are in the Bible are not the only gospels! There are at least 3 other gospels that date to the same general era and they are the Gospel according to Thomas; The Gospel according to Judas; and the Gospel according to Peter. All three of these were known to Christians during the 2nd and 3rd Century CE and their doctrine had a following. Yet all 3 were left out of the Canonization process (The process of putting together the current Bible). There are some major discrepancies in detail between these 3 and the others and that is the number 1 reason they were left out. I am not saying that I believe the lost gospels are factual or more factual than the others, that really is a whole other blog, what I am saying is that when someone says that the NT is without major contradiction in doctrine our answer should be "Of coarse there isn't. It is an edited work."Now if I am pick a book off of the bookshelf of a Barnes and Noble Store the chances are that it was edited and published by a company that makes it their business to ensure that the story sticks to the theme. Even though they didn't have the same editing capability's then that we have now, the fact that the stories touched so many different hands and was re-written so many different times between the start of the second century and the mid forth century gives me the impression that the NT may be the most edited work of all time!
If you are curious to know more about the lost gospels I encourage you to pick up a copy of "Lost Scriptures: Books that didn't make the Bible" by Dr. Ehrman. You can get a used copy from Amazon for about $5.
So in conclusion let me state that I do not in any way believe that one gospel account is much more reliable than the next, nor do I believe that the lost gospels should be read as if they are a "Holy book" but I simply want to make my counter point to what was said in the video. Any edited work should be without major doctrine flaws. Is the Bible really 97% morally certain (whatever the hell that means)? Maybe, but the bible you read today was purposely put together to be without major doctrine contradictions. Thus the point that they make in the video is only a partial truth at best.
Point 2
There are more than 5,000 Greek copies/fragments of the New Testament compared to only 10 copies of Julius Caesar's Gaelic Wars and 7 copies of Plato's Tetralogies and this means what exactly? Well, they then cut to Dr. Wright who says that the Gospels are very reliable because we have better evidence for them than any other ancient book. Then they tell us that because of short time span between our oldest fragments and our first full copy of the NT that it is on a scale onto itself in regards to reliability. We believe in Plato, right? We believe in Julius Caesar, right? So why do we question the Bible? Then they cut to Dr. Lamerson who says that if we don't accept the reliability of the NT then we have to become a "Historical Agnostic" because the sheer volume of manuscripts the NT has to offer far outweighs any other ancient book.
Answer: When you think about it, what does a large number of texts really tell you? That an event took place? Yes, maybe but history is not written in books alone is it? Lets use one of the examples that they bring up: Julius Caesar. Are we fairly certain that Julius Caesar lived? Yes, we are. Is it because of the book "Gaelic Wars"? No, it is not. We have coins with his head on it. We have many other writers during and after his life that wrote about him and his accomplishments. If we had to make a case for a historical Julius Caesar based on his writing alone, it would be tough. Not impossible; but tough. Furthermore, when we are talking about Julius Caesar's writings we are not talking about a word from God that we are to follow and live our lives by. We read it and then analyze it to decide what was truth, what was partial truth, what might have been true and what was spin or fiction.
Do we have a coin with Jesus' head on it? No, we don't.
Do we have any of his contemporaries writing about him? No, but that is debatable.
Do we read the Gospels and analyze it to separate fact from fiction? Yes, we try.
Is either book a word from a God? No, probably not.
I think what makes this an even more unfair comparison is that for the purposes of this video the bible is one book and all the fragments are thus proof to them that it must be true. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all independent works in one way or another and it is unfair to combine their fragments into one pile and then compare it to one work (Gaelic wars) which was most likely someone's life work.
Conclusion: I do not live my life in a library and neither do you. I do not base all of my shopping decisions based on commercials that I see on TV and neither do you. We have the ability to research and weigh out evidence and then make decisions. To say that someone must either accept the gospels as factual history or become a historical agnostic is a lie and totally irresponsible. To compare the amount of fragments of the NT to single works like Gaelic wars by Julius Caesar is also unfair. Honestly, how many people in antiquity would have wanted a copy of Gaelic Wars? But a story about Gods, love, sacrifice, forgiveness, death, resurrection, friendship, healings and the end of the world; now that would be a best seller, wouldn't it? So in some ways there is no comparison between the two books but still when one reads them they must keep their perspective straight. We have more and better evidence for a Historical Julius Caesar than we do a Historical Jesus of the Gospels. End of story. Until we can uncover more evidence from 1st Century Palestine and learn the stories that evidence has to tell we have to remain a Jesus agnostic and not a historical agnostic. That statement will undoubtedly piss a lot of people off but we have to remember that history is not what is written in books alone. The sheer number of fragments, books or copies does not alone tell us whether or not something is factual. 1,000 years from now someone will undoubtedly uncover tens of millions of copies of the poem The night before Christmas and lets hope that the discovery won't lead them to believe in a literal Santa Claus. Let's compare that to a book like the Memoirs of Richard Nixon: How many copies of that will still be around? And yet one is history and the other popular. Science decides what is probable and what is unlikely but the people decide what will carry on to the next generation.
Ok, I am done with this for now but will check back later to see what others have to add.
Go back and watch the first 5 minutes of this video again knowing what you know now and see you ability to spot religious spin is heightened.
Lies and the poor saps who spread ’em.
Current mood: amused
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Watch only the first 2 minutes.
This commentary is going to focus on the first 2 minutes only. I will tackle the rest in another blog.
I came across this video a few days ago by scanning through some Christian blogs and it really took me back to my days in the Church. This is a prime example of the type of video, book or even sermon tactics that are used to convince people that the Christian belief system is based upon facts. Lets watch the first 2 minutes and look at some of the points made here and then decide whether they are fact, probable, possible, unlikely or down right fiction.
Claim 1
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels that bare their name.
For simplicity I am going to break it down like this:
Did Levi (Matthew) the Tax collector write the gospel according to Matthew?
Did John Mark (Mark) the nephew of Barnabas write the gospel according to Mark?
Did Luke the companion of Paul write the Gospel according to Luke?
Did John (the disciple that Jesus loved) write the gospel according to John?
Believe it or not, there are entire books dedicated to this topic and I won't even begin to cover all of the bases on this. Lets keep it simple for now. Many historians now subscribe to the theory of the "Two source" or "Q Gospel" which in essence is the belief that "Mark" was the first gospel written and that "Matthew" and "Luke" took material from "Mark" and then added their own material here and there. For the time being I am going to leave the Gospel of John out of this mix. It is not one of the synoptic gospels and based on the dating of it alone was most likely not written by the John of the gospel story. This website http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
breaks it down nicely. It is important to note that the men that put forth theory's like this are men who studied source texts. They are not apologetic writers nor are they pastors of large churches who are looking to grow their congregation. They study the works and put together the pieces in order to either confirm traditional beliefs or bust the myth. The idea that the gospels were written by first hand witness' is myth. It has never been proven on any level. I challenge anyone reading this who believes that these are first hand accounts to provide me with your evidence. Here is what some of the experts say:
J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):
It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.
Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):
But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.
The author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian. Eduard Schweizer writes (The Good News according to Matthew, p. 16):
The Jewish background is plain. Jewish customs are familiar to everyone (see the discussion of 15:5), the debate about the law is a central question (see the discussion of 5:17-20), and the Sabbath is still observed (see the discussion of 24:20). The dispute with the Pharisees serves primarily as a warning to the community (see the introduction to chapters 24-25); but a reference to leading representatives of the Synagogue is not far below the surface. Above all, the method of learned interpretation of the Law, which "looses" and "binds," was still central for Matthew and his community (see the discussion of 16:19; 18:18). Preservation of sayings, such as 23:2-3, which support the continued authority of Pharisaic teaching, and above all the special emphasis placed on the requirement not to offend those who still think in legalistic terms (see the discussion of 17:24-27), shows that dialogue with the Jewish Synagogue had not broken off. On the other hand, a saying like 27:25 shows th
chipper
optimistic
annoyed
amused