Chili

Inspired and mistaken?

JoeWallack

JW:

Mark

8:9 "And they were about four thousand: and he sent them away.
10 And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.
11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him.
12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
13 And he left them, and again entering into [the boat] departed to the other side."

Compare to:

Matthew

15:38 "And they that did eat were four thousand men, besides women and children.
39 And he sent away the multitudes, and entered into the boat, and came into the borders of Magadan.
16:1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
16:2 But he answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the heaven is red.
16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to-day: for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye know how to discern the face of the heaven; but ye cannot [discern] the signs of the times.
16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
16:5 And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread."


JW X-Uh-Jesus:
In "Mark's" literary world the Impossible is assumed to be Possible and it's accepted that Jesus did the Impossible. The problem for Jesus' audience is to determine the Source of Jesus' power, Good Spirit or Evil Spirit. The Pharisees ask Jesus to provide a Sign from Heaven which would confirm that the Source of Jesus' power is the Good Spirit (God). The problem for the modern reader in seeing this is her simpler assumption that anyone shown as doing the Impossible must be and would have been seen as the Good Guy.

"Mark's" Jesus explicitly states that there will be no sign from Heaven for that Generation. This fits perfectly with "Mark's" major themes:

1) "Mark's" Jesus was generally not recognized as Messiah in his (Jesus') Generation. (Because that Generation did not receive a sign from Heaven).

2) The Ironic Contrast of no sign from Heaven to the Masses followed up by the sign from Heaven to the Insiders, the Transfiguration. And now, in the words of Lord Vater, "Their failure is complete." The Named and Known Insiders (Disciples), who received the best information, failed. Now an Unnamed and Unknown Outsider, the author, succeeds. Irony.

So in SumMary, The Insiders Failed Jesus because they lacked Faith, the Outsiders failed because they didn't receive the Evidence the Insiders received all leading to a fitting classical Greek Ironic Tragedy where the Hero is Unrecognized and Suffering is maximized to the End. "Mark's" Jesus' can not have a Happy Ending with Mary Massadalene because that takes away from the Tragedy.

So it's not "Mark's" Jesus' audience that Recognizes "Mark's" Jesus. It's "Mark's" audience, which Learns from the Mistakes of Jesus' audience. Just like it was a Play or something. El-dipus Wrecks, look out!

Compare to the Evil "Matthew" who adulterated "Mark's" version. "Matthew" changes the Key piece of information in the story to the Opposite. Instead of Jesus' audience receiving No sign from Heaven, now they will receive a sign, the Resurrection.

This fits perfectly with "Matthew's" major themes:

1) "Matthew's" Jesus was recognized as Messiah in his (Jesus') Generation. (Because that Generation did receive a sign from Heaven).

2) "Matthew" undos The Ironic Contrast of no sign from Heaven to the Masses followed up by the sign from Heaven to the Insiders, the Transfiguration. "Matthew" understands that the definition of "Irony" is "unlikely". "Matthew" wants a believable account and not Ironic style. (The Ironic contrast of related stories is another reason for Markan priority - Vorkosigan, look out!).

So it's not "Matthew's" audience that first Recognizes "Matthew's" Jesus. It's "Matthew's" Jesus' audience, which Learns from their own Mistakes. Just like it was a Gospel or something. Theolophilus, look out!

What's instructive here from a supposed Witness standpoint is how Determined "Matthew" was to use "Mark" as The Source. Even where "Matthew" wanted a Key point made, that Jesus' disciples were the Witnesses to Jesus, as opposed to "Mark's" Key point that they weren't, "Matthew" still uses "Mark" as the Source for his point and just changes "Mark" to make the opposite point.

What this means is that "Matthew" had no alternative Source to "Mark" for the basic Jesus narrative (like real witnesses) and Comically obviously didn't consider "Mark" Inerrant as he changed important points even though Evil and Adultering (gayly) Fundamentalists consider "Matthew" and "Mark" inerrant.



Joseph

PRAY, v.
To ask that the 15 billion year old immutable laws of the universe be temporarily suspended for the personal benefit of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

That explanation is contrary to the text since the author of Luke explicitly informs the reader that he intends to repeat "those things which are most surely believed among us" and does repeat several things that are stated in other gospels.

The most obvious explanation is that it was the theological implications of the statement that provoked subsequent authors to delete it from their versions of the story. They didn't want to depict Jesus as accusing God of abandoning him so they didn't include the statement.

Doug Shaver

There are Christians who would say so. They do not equate inspiration with infallibility.

rhutchin

Luke saw the need to repeat some things and not others. He does not appear to have thought it necessary to repeat everything in Matthew and Mark. He could have written a much larger volume but choose a condensed version.

Yet, the substance of that which Luke said is important especially to non-Jewish audiences who would not understand the full implication of what happened. Perhaps, that is why he included that information while the others did not.

rhutchin

I see no evil intent on the part of the gospel writers to deceive people. So, could they have made errors unintentionally? I do not believe they could given that they were writing of their experiences for the ost part. Also, the Bible says that it is God who inspired the gospel writers to record those things that He wanted made known to the people, and He would have ensured that the final document was perfect.

Amaleq13

Given that the author explicitly states his intent to write about "those things which are most surely believed among us", should we not conclude from his omission of this alleged statement by Jesus while on the cross that it was not something "surely believed" among his fellow Christians?

You've lost focus on the specific verse under discussion. Why would an author intent on writing about "those things which are most surely believed among us" choose not to include this alleged statement? We've already seen what the most obvious reason is (ie the author found it theologically objectionable) but you seem to want to avoid it despite having nothing better to replace it.

How does this explain the author's choice to delete the statement in his version of the story?

We are discussing a statement the author did not include while at least one of his sources did.

Doug Shaver

Whenever you write about your exeriences, are you infallible?
No, it doesn't say that. That is how you have interpreted something that it says.