Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I see that for you the absolute prohibition of hoats is not a consequence of the prohibition of hoats on Jerusalem as davidic city.

I am inclined to think that it is a consequence of the specific reasons to not make hoats on x, y, and Jerusalem.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:11 am I see that for you the absolute prohibition of hoats is not a consequence of the prohibition of hoats on Jerusalem as davidic city.

I am inclined to think that it is a consequence of the specific reasons to not make hoats on x, y, and Jerusalem.

The prohibition of oaths is just what the text says: nothing more, nothing less. Even if we cannot understand Matthew's exact reason for the prohibition of precisely this oath by the city of Jerusalem, or even if we do understand his reason and find it to be garbage, the fact remains: he prohibits oaths, period. Therefore, any hypothesis that depends on one kind of oath being okay (an oath by the Davidic king) and another not being okay (an oath by a pagan emperor) is dead before it even begins to live.

Why would you want to formulate or (worse) embrace an hypothesis which depends, in the most direct way, upon the text saying the exact opposite of what it actually says?

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago..."

There are frequently small clues in these stories. I believe that "...long ago..." is such a clue. Before we get to Hadrian we should look at this passage as a Transvalued fragment. Looking at it from a Jewish Historical story, this has all of the tell-tales of a story about:

Alexander Jannaeus.

You are repeating the your basic assumption: no hoat in general implies no hoat in particular cases.

I had thought that the contrary may be true: no hoats in particular cases implies no hoat in general.

In this latter case I don't see why a davidic hoat is prohibited. All here.

Besides, the "great king" may well be God himself, anyway (Psalm 47.2; 95.3; Malachi 1.14).

But in the context of Matt 5:35 God is already been mentioned as master of heaven and earth. Therefore the king is a distinct figure.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:30 amI had thought that the contrary may be true: no hoats in particular cases implies no hoat in general.

Even if this were so, once the general implication is in place, all particular cases succumb to it, thus erasing all distinctions. Since Matthew has given only his final assessment, you are left guessing as to what led him there... at best.

Mother: Do not leave this house at all: not to the mall, not to the arcade, not to your friend's house.

Giuseppe [coming back from the park]: But you said nothing about the park!

Josephus, Ant..., 13, 10, 5:

" And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, "We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. (29) "This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him; and all the Pharisees had a very great indignation against him..."

Probably doesn't mean anything but the language is suggestive, as if one is the echo of the other.

I had thought that it is not so esoteric the historical reason to abandon the hoats for Matthew. An hoat by the "land" (a city, in this case) represented a strong link between a people and his national identity. So Matthew is allowing to his readers to de facto abandon Jerusalem, given the prohibition to not make hoats on it.