spin

Could you possibly supply the logic from which you garner enough information from what I said that might allow you to postulate what is contained in this question as in some way reflective of what I said? While you're there, could you show me any signs of a logic to your endeavor to understand what I said?

You've done a lot of thinking.

Why did the writer of Mt correct one animal to two? Why not just leave it at one?

I thought you wee the one who claimed that these guys were being inventive.

It might be useful to find relevant analogies that reflect similar types of literary efforts. Your examples are all different genres.

They may have used some of those traditions as source texts, but that doesn't make them similar. And I don't know what sort of mental states the writers of some of those texts were written: they don't seem to reflect on the gospel writers.


spin

Solo

Hard to tell: the historical figure is almost totally overshadowed by the personna of Christ by Paul which was first projected in the psychodrama of Mark and then replicated in the other canonical gospels.

But I hold to a historical figure, which most probably lived and was executed in the time frame set up by the synoptics. I accept the standard date of Paul's career and his witness to the budding Jesus movement(s).

Strange as it may seem, I believe the silence of Paul on historical Jesus' comings and goings, his words and acts have to do not with Paul's private middle Platonic mythology, but his theo-political opposition to the teachings of the prophetic character (as he knew it second hand from his following, e.g. at Corinth). At the centre of the dispute was the nature of the resurrection and HJ's belief in the coming God's kingdom in Israel. Paul was adamantly opposed to the idea that the bi-polar pneumatic phenomena (the Holy Spirit/coming of the son of man) augured the dawn of a golden age on earth, and assigned them instead the function of witness to the earthly suffering and post-mortem glory of Jesus.

Mark's gospel is a strange sort of graft of Pauline teachings on the fragments of Palestinian traditions about Jesus. Mark's story, simple as it appears, has a complex structure, dominated by the passion narrative. In it, Jesus is rejected by all and the mystery of his resurrection is kept from his circle of disciples who scatter after his death. The mystery belongs to those to whom it is given, i.e. the readers of Mark who "follow" Pauline risen Lord Jesus as he walks the earth, i.e. are capable of decoding the stage Jesus sets and his actions as the works of pneuma. Most of Mark I read as allegorical although some of the stories look like they had been adapted from scripts Mark read or stories he heard. Their cognitive content does not suggest straightforward narration. Other than the Gerasene demoniac and Lazarus, I suspect historical incidents behind the transfiguration, the fig tree story, the temple “cleansing” and the rebuke to Peter at Caesara Philippi.

The designation son of man in NT comes from the Aramaic sources around Jesus and implies likely no messianic pretensions on the part of the historical man that Mark references. I consider it very probable within the historical hypothesis that the Markan (and Q ) figure did use the term as having apocalyptic content, specifically the witness of the Danielic angel (Dan 7.13) whom he was proclaiming. Mark would have extended the idiom beyond the original Aramaic scope (as generically “man”) and its early cultic bend (“the in-dwelling man of the coming kingdom”) to impress on it the Pauline messianic personna. The two very first occurrences of son of man in Mark: Jesus proclaiming the son of man’s right to forgive sins on earth (2:10), and him being the lord of the Sabbath (2:28), are really Pauline risen Christ operating on earth, alas in flesh, that is, without Paul's operating license. It would have given Paul fits. Mark’s gospel looks like the earliest harmonization of the two main strands of the emerging tradition: the Petrine primitive cultic Jesus idolatry brought under Paul’s Christ dominance. BTW, there is a very good synopsis with statistics on the NT use of son of man in Geza Vermes’ Jesus the Jew.

I agree. Christ resurrected is the self-described euphoric mania of Paul.

I gave my analysis of the text in the thread. Essentially, Mark is covering up what appears to have been an incident of Jesus being rejected by a community. A strange man emerges from a cemetery and his demon accuses Jesus of tormenting him. So would Mark have us believe, except he messes up the sequencing of the story and the grammar in referencing the single man vs. his many demons. So what happens if we read it the simple way ? A man emerges from among the tombs and tells Jesus (forget the honorific address; it’s part of the coverup) he has messed him up. Jesus restores the man to sanity but the folks ask Jesus to leave. Why would that be ? Again the simple answer is: because Jesus messed the man up in the first place (and the manner in which he did it). Further, the man asks to join the troopers but is refused. Why ? He failed the test and embarrassed Jesus. Now read this story side by side with Lazarus and you’ll find some curious similarities.
I have but that would have to be some other time…..

Jiri

spin

What are you primary sources for thinking a titular use of son of man "comes from the Aramaic sources around Jesus"?

All the biblical usages including Daniel are description in intent. (While the representatives of the four nations in Daniel were like various beasts, the one representing god's people was like a son of man.) We have to wait for the Parables of Enoch -- according to Milik a late 2nd c. CE addition to Enochic pentateuch -- for a titular usage out the gospels.


spin

Solo

In case I have not said it clearly enough for you : I suspect it was none other than Mark who extended the Aramaic usage (including the presumed cultic meanings of that term in a group around Jesus, whether real or chimeric) and introduced the Son of Man as a christological title.

Ok with that ?

Jiri

spin

I don't see any evidence that the Marcan writer had an Aramaic background. He was writing in Greek for a Roman audience and the only Aramaic influence was through phrases of mainly insignificant value. Was there no statement more momentous than talitha kumi?? His Jesus was fundamentally a Greek speaker.

Our writer is not big on Hebrew bible, even giving a conflated citation including material from Malachi which he assigns all to Isaiah, so it is likely that he received his Hebrew bible materials, including the stuff from Daniel and the son of man stuff, from the tradition he was writing in.


spin

Solo

Actually, I find, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani somewhat more momentous but that's beside the point.

I am not arguing that Mark had Aramaic background. It may very well be that he never heard bar enash but already received it as ho huios tou anthropou which he might have found confusing because the LXX usage ,and Daniel 7:13 specifically, was dropping the article.

More importantly: when the saying was translated into Greek, the idiomatic contexts were missing and the Paulinist Greek speakers might have thought the translated circumlocutions of son of man with apocalyptic content signified Jesus (HJ) had messianic self-consciousness a la Paul.

Jiri

Malachi151

GMark simply alludes to Zechariah 9, which the author of Matthew apparently recognized. The author of GMatthew then specifically cited Zechariah 9 and thus "corrected" the narrative in light of (his misreading of) the scripture.

This is just one of several examples in GMatthew where its apparent that the author recognized an allusion and then went straight to the text that was alluded to in GMark.

Of course they do.

The OP asks: Even though the writers of the Gospels may have based narrative elements on scriptural passages, can't it also be the case that they viewed their own writings as "true" or "historically accurate" even while basing them on scritpures?

This goes to the heart of larger issues within the Jewish and early Christian community.

We can ask these same exact questions about a whole host of works.

Did the writer the Book of Daniel believe that what he was writing was "true"?

Did the writer of the Apocalypse of John believe that what he was writing was "true"?

For that matter, did the writer of the story of the martyrdom of Peter, complete with talking dogs, a Harry Potter style magician's showdown, and Peter's visions of Jesus believe that what he was writing was "true"?

If we just take the Apocalypse of John as an example, it is clear that Revelation draws heavily from the Book of Daniel.

If we can't answer whether or not the author of Revelation believed in the "truthfulness" of what he was writing, then how can we possibly even begin to address the Gospels?

Both Revelation and the Gospel of Matthew use Hebrew scriptures to derive parts of their narratives. Revelation is certainly much wilder than the Gospels, but it also makes the claim that everything it is saying is "true" and "really happened".

The point is that this community and the literary traditions in this community exhibit patterns of producing writings, often based on scritpures, that testify to being true, but which can't possibly be true. Now, did the authors of those writings, such as Revelation, themselves believe that what they were writing, "really happened"?

I think you have to answer that question for the more extreme cases before you can get to the more difficult cases.

This is a question that should be much easier to address in regard to Revelation than in regard to the Gospels. If we can't address it in regard to the easier case, then how can we possibly address it in regard to the more difficult case?

spin

You haven't answered the question(s) at all. So, once again,

Why did the writer of Mt correct one animal to two? Why not just leave it at one?


spin

Ted Hoffman

Please you two, which passage in Matthew? Which on in Zechariah? Which one in Mark?
Mark 11:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11 and Zech 9?

Matt and Mark have one animal each and two disciples.

spin

Mt 21:2 ass & colt
Mt 21:3 bring them
Mt 21:5 mounted on an ass and on a colt
Mt 21:7 ass and colt... sat him upon them

Mk 11:3 colt
Mk 11:4 colt... loosed it
Mk 11:5 loosing colt
Mk 11:7 colt... sat him upon it

Zech 9:9 king... riding on an ass and on a colt


spin