Is gospel Matthew really an Eyewitness report or is it not more a early rabbinic rethoric, Matthew was written for a audience in Syria, perhaps Damascus, as we hear from the bibel exegets, where a mixed community of many jewish-christians and many jews lived togehter, the daily problem was to preach the christian gospel to the jews, the aim of the gospel matthew was to explain a Jew with all best jewish rethoric methods that fulfills all dreams of sophistacted Jew or rabbi at this time. Written for a apostolic school e.c.
Some believe Matthew is an eyewitness report? We could think, okay, Matthew read in Mark and Luke about one donkey,ojojoj they forgot the second and added I will add it. And now everything is clear. I write about two because I have the septuagint version with two monkeys, after all here stand "and", although I know that this was a paralelis. Doens not mind me, i create a wonderful story about two donkeys and the citation has to fit my idea.
But his usage of the Septuagint citation and interpreting in a some creative crazy way and directing it to a such sophisticated jewish-christian audience,he should have known that a misinterpretation of the scripture would bring resistance, incomprehenions under the jewish audience. But the gospel of Matthew became the most prominent. Was the jewish audience completely unaware of the hebrew bible text? Where they uneducated? Could they be easily be mislead of the christian sect leaders? Could they made believe by these constructions that Jesus fulfills every prophesy and would they never notice his errorr? Was it Matthews big mistake? Did it destroy his least fame and scientific reputation?
found that https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=25755
I notice that the different verions 1 donkey- 2 donkey is a good example of in which manner the biblical canon developed. The different stories in the gospels, here Mat, Lk, and Mk have not been harmonized. Never. Would not be a harmonisation important to avoid misunderstandings of the readers? Today perhaps yes. But Jesus never said to anyone that they should write gospels for the audience! He did not say that they will go around with bibels to preach and they shall translate it in all languages. It was because of the love for stories that the church wrote down the storeis about Jesus. But it was not necessary at all to read the stuff it became a tradition. The church decided to read some scriptures in the assemblies, but it was not necessary for every christian to study the bible - say the complicated words of the relevation or the letters of paul - to buy or make a copy of parchments or papyry or to open translation offices.
Moreover the bible was only understandable in the antic asian world with knowledge of their customs, why should the whole world read that book at all? The western church had many problems to understand it. - the jewish concepts, because of the sepration between jews and christians. Because the holy spirit found it would be not bad to use it as study material, because god decided lately that this was his only possibility to speak to man? Doesnt God have other possibities than written letters? Doesnt God speak to hearts (as is written in the Bible) when it is silent and in moments when no crazy and busy writing committees are around, which could destroy the silence ? Did Jesus not 40 days keep silent in the desert to contact God before accomplishing his will and not reading in parchments?
Later more about the citation....