About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

Matthew 5:33-35 :
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King
It is strange the reason of the prohibition to swear an oath "by Jerusalem", if the "king" who is intended is David. I can understand the reason of the prohibition to do an oath "by heaven": it is not our but of God.

Idem for the earth: it is of God, so we can't promise it in an oath.

But if Jerusalem is property of David, why can't the man do an oath on it? What escapes me is the reason why David would be not "our" (of the Christians) like the earth or the heaven.

Unless the "great king" is Hadrian, and so the Christians can't do an oath on a Pagan city: surely it is not (more) their city.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

So prof Vinzent:
I entirely agree - how can Jerusalem been called the 'city of the great Cesar' before the time of Hadrian/Antoninus Pius? It is as with the so-called small apocalypses in the canonical Gospels who presume that a bdelugma had been standing there, but we know from Josephus, that after 70 the site of the temple was erased and deserted of everything, while after 132 AD as part of Aelia Capitolina statues of Zeus, the Emperor etc. have been erected. All that points to a date around or after the Bar Kokhba war, hence, the date, I suggest in my 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels'.
Thanks for drawing our attention to this.
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2014/ ... 4077709888
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

A further argument for dating Mark has been adduced as one of 'the most decisive pointer[s] ... [to] the question of whether or not the Gospels refer, however obliquely, to the key events of 70 CE, when Jerusalem was overrun by the Roman army after the Jewish War beginning in 66 CE'. Evidence is found in Mark's statement in 13:14.24-27 about the 'abomination that causes desolation', with a series of references to the Old Testament (Isa. 13:10; 34:4; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6, and especially Dan. 7:13 and 9:27). As 'the Greek word for 'standing' (hestekota) is in the masculine gender, which has suggested to many commentators that the statement is an enigmatic reference to the destruction of the temple by Titus in AD 70 ... then the composition of Mark would obviously fall after that date'. Edwards adds, however, that 'it is very doubtful that the suggestion can be established', as 'a comparison of the enigmatic reference in 13:14 with Josephus's detailed description of the capture and destruction of the temple in book 6 of The Jewish War finds no certain parallels and several actual disagreements'. In addition, the destruction of the Temple is only one of the elements that the quote refers to; the second part indicates that 'the abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place'. The only time the Romans placed something into or on the Holy Place (or what was left of it), 'occurred (after Antiochus Epiphanius' times) during the reign of Hadrian in 135 AD, when the altar and statue of Jupiter Capitolinus, as well as those of the Emperor, were erected on the site of the Temple, and when the same Jerusalem was changed to that of Aelia Capitolina'. And yet, Matthew and Luke both seem to provide hints that they knew of these events.
(M. Vinzent, 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels', p 166-167)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:54 amBut if Jerusalem is property of David, why can't the man do an oath on it?
Your question implies that it would be okay to make an oath by a Jewish king. But the context in the Sermon forbids this:

Matthew 5.33-37: 33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no.' Anything beyond these is of evil."

This indicates that you are on the wrong track. The point is that all oaths are going to find their way back to a swearing by something that is under God's purview, no matter how oblique or euphemistic, leaving you with no way to say that the saying has to mean Hadrian instead of David, since neither would be permitted anyway. (There was no general Jewish prohibition on oaths. This is purely a Matthean Christian thing.)

ETA: Vows by Jerusalem are discussed in the Mishnah, tractate Nedarim. The debate is over what exact wording makes it a binding vow. The Matthean Jesus would simply have none of it; just say "yes" or "no" — nothing more.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:23 am leaving you with no way to say that the saying has to mean Hadrian instead of David, since neither would be permitted anyway.
I am not so sure, afterall, Matthew is giving still an appearance of 'reason' to not make an hoat on Jerusalem (just as he gave one about the 'heaven' and the 'earth'): ''it is the city of the great king''.

Surely for Matthew some oaths (as the ones on Jerusalem) are more prohibited than others.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:30 amSurely for Matthew some oaths (as the ones on Jerusalem) are more prohibited than others.
Really? "But I say to you, make no oath at all. .... But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no.' Anything beyond these is of evil."

And yes, Matthew gives reasons, all of them going back to God in some form or other:
  1. Heaven = throne of God.
  2. Earth = footstool of God.
  3. Jerusalem = city of the great king; refer to Psalm 48.1-3, which adds to "the city of the great king" the information that "God, in her [Zion's] palaces, has made himself known as a stronghold."
  4. Your head = something you cannot control, not even your hair color (implied: but God can).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:43 am Your head = something you cannot control, not even your hair color (implied: but God can).
I agree that God can where the Christians can't, but the sense is that the Christians can't have power on something in this earth, while God has any power on the earth. Accordingly, the Christians can't claim rights nor hoats on Jerusalem since Jerusalem is not (more) their property: God gave it to the ''Great King'' (Hadrian).

This fits the sense of the Matthean Parable of the Wedding Banquet.
 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
(Matthew 22:7)

THe king is God, but he may be also Hadrian.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:52 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:43 am Your head = something you cannot control, not even your hair color (implied: but God can).
I agree that God can where the Christians can't, but the sense is that the Christians can't have power on something in this earth, while God has any power on the earth. Accordingly, the Christians can't claim rights nor hoats on Jerusalem since Jerusalem is not (more) their property: God gave it to the ''Great King'' (Hadrian).

This fits the sense of the Matthean Parable of the Wedding Banquet.
 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
(Matthew 22:7)

THe king is God, but he may be also Hadrian.
Or David. Or even Trajan/Vespasian, as your example would suggest. Your argument for one over the other is null, as you have already conceded.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Giuseppe »

I continue to not see *why* the fact that Jerusalem is the davidic city would be a reason to prohibit hoats on Jerusalem (and one of the reasons to prohibit hoats in general).

While I have already explained why that would be the case if the king is Hadrian.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: About Matthew 5:35: is the ''great king'' David or Hadrian?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:02 am I continue to not see *why* the fact that Jerusalem is the davidic city would be a reason to prohibit hoats on Jerusalem (and one of the reasons to prohibit hoats in general).

While I have already explained why that would be the case if the king is Hadrian.
This tells me much about you, but nothing about Matthew, who makes it painfully clear that no oath is allowed.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply