A Latter-Day Paradigm for Evaluating Gospel Authors


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, in pondering the varying approaches and voices of the authors of the Gospels, I formulated this analogy to help me conceptualize things a bit.:

Matthew:  Think of Matthew as the Bruce R. McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith of his era.  Matthew is all about taking existing scripture and showing how it is being fulfilled by present events (he's also occasionally wrong).

Mark:  Compare him to Orin Porter Rockwell.  Rough, unlettered, very poor linguistic skills, and his own ecclesiastical position is a bit nebulous.  But his account is drawn from a very well-placed source (Joseph Smith in Rockwell's case; the apostle Peter in Mark's case); and his is probably the earliest account of the four.

Luke:  Luke, like Brigham Young, sees the Church spreading globally.  He recognizes the prophecy/deep theology aspects of Christianity, but his experience makes him more interested in practical religion--the Christ-like characteristics that, when practiced, make the church run more harmoniously; and the experience of the widows and orphans and sick and poor folks who he has worked with on a daily basis.

John:  He writes last, by which time Christianity is nearly a century old.  He honors the earlier accounts; but in response to trials and developments and heresies that largely came up after the other accounts were written, he re-engineers the narrative with a new perspective that corrects a few misinterpretations and checks legalistic tendencies by focusing on Christ's love.  Compare to Deiter Uchtdorf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

???

"Wrong" may be too strong of a word.  But Matthew occasionally "stretches" Hebrew prophecies that were directed to events of the sixth or seventh centuries BC, assigning them a messianic meaning and shoehorning them into some aspect of Jesus' life and ministry--Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive" prophecy being the example that comes most readily to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Wrong" may be too strong of a word.  But Matthew occasionally "stretches" Hebrew prophecies that were directed to events of the sixth or seventh centuries BC, assigning them a messianic meaning and shoehorning them into some aspect of Jesus' life and ministry--Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive" prophecy being the example that comes most readily to mind.

How do you conclude that Isaiah's prophecies weren't meant by Isaiah (and God) to be shoehorned in just that manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive" prophecy being the example that comes most readily to mind.

So I did a search for the word conceive in the scriptures, only discovering  Isa. 7:14 (also used in 2 Nephi 17:14). Is this what you're referring to? I must say that you have me a bit confused. Which other virgin conceived in the 6th or 7th centuries BC to which Isaiah supposedly referred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I did a search for the word conceive in the scriptures, only discovering  Isa. 7:14 (also used in 2 Nephi 17:14). Is this what you're referring to? I must say that you have me a bit confused. Which other virgin conceived in the 6th or 7th centuries BC to which Isaiah supposedly referred?

Isaiah's wife. The sign is worthless if it occurs after the events it portends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

7 Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

10  Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

In 65 years the kingdom of Israel will be destroyed and no longer a threat to Judah. And just to confirm it, the Lord will give a sign. Immanuel will be born of a virgin, and will just start learning right from wrong when the confederacy will be disbanded. If that is the sign it is worthless. Does Isaiah really intend to prove his prophecy with evidence that won't happen for another 700 years?

In the next chapter Isaiah writes about the fulfillment (note the repeated themes):

Quote

1 Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. :)

The immediate context of that prophecy (and I may be botching some details here--I'm posting on the fly) is that the king of Judah is afraid because he learns that Syria and Israel are forging an alliance against him.  Isaiah's primary message is, "Don't worry about the alliance.  A young woman ("almah", translated as "virgin" in the KJV--scholars suggest it may be Isaiah's wife, or a concubine of the king's, or it may just be a figure of speech) will conceive and give birth, and before the child is old enough to start speaking, both the kingdoms of Syria and Israel will be in utter disarray".

There could be a dual prophecy there.  But my understanding is that Jews themselves had never considered it messianic in nature until Matthew made it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy and @mordorbund, thanks for expounding.

A few thoughts: Matthew wouldn't have been using the KJV, of course. Nephi quotes Isaiah and seems to specifically call out the prophesies to concern Christ. Almost all of Isaiah's prophecies, thoughts, comments, etc., are to be understood as having dual meaning. It strikes me that Matthew making it so was less a mistake than it was inspiration and greater knowledge. I do not believe the Jews had never considered it that way though. Nephi also teaches us that the understanding was plain to those who knew the ways of the Jews. And, finally, I think it problematic to define anyone, including brother McConkie as "occasionally" wrong, which, although accurate, is just as accurate with every mortal. The implication of pointing it out as if it's a defining characteristic is that other apostles and prophets were perfectly accurate in everything they ever thought and said. Adding to that, when and where brother McConkie was wrong it was not canonized as scripture -- so the comparison fails in my mind.

Like I said, just sharing thoughts by way of discussion. Not meaning to poop all over your ideas necessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

John:   Compare to Deiter Uchtdorf.

I'd like to think of him as a combination of Maxwell and Monson.  I see Uchtdorf (while spiritually insightful) to be more practical than the deep spiritual metaphors and wordings in John's account.  When I consider this characteristic, I think more of Maxwell than anyone else.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to my list:

Paul: Elder McConkie because of what I already wrote.

Matthew: LeGrand Richards. A Marvelous Work and a Wonder shows the Restoration as the fulfillment of prophecy. 

Luke: BH Roberts. Both take a faithful history approach.

John: Hugh Nibley. John anachronistically places Jesus as the central focus of ancient ritual as He stands surrounded by ritual. Nibley anachronistically places Joseph in an ancient world among patriarchs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share