Matthean Jesus?

[cthulhubryan]

I was reading an article in the National Catholic Reporter link
And the author, Patricia Datchuck Sanchez refers to the Matthean Jesus. This bothered me as it seems that perhaps she considers the Jesus of Matthew a different being than that of Mark, Luke or John.

Am I just over tired or is this slightly scandalous?

Thanks,

Bryan

 

[LoyalViews]

Don’t be bothered with the NCR. Most of it’s editors and journalists are open dissenters from Church teaching. They support and advocate women’s ordination, and liturgical craziness among other things.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Don’t be bothered with the NCR. Most of it’s editors and journalists are open dissenters from Church teaching. They support and advocate women’s ordination, and liturgical craziness among other things.

That does explain a lot of things. Thanks!

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t read anything from NCR but the Gospels each portray Jesus in a different role.

Matthew writes to a prodominantly Jewish audience and he portrays Jesus as the Davidic King. Matthew starts with Jesus’ geneology, which is vital to establishing Jesus’ right to the throne of David, and so he starts with Abraham and David which estabblishes Jesus’ royal blood line.

The book of Matthew is written in five sections or “Books”, each of which discusses a different aspect of Jesus’ kingdom. Each “Book” has a narrative/story section followed by a lengthy discourse by Jesus as follows:

Prologue - Jesus’ ancestry and infancy
Announcement of the Kingdom - chapters 3-7
Establishement of the Kingdom - chapters 8-10
Defining the Kingdom - chapters 14-18
Announcing the end of the old Kingdom - chapters 19-25
Conclusion - Victrory of the king in chapters 26-29

Mark writes to a predominantly Roman audience and Jesus is portrayed as the suffering slave. Slaves in Rome don’t have geneologies and so Mark omits this and since Romans respect speed and power and percision, Mark goes straight to the miracles and everything immediately… immediatly… immediately… John is writing to the Church and he portrays Jesus as God. “In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That’s God’s geneology.

So yea, figuratively speaking, you could say that there are different Jesus’ depending on what Gospel you are reading. But shudder to think of what NCR is using this concept to promote. Its best not to even look at that website.

-Tim-

 

[cthulhubryan]

The more articles I read from NCR the more I agree with you both. Thanks.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t necessarily think that using terms like “Matthean Jesus” or “Johannine Jesus” are bad in and of themselves. IMHO using the titles are perfectly acceptable in the sense of something like ‘Jesus as He is portrayed in Matthew’ or ‘Jesus as John writes of Him’ because after all, the Gospels have different emphases and thus would have had different perspectives: Jesus in John IS portrayed differently (from a literary POV) from the way Jesus is characterized in the Synoptics, because John approaches the subject from a different angle. I think the problem would only erupt if you took things too far.