James Still

Few biblical scholars dispute the theory that Luke and Matthew redacted Mark's gospel and usually it is thought that the junior synoptists improved Mark. But I'd like to share an interesting example in which this is not so. In the case of the Picking Grains on the Sabbath pericope, Luke's redaction actually commits Jesus to a horrible logical fallacy.

Jesus' disciples are caught picking heads of grain for food in violation of the sabbath regulations (Mk. 2:23-28; Mt. 12:1-8; Lk. 6:1-5; cf. Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14). In Mark, we have an elegant syllogism in which Jesus defends his disciples: (1) the sabbath day was created for humans (ho hious tou anthropou), (2) not humans for the sabbath, therefore (3) humans lord over the sabbath. What can you say to that? The Pharisees themselves had a similar saying "The sabbath is given over to you, not you to the sabbath."

But by omitting v.27, Luke seems anxious to recast the Aramaic bar 'enas into a circumlocution in order to bolster Jesus' messianism. But he pays a steep price for this alteration because now Jesus is forced to fashion an awkward tu quoque defense on behalf of his disciples by pointing out that David also violated the sabbath when he ate the bread of the Presence at the temple at Nob (1 Sam. 21:1). Also, the Pharisees had complained that by picking heads of grain, Jesus' disciples were violating the sabbath regulations. To have Jesus answer that he is himself someone who transcends the sabbath is a red herring that fails to address the real concerns that the Pharisees have with his disciples' wrongful behavior. So while Mark is often improved by the junior synoptists here's a case in which Mark got it right.

James Still: To have Jesus answer that he is himself someone who transcends the sabbath is a red herring that fails to address the real concerns that the Pharisees have with his disciples' wrongful behavior.

ChristianSkeptic: I am in no way a biblical scholar, but I am a SecWeb regular and not to mention my overnight stay at a Holiday in Express last night and my brief role as a biblical scholar on TV (The Jeffersons and Dallas). I know you will find this intimidating, and you will thus delete this thread without a response.

Jesus does not merely transcend the Sabbath but is the maker of the Sabbath and thus has the power to make changes at the margin.

I know this is a simple answer, but I need more rest at the Express and more TV time.

James Still

Hi CS. Judging from your prolific answers on other threads there must not have been much on TV. In any case, why do you feel compelled to provide an answer? (What was the question?) Or were you just sharing a statement of faith with us? That's fine. I'm not very interested in personal statements of faith but thanks for sharing it all the same.

James Still (JS): Hi CS. Judging from your prolific answers on other threads there must not have been much on TV.

CS: Quality programming is hard to find when you do not have cable.

JS: In any case, why do you feel compelled to provide an answer?

CS: I was not forced to answer, but willingly offer my piece as a start.

(What was the question?)

CS: Why do you ask?

JS: Or were you just sharing a statement of faith with us?

CS: No I was not since your “question” presupposed, or at least relied on the authority of the Gospels. Therefore, since you accepted the Gospels as being historically accurate on what Jesus says then it is not unreasonable to accept, as I do, and as you should, the Gospels claims that Jesus was God incarnate.

My point was that if Jesus was God in the flesh as the rest of the Gospels claim then his [incarnation would be an example] of how our infinite God has temporal relations with his finite creation. Again, I am not a Biblical scholar, as you are aware, but I think the answer to your proposed contradiction lies in understanding that Jesus was the transitional figure (as only God could do it) between the first covenant of law/deeds and second covenant of Grace/faith.

Please understand three things JS:

1). While I am not a biblical scholar, I am not a blank slate.

2). I learn very quickly [and per my formal education, I am willing to learn opposing points of view].

3). If you make this exchange into an intellectual brawl, I have access to other “real” scholars, including a professor at Cambridge University England.

Or I may not reply (play with you due to discussion board fatigue.




[This message has been edited by ChristianSkeptic (edited April 27, 2001).]

James Still

Ok, I understand. You thought I was trying to craft a so-called "biblical contradiction" and so you were apologizing for the text and offering a solution that would resolve the conflict. Just so you know I was not alluding to a contradiction and to assume so misses the point of my entire post. I'm merely someone who enjoys ancient literature and philosophy.

This is an unwarranted assumption. My hermeneutic (I asked no questions...) presupposed nothing more than the priority of Mark, which is the theory that the author of Mark wrote his gospel first and it was later available to the junior Synoptists when they wrote their gospels. So you are way off base to say that I accepted the gospels as "being historically accurate on what Jesus says." In fact, you'll notice that I'm suggesting just the opposite in that Luke put words into Jesus' mouth. In any case, no one disputes that the gospels contain much of what the historical Jesus really said. That's easy. The hard part is distinguishing between authentic sayings and post-Easter redactions and inventions.

Also, (and this opens a whole can of worms) I disagree that the first three gospels claim that Jesus was God incarnate. The author of John's Gospel, who was mystical, did want us to see Jesus that way. He may also have wanted us to see Jesus in philosophical terms. I say that because logos in Greek mysticism also refers to ratio (as in 1:2 or 2:3, the relationship between two integers). If so, he begins: "In the beginning was the ratio, and the ratio was with God, and the ratio was God." This comes practically word-for-word from the Pythagoreans. But I don't have time to defend this assertion; I throw it out as an interesting aside. Besides, most of us here agree I'm sure that John's Gospel is not the first place to start when discussing the historical Jesus. And as I said the Synoptists do not claim that Jesus was God. This is a post-Easter interpretation. Jesus himself would not have lasted very long if he himself made such a claim. His fellow Jews would have killed him well before the Romans could try him for sedition. In fact, his trial for sedition suggests that Jesus or those close to him identifed him as the messiah (not God). To be the messiah was to claim the throne of David, a very dangerous thing to do in Roman-occupied Palestine.

This is all well and fine if we were doing theology but we don't do theology on the Secular Web! We critique, analyze, and enjoy ancient literature such as the NT texts for which this forum is dedicated. I'm not knocking you CS for having faith (more power to you) -- only that you've got to know that introducing it in discussions such as these is a non sequitur.

James

Toto

It would help if you posted the full text of the verses you are discussing, or a URL where we could look it up, (for those of us who don't have a Bible handy.)

You should also realize that none of the theists on this board claim to be real inerrantists, so finding one discrepancy or logical error will not prove anything to them. It's not clear what would prove anything to them, of course.

JS: Ok, I understand. You thought I was trying to craft a so-called "biblical contradiction"

CS: “biblical contradiction” are not my words or the issue I am addressing.

JS:..I'm merely someone who enjoys ancient literature and philosophy.

CS: Apart from your secular assumptions?

JS: This is an unwarranted assumption.

CS: Actually I made an assertion. How would you say JS, “Minor quibble.”

JS:…(I asked no questions...)

CS: You wrote, “…why do you feel compelled to provide an answer? (What was the question?)…” another “minor quibble.”

JS: ….So you are way off base to say that I accepted the gospels as "being historically accurate on what Jesus says."

CS: I am not as dogmatic as you have conceived me. I wrote, “your [hermeneutic] at least relied on the authority of the Gospels…you accepted the Gospels…it is not unreasonable to accept, as I do, and as you should, the Gospels [other] claims…”

Within context, what I meant, as it may not, or obviously was not clear to you or at all, was that you tactically accepted the Gospels accuracy and I would now add to make my point concise, at least for this set of sayings.

The implication being that if you accept the Gospels accuracy for somethings then you have some explaining to do in order to discount others. Thus far all you have given is presumption, based on some kind of “consensus of biblical scholarship” apparently taken out the Dr. William Lane. Craig debaters handbook.

I am sure you would agree that any given “consensus of biblical scholarship” may serve to make you feel and have confidence in your position, but it is not a good reason to hold that position.

Also, I am sure you are aware of Craig Blomberg’s book the “historical reliability of the Gospels” in which he posits that Markian priority does not render "junior" status to the other Gospels.

My tradition is that Matthew was written first, though I am not prepared at all, no less, to defend a position, I vaguely recall from Sunday school or somewhere.

It’s a mystery, and its funny, how I have this tradition in my head, and I do not know where it came from or the moment I learned and came to believe it, though it could be true or false.

JS: Also, (and this opens a whole can of worms) I disagree that the first three gospels claim that Jesus was God incarnate.

CS: That’s OK, I’m not going fishing into the lake of the “synoptic problem.” I use the term synoptic problem loosely.

JS: The author of John's Gospel, who was mystical, did want us to see Jesus that way. He may also have wanted us to see Jesus in philosophical terms. I say that because logos in Greek mysticism also refers to ratio

CS: Well, I cannot resist this “interesting aside.” It is my understanding that John was not a Greek mystic and logos literally translates to the word logic.

JS: And as I said the Synoptists do not claim that Jesus was God.

CS: I disagree and make the further point that taken together the Synoptics and the Bible taken as a whole do claim that he demonstrated his deity by rising from the dead.

JS: Jesus himself would not have lasted very long if he himself made such a claim.

CS: He did so indirectly, a point Muslims I have dialogued with simply do not comprehend.

JS: In fact, his trial for sedition…

CS: I thought Jesus was subject to multiple trails in front of a Jewish “court” and a Roman “court.”

JS: This is all well and fine if we were doing theology but we don't do theology on the Secular Web!

CS: I guess you secular presumption has blinded you to the fact that you cannot separate the theology of the issue in question from your analysis of the text. In fact, I will go so far as to say, that good analysis of the text in question clearly calls for a theological interpretation.

Here is why:

The entire issue at hand is the theological question of whether or not Jesus’ disciples were in violation and/or that Jesus allowed his disciples to violate the law when they partook of grain on the Sabbath. (Note: If Jesus, as Luke would have him respond, missed the point, then the disciples and Jesus would be in contradiction of the law.

This is what I meant by contradiction, as it is, for once, clear within the context of my remarks. Sorry for my poor choice of words though)

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and the book of Luke all mention that David, “also violated the Sabbath…” Furthermore, regarding the issue at hand all three books “bolster Jesus' messianism” another theological question.

Mt. 12:6 But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mk. 2: 28 The son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Luke 6:5 The son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath

JS:…I'm not knocking you CS for having faith (more power to you)

CS: More power to me for having faith coming from someone who considers faith as being in some kind of grip. Interesting.

Often, I submit the grip (unless it's G.I. Joe’s Kung Fu grip is the control of parents not faith.

By the way James you seem to have lost your humor in all this from your last post. As for me, I do not care about my reputation, though Joan Jett may have said it better.



[This message has been edited by ChristianSkeptic (edited April 27, 2001).]