hatsoff

For this thread I'm going to need the help of our resident Greek speakers. Here is the Hort & Westcott Greek versions for the passages in question:

--I apologize for the lack of Greek fonts. If a mod knows how and wants to fix it, please do so. Otherwise, I've included links to pages where you can see the correct characters.--

otan oun idhte to bdelugma thV erhmwsewV to rhqen dia danihl tou profhtou estoV en topw agiw o anaginwskwn noeitw
--Mt 24:15

NET translation: "So when you see the abomination of desolation – spoken about by Daniel the prophet – standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)..."

otan de idhte to bdelugma thV erhmwsewV esthkota opou ou dei o anaginwskwn noeitw tote oi en th ioudaia feugetwsan eiV ta orh
--Mk 13:14

NET translation: "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee..."

Now, this is usually held up as the quintessential example of an editorial comment in Mark reproduced by Matthew--but is it, really? The context of the passage involves a quotation from Jewish Scripture. Could, then, Mark and Matthew have intended their readers to understand that "let the reader understand" was spoken by Jesus in reference to the Jewish Scriptural prophecy about the "abomination of desolation"? Or is there some Greek subtlety I'm missing, which precludes such an interpretation? If not, how likely do you suppose each interpretation is?

Solitary Man

There's a clear lack of connectives, it's definitely an aside. And why would Jesus tell the readers to understand something?

hatsoff

Jesus is explaining to his disciples what the Torah passage means, and how to interpret it.

Ray Moscow

I take it as an insertion of a written tradition into Jesus' mouth.

DCHindley

My 30 year old Greek is fairly rusty, but the phrase "o anaginwskwn noeitw" (Mk 13:14 = Mt 24:15) is clearly a gloss, or addition to the narrative, which means, essentially, "the public-reader [should] discern [the significance of this]."

This should suggest that this saying attributed to Jesus had current relevance to the writer, as well as to the intended audience, that he expected the public reader to discuss with the hearers during the discussion that usually followed a public reading of a text. Whatever the relevance was (and which we are not so sure of today), it seems the author of Mark, and later Luke, assumed it would be common knolwedge to anyone reading it in their day.

Before everybody rushes to conclusions, remember that just because the author(s) of Mark/Matt attribute this saying to Jesus doesn't mean it was actually spoken by him, but it does indciate that THEY thought he said it, and all that might imply. It is just as important that a critic (professional or amateur) not read more into these gospel statements than they actually say.

DCH

Johnny Skeptic

How can we be reasonably certain what Jesus said?

Solitary Man

As the character in the story, the phrase is attested in the manuscripts. hatsoff has the explaining to do why he thinks it is said by Jesus and not Mark.

Furthermore, Mark clearly uses asides elsewhere, such as translations.

rhutchin

You can't but that is irrelevant. All you know is that the author attributed the words to Jesus. You accept the testimony of the author as you have no basis for saying that Jesus never said the words in question or that the author was lying.

GenesisNemesis

I have no reason to believe Jesus said those words just as I have no reason to believe Muhammad was a prophet of Allah, and just as you have no reason to believe Muhammad was a prophet of Allah. There is no reason to say the author was lying because what they say is false. If I claim 2+2=5, am I lying if I do not know 2+2=4? Surely, they can be mistaken. I've explained this to you before.

rhutchin

You actually do have a reason to believe them. There were alleged eyewitnesses to the words that Jesus spoke. Muhammad is his own witness. That does not mean that you have to believe them.

Just as you would do while serving on a jury, you listen to the witnesses and decide whether to believe them. If you see that one witness says that 2+2=5, then you would have cause to reject that witness. However, if the witness says, "Jesus said that 2+2=5," then you should accept the witness of what Jesus said as there is no reason not to.