Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-28-2010, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That was an underwhelming response to the effort I put into putting this data together to show the complex relationship between the sources. How do you all envisage the Lucan writer working with his two sources to get the results you see? Why do neither Matthew nor Luke have the Marcan sections in dark red? I personally don't think any of the theories is capable of dealing with the indications in this passage.

Matthew 8	Mark 1	Luke 5
² and there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him, saying,	⁴⁰ And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying,	^12b there was a man covered with leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored Him,
"Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean!"	. . . . "If you are willing, You can make me clean."	"Lord, if you are willing, You can make me clean."
	⁴¹ Moved with compassion,
³ He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying,	He stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him,	¹³ And He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying,
"I am willing; be cleansed." Immediately his leprosy was cleansed.	"I am willing; be cleansed." ⁴² Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.	"I am willing; be cleansed." And immediately the leprosy left him.
	⁴³ And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away,
⁴ The Jesus said to him, "See that you say to no one; but go, yourself show to the priest, and offer	⁴⁴ and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to no one; but go, yourself show to the priest and offer	¹⁴ And He ordered him to tell no one, "But go away, show yourself to the priest and offer
the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."	for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."	for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
	⁴⁵ But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.	¹⁵ But the news about Him was spreading even farther, and large crowds were gathering to hear Him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

But the only way one can deal with the relationship between the synoptics is to look closely at specific examples of comparisons.

I don't know what you expect here. Perhaps both Matthew and Luke found it odd to have Jesus "moved with compassion", maybe that line wasn't in the original Mark. We do know, for sure, that Mark has been altered, (LE).

That's part of the complexity. And the two redactors working in different contexts just decided they wouldn't use their principal source here. Convenient once, but not twice. Twice is a warning.

What I expect is some effort at thinking past the ruts that have been provided for our thinking in this area.

If scribes of the time didn't use desks, how did they manage working from two different sources at the same time? jumping from one to the other in the space of a sentence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Matthew doesn't like Jesus speaking sternly to people, but Luke simply rewrites the phrase to say Jesus ordered the guy.

Actually, Luke has simply turned the first part of the spoken language into reported speech, so it too doesn't have the speaking sternly. Would you like to consider another ad hoc approach to why the two of them don't use this part of Mark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This is all quite difficult without the originals, or at least the exact versions that each author had of the other's book...

This is why I took the time with the W&H text to get an English version which reflected the language of the Greek.

spin

dog-on · 01-28-2010, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I don't know what you expect here. Perhaps both Matthew and Luke found it odd to have Jesus "moved with compassion", maybe that line wasn't in the original Mark. We do know, for sure, that Mark has been altered, (LE).

That's part of the complexity. And the two redactors working in different contexts just decided they wouldn't use their principal source here. Convenient once, but not twice. Twice is a warning.

What I expect is some effort at thinking past the ruts that have been provided for our thinking in this area.

If scribes of the time didn't use desks, how did they manage working from two different sources at the same time? jumping from one to the other in the space of a sentence?

Perhaps the author wrote from memory...

Again, we do not have the specific version of Mark used by either Matthew or Luke and as such have no way to be sure of exactly what was available to them.

Quote:

Actually, Luke has simply turned the first part of the spoken language into reported speech, so it too doesn't have the speaking sternly. Would you like to consider another ad hoc approach to why the two of them don't use this part of Mark?

I can understand the word ordered as meaning speaking sternly. Not much ad hoc there. As for Matthew, maybe his version of Mark was missing this bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This is all quite difficult without the originals, or at least the exact versions that each author had of the other's book...

This is why I took the time with the W&H text to get an English version which reflected the language of the Greek.

spin

Are you using the originals?

I think my point stands. What was the exact wording of Mark when Matthew used it? How about when Luke used it?

Was it the same? How would we know?

spin · 01-28-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's part of the complexity. And the two redactors working in different contexts just decided they wouldn't use their principal source here. Convenient once, but not twice. Twice is a warning.

What I expect is some effort at thinking past the ruts that have been provided for our thinking in this area.

If scribes of the time didn't use desks, how did they manage working from two different sources at the same time? jumping from one to the other in the space of a sentence?

Perhaps the author wrote from memory...

Again, we do not have the specific version of Mark used by either Matthew or Luke and as such have no way to be sure of exactly what was available to them.

I can understand the word ordered as meaning speaking sternly. Not much ad hoc there.

So, "see that you say nothing" is not an order then??

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

As for Matthew, maybe his version of Mark was missing this bit.

icardfacepalm:

That's not ad hoc -- like everything else you've just said above?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

This is why I took the time with the W&H text to get an English version which reflected the language of the Greek.

Are you using the originals?

The W&H Greek text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think my point stands. What was the exact wording of Mark when Matthew used it? How about when Luke used it?

Was it the same? How would we know?

Now that you are asking these questions, you might wonder why you didn't ask yourself the same questions before you said, "Luke knew both Matthew and Mark, it seems"?

spin

dog-on · 01-28-2010, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps the author wrote from memory...

Again, we do not have the specific version of Mark used by either Matthew or Luke and as such have no way to be sure of exactly what was available to them.

I can understand the word ordered as meaning speaking sternly. Not much ad hoc there.

So, "see that you say nothing" is not an order then??

True, though less strong that order and not necessarily speaking sternly.

Quote:

icardfacepalm:

That's not ad hoc -- like everything else you've just said above?

The W&H Greek text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think my point stands. What was the exact wording of Mark when Matthew used it? How about when Luke used it?

Was it the same? How would we know?

Now that you are asking these questions, you might wonder why you didn't ask yourself the same questions before you said, "Luke knew both Matthew and Mark, it seems"?

spin

Indeed, of course, when it comes down to it, we have no idea because we do not have the autographs.

aa5874 · 01-28-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Or Marcion knew Mark and Matthew, and Luke is a redone version of Marcion.

I suppose this depends on what Marcion's gospel actually contained.

But, we don't really know what Marcion wrote. It was the same source that gave erroneous information about the date of writing, authorship and chronology of their own Canon that gave information about Marcion.

The Church writers claimed some Luke wrote gLuke, some Matthew wrote gMatthew, some Mark wrote gMark and some John wrote gJohn and now it would appear that they were 100 % wrong or 0% right for over 1800 years with their OWN Gospel authors.

Now, the following is found in a writing attributed to some Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 3 with respect to the Gospels.

Quote:

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel(3) only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord.

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a
blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he
still retains.

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging
that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered,
preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth,
may have their errors rectified.

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book...

Now, if this Irenaeus was completely wrong about the contents, the dating, authorship and chronology of the Gospels how can it be determined whether or not there was some document called "Q"?

show_no_mercy · 01-28-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Actually, Luke has simply turned the first part of the spoken language into reported speech, so it too doesn't have the speaking sternly. Would you like to consider another ad hoc approach to why the two of them don't use this part of Mark?

I can understand the word ordered as meaning speaking sternly. Not much ad hoc there. As for Matthew, maybe his version of Mark was missing this bit.

IIRC the phrase used by Mark at 1:41 was something close to "Jesus got angry", which fits his later rebuke at v.43. Maybe the motivation for changing v.41 to "moved with compassion" is the same motivation for Matt and Luke for removing it altogether.

maryhelena · 01-28-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Thanks for the link. Any idea re a website that would have all the Q 'sayings' in the sort of spreadsheet format that spin has posted above?

No Greek though.....

I've found nothing quite like that on the Web, although there are one or two places that do present small groups of the sayings in separate clusters, which is a fairly subjective exercise and not very helpful (IMO). But what I have done myself is just a simple list of the so-called Q sayings (which are readily identifiable simply by culling all the sayings that both Matthew and Luke have in common, but that Mark doesn't have) and arranged them in order as they appear relevant to the narrative in Mark. Before reading the Gentile stats, I had assumed with most scholars that Luke was the more reliable and less "edited" version of the sayings. Thus, the ordered list here is keyed to the chapter/numbering in Luke.

Hope this is useful:

Lk: 3:7-9; 16b-17;
4:1-13;
15:4-5; 7;
7:31-35;
6:12;
6:17; 20-23; 27-33; 35-49;
7:1-3; 6-10; 18-19; 22-28;
11:14-15; 17-26;
12:10;
11:33-35; 12:2-3;
19:12-13; 15-24; 26;
13:18-21;
10:2-16;
10:21-24;
11:16; 29-32; 12:54-56; 58-59;
14:26-27; 17:33;
12:4-9; 22-31;
17:1-4;
14:34-35;
9:57-60;
16:18;
12:33-34; 16:13; 13:24; 26-30;
13:34-35;
14:11;
17:6; 11:2-4; 9-11; 13;
14:16b-19; 21; 23-24;
11:39b-44;
11:46-52;
12:11-12; 51; 53;
17:23-24;
17:26-27; 30; 34-35; 37;
16:16-17;
12:39-40; 42-46;
22:28-30.

Chaucer

My thanks for your list. I'll admit to finding it quite unbelievable that in such a contentious issue such as Q that there is not a complete listing, spreadsheet wise, detailed, available for the layman, or woman.....to clearly see what the heck it is that these NT scholars are up too! Could be this, could be that - for heavens sake - if the whole issue is so ambiguous - just say so, openly and very publicly - and let the whole Q patchwork be seen for what it is - some cockamamie idea that the gospel storyline can be 'interpreted' through a literary lens....yeh...for sure, those gospel writers all had fine arts degrees....:huh:

andrewcriddle · 01-28-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

My thanks for your list. I'll admit to finding it quite unbelievable that in such a contentious issue such as Q that there is not a complete listing, spreadsheet wise, detailed, available for the layman, or woman.....to clearly see what the heck it is that these NT scholars are up too! Could be this, could be that - for heavens sake - if the whole issue is so ambiguous - just say so, openly and very publicly - and let the whole Q patchwork be seen for what it is - some cockamamie idea that the gospel storyline can be 'interpreted' through a literary lens....yeh...for sure, those gospel writers all had fine arts degrees....:huh:

I don't think these are quite what you are looking for but they may be of interest. English translation of Q Gospel synopsis site

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena · 01-28-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

My thanks for your list. I'll admit to finding it quite unbelievable that in such a contentious issue such as Q that there is not a complete listing, spreadsheet wise, detailed, available for the layman, or woman.....to clearly see what the heck it is that these NT scholars are up too! Could be this, could be that - for heavens sake - if the whole issue is so ambiguous - just say so, openly and very publicly - and let the whole Q patchwork be seen for what it is - some cockamamie idea that the gospel storyline can be 'interpreted' through a literary lens....yeh...for sure, those gospel writers all had fine arts degrees....:huh:

I don't think these are quite what you are looking for but they may be of interest. English translation of Q Gospel synopsis site

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew - I had a quick look and will go back - but its not what I'm after........I want what spin did......

spin · 01-28-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

IIRC the phrase used by Mark at 1:41 was something close to "Jesus got angry", which fits his later rebuke at v.43. Maybe the motivation for changing v.41 to "moved with compassion" is the same motivation for Matt and Luke for removing it altogether.

Mt 15:32, 18:27, 20:34, Mk 8:2, Lk 1:78.

No, it doesn't mean Jesus got angry. The text says what is claimed and there is no reason that the verb would be unacceptable.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.