• ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Well the entire thing was an insult to whoever wrote Matthew 6:5. Which is a proud Christian tradition, but Americans take it a whole new level.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yes I wonder who wrote Matthew 6:5, if only there was some sort of a hint.

      • skisnow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Honestly I’m surprised there aren’t more sects that explicitly reject Matthew by now. It’s the one that has the bulk of the “don’t be a dick” instructions.

        Most of them seem to prefer John which can more easily be twisted into “if you’re a Christian you’re a winner and better than everyone who isn’t, no need to worry about the details, you’re already on the list”

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The traditional attribution of Gospels to their namesakes may not be entirely accurate – it’s plausible that it may incorporate material actually written by the Apostle Matthew, but also seems to lean on Mark and shares literary elements with Luke. There’s a whole scholarly debate on it, called the Synoptic Problem.

        For all we know, the author might have been someone else drawing both on the teachings of the Apostle Matthew and the works of prior writers, or entirely based on different works and simply attributed it to Matthew. Hence, “whoever wrote” is probably the safest attribution possible.