Ben C Smith

I agree this is better. But it is still not as good as Sirach, IMVHO. And I think the parable of the sower shows that Mark knew Sirach.

(I am far from military material, BTW, and look nothing like Goldie Hawn.)

Ben.

yalla

Wherever "Mark" got it from [ie the defraud thingy], I can see reasons why "Matthew" would omit it. It's not exactly up there with the rest of the Decologue.
And I can see why "Luke", independently of "Matthew" or because he is copying "Matthew", would also omit it.
And I can see why "Matthew" would add 'love thy neighbour', it's a nice thing to say and the source is fairly readily discernible [Lev 19.18] and its a biggy as far as ethical sayings go.
But if this is not a alleged Q scenario, what other explanation can we accept for "Luke" apparently copying 'Matthew" by answering "Mark's" question in the same double variation?
Surely it's stretching the idea of coincidence?
I submit this as another weak link in the claim for Q.

Anyway I'm off to the big smoke, catch you folk Tuesday.
cheers
old yalla

andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that there is a substantial amount of manuscript evidence for omitting do not defraud in Mark 10:19 (Codex Vaticanus Codex Washingtonensis apparently Irenaeus and Clement)

As the non-parallel reading one would normally prefer to keep do not defraud in Mark but I'm not sure.

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

Are Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14 possibilities also?

Ben C Smith

Maybe, but I was matching the LXX up with the text of Mark, and Sirach comes out as a perfect match. Leviticus 19.13 and Deuteronomy 24.14 actually come out as do not do injustice to in the Greek of the LXX.

Ben.

schilling.klaus

Mark's fraudulently deletes the question concerning the good,
inspite of giving an answer to it.
The question for the good is of Stoic philosophical origin.

The first answer of Jesus, in all of the synoptics,
is thoroughly corrupted.
It has to be "Only One is good, my Father in Heavens"
as seen from Justin's Trypho, Origen's principles, and many other early christian writings. It implies that the demiurge is not good. This is proper Christian thinking. The Roman Catholic authors had to deviate from this when writing their forgeries (the canonical Gospels) as they needed to identify Father and demiurge for deeming themselves as the legitimate heirs of Jewish theocracy and prophetic annunciation. Thus they corrupted the proper line in various manner.
Naive embarrassmentalists like Schmiedel tried to abuse this answer from Jesus as a proof for the historical human Jesus, which is of course absurd, as already the Hermetics made a similar statement about the Logos vs. the Supreme God.

In the later discourse of the saying , we see that the negative commandments of the Torah are only rhetorically and hypocritically linked to the order of loving one's neighbour. This proves, along with other hilarious self-corrections in the synoptic text, that the canonical gospels are all written as rebuttals of Marcion's works, as is typical for the Roman Catholic church of mid to late second century, starting with Justin Martyr.



Klaus Schilling