Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-03-2004, 03:20 AM

Matthew has a sermon on the Mount.

Luke has a similar, but often different, sermon on the plane.

R.T.France once wrote 'It is hardly surprising, then, that one gospel reads very differently from the other, and that the same story or dialogue may be presented in markedly different way...'

Is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain the same story or dialogue presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

John has a demonstration at the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The Synoptics put this at the end.

Is this same story presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

If the Gospels don't let us know what Jesus said it and when, or what exactly he did and when, can they be considered to be reliable history?

The Gospels have many vague "chronological links" such as, "then" or "in those days" or "immediately."

Is this because they really had no idea when any of this happened?

Luke 3:1 says 'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.'

If the Gospel writers can sometimes make an attempt at chronology, are their many vague chronological links an admission that they often failed in their attempts to put things in an historical setting?

Layman · 05-04-2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Matthew has a sermon on the Mount.

Luke has a similar, but often different, sermon on the plane.

R.T.France once wrote 'It is hardly surprising, then, that one gospel reads very differently from the other, and that the same story or dialogue may be presented in markedly different way...'

Is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain the same story or dialogue presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

John has a demonstration at the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The Synoptics put this at the end.

Is this same story presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

If the Gospels don't let us know what Jesus said it and when, or what exactly he did and when, can they be considered to be reliable history?

The Gospels have many vague "chronological links" such as, "then" or "in those days" or "immediately."

Is this because they really had no idea when any of this happened?

Luke 3:1 says 'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.'

If the Gospel writers can sometimes make an attempt at chronology, are their many vague chronological links an admission that they often failed in their attempts to put things in an historical setting?

When they are specific about the time, such as Luke 3:1, we can be sure they mean to imply a specific time. When they are more generic and say "then" we can be less sure. Most scholars I have read re: the Passion Narrative think that it was the unit of tradition most preserved as a chronological unit.

Vinnie · 05-04-2004, 10:05 AM

Settings are generally more prone to change than sayings.

I started discussing this in my paper on Mark:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

Quote:

2B. Movable Pericopes

The Gospels consists largely of individual units (minus the passion accounts and birth narratives). As we saw, Mark is connecting lots of diverse material with artificial links. Most of this can be cut and pasted in different positions with little trouble. Each unit usually has a brief introduction and a saying and/or action that concludes the message and teaches a point. These little units would have been very useful to Christian preachers in the early church.

An example of this is found in Mark 9:33-37, Matthew 18:1-4 and Luke 9:46-50. It is a pericope that can be used as an example to illustrate Jesus' concern for those who were powerless.

Who is the Greatest...

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 18:1-4 Niv)

The pericope is introduced by "at that time" and this implies a chronological setting but its entirely artificial. E.P. Sanders writes, "Matthew puts the passage about being like a child late in the narrative, just three chapters before the entry to Jerusalem. It immediately follows discussion of the Temple tax, a discussion which, he wrote, took place in Capernaum (Mtt. 17:24-7). Mark places the same passage late, and also in Capernaum (9:33-7), but not after the story of the Temple tax, which he does not have. Luke puts the pericope about the child quite early in his Gospel, ten chapters before the entry to Jerusalem (9:46-50). There is no reason to think that any of the authors knew precisely when Jesus uttered the statement about being childlike, or the particular circumstances that triggered it. Rather, each of them situated it where he wished." [3]

Temple Cleansing

Another example of thematic or topological order rather than chronological concerns the temple cleansing in John (compare Mark 11:15-18, Matthew 21:10-17 and Luke 19:45-48 with John 2:12-17). John places it at the beginning of his Gospel//Jesus' ministry whereas the synoptic authors all place it at the end. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy makes headway for this: “Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers.�?[4] This type of apologetics tends to miss the point. Interpreters agree that the author of John placed the account at the beginning for theological reasons. As Paula Fredriksen notes, “[I]n Mark, it sets up the passion; in John it serves as a vehicle for Christology�?.[5] Its “Mark’s finale and John’s debut�?. It is somewhat inconceivable that one eyewitness would report this at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and another at the end. Raymond Brown summed this up very well,

“The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among their Gospels. How could eyewitness John (chap 2) report the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the ministry and eyewitness Matthew (chap. 21) report the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the ministry? In order to reconcile them, interpreters would contend that the Temple-cleansing happened twice and that each evangelist chose to report only one of the two instances. However, if neither evangelist was an eyewitness and each had received an account of the Temple-cleansing from an intermediate source, neither one (or only one) may have known when it occurred during the public ministry. Rather than depending on a personal memory of events, each evangelist has arranged the material he received in order to portray Jesus in a way that would meet the spiritual needs of the community to which he was addressing the Gospel. Thus the Gospels have been arranged in logical order, not necessarily in Chronological order. The evangelists emerge as authors, shaping, developing, pruning the transmitted Jesus material, and as theologians, orienting that material to a particular goal.�?[6]

The Lost Sheep:

There are numerous other examples of this phenomenon throughout the Gospels. A further example concerns the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew and Luke (Matthew 18:10-14 and Luke 15:4-7). In Matthew the parable is directed to the disciples, in Luke it is told against the Pharisees. Given such different settings it is obvious the parable had a life of its own and could be used in various ways as the evangelists saw fit.

If you read nothing else read the last section on The Lost Sheep.

Vinnie

Steven Carr · 05-04-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Matthew has a sermon on the Mount.

Luke has a similar, but often different, sermon on the plane.

R.T.France once wrote 'It is hardly surprising, then, that one gospel reads very differently from the other, and that the same story or dialogue may be presented in markedly different way...'

Is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain the same story or dialogue presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

John has a demonstration at the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The Synoptics put this at the end.

Is this same story presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions?

What methodology can be used to settle that issue?

Sadly, Layman never set out his methodology which would let us know if the demonstration in the Temple happened once or twice, or if the Sermon on the Mount/Plain was two different occasions or not.

Is this because he has no methodology which works?

Steven Carr · 05-04-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

If you read nothing else read the last section on The Lost Sheep.

Vinnie

Vinnie is quite right. The Gospellers arranged material to suit their own private agenda, and it is hardly a defense to say that lots of other people throughout history have also arranged material in ways which suit their own private agendas.

05-03-2004, 03:20 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Sermon on the Mount/Plain Matthew has a sermon on the Mount. Luke has a similar, but often different, sermon on the plane. R.T.France once wrote 'It is hardly surprising, then, that one gospel reads very differently from the other, and that the same story or dialogue may be presented in markedly different way...' Is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain the same story or dialogue presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions? What methodology can be used to settle that issue? John has a demonstration at the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The Synoptics put this at the end. Is this same story presented in markedly different ways, or are they two different occasions? What methodology can be used to settle that issue? If the Gospels don't let us know what Jesus said it and when, or what exactly he did and when, can they be considered to be reliable history? The Gospels have many vague "chronological links" such as, "then" or "in those days" or "immediately." Is this because they really had no idea when any of this happened? Luke 3:1 says 'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.' If the Gospel writers can sometimes make an attempt at chronology, are their many vague chronological links an admission that they often failed in their attempts to put things in an historical setting?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.