yalla

Well, according to the author of g"Mark" at 10.17-22 there are about 6 commandments to follow, one of which is "Do not defraud".

1. The author of g"Matthew" has answered the same question at "Matthew" 19.16 and given the same response as "Mark".
Except that he omits
"Do not defraud"
and adds
"Love thy neighbour as yourself" [the latter coming from Lev.19.18.]

2 [a] "Luke", at 18.18-23, answers the same question with the same words as both "Mark" and "Matthew" and like "Matthew" also omits "Do not defraud".
2 [b] "Luke", at 10.25-28, answers the same question yet again, and like "Matthew" adds "Love ... your neighbour as yourself".

So, when "Luke" answers the Markan question he gives, like "Matthew", the basic Markan version but, like "Matthew":
omits
"Do not defraud"
and adds
"Love your neighbour as yourself".


Coincidence? Twice?
cheers
yalla

Eldarion Lathria

Not coincidence. Not divine authorship. Quote.

Eldarion Lathria

reniaa

or possibly same event wriitten from another person's viewpoint so explaining similarity as well as differences

Mageth

So the answer to "What shall I do To Inherit Eternal Life?" depends on one's viewpoint, and can be different according to one's viewpoint?

That seems like an awfully important question for the answer to depend on one's viewpoint.

Ben C Smith

The coincidental subraction of do not defraud is hard to justify as a true coincidence, since it is all too easy to imagine two independent authors or editors removing this commandment from the list: It is the only one on the list that is not one of the 10 commandments. (Yet Farmer still lists this agreement of omission as notable.)

The coincidental addition of love your neighbor is a different matter. On the one hand, the true parallel passages to Luke 10.25-29 are Matthew 22.34-40 and Mark 12.28-34; on the other hand, Luke has used the same introduction (eternal life) in 10.25 as all three synoptics use in the rich young ruler pericope, which is where Matthew adds this commandment to the list. So this may be more than sheer coincidence.

(Disclosure: I favor the view, at least at present, that Luke knew the gospel of Matthew, so I may be inclined to see a connection here that is not as strong on closer inspection as it seems at first glance. Someone like Andrew Criddle may have a different view of the level of coincidence necessary for both Matthew and Luke to independently link eternal life with love your neighbor.)

Ben.

Toto

The point here is that "do not defraud" is not in the Hebrew Scriptures. Both Matt and Luke "correct" Mark to bring him in line with the Scriptures.

JPHolding jumps through some hoops to defend Jesus against the charge of adding to the law, including suggesting that phrase was a "copyist error," or that Jesus was just testing the rich man to see if he knew the commandments.

yalla

Actually Ben picked up on what was the point of my post .
In a non-Q section 'Luke' has copied what 'Matthew' has written.
The only way he could have done so is by extra ordinary coincidence or by knowledge of 'Matthew's' text.
And I agree with Farmer, the omission of 'Do not defraud' is clearly deliberate, its like a missing tooth in an otherwise flashy smile, very conspicuous by its absence from the original "Markan" text. Twice.
The addition of the "love thy neighbour' line more than doubles the impact. Two coincidences in the same context are more notable than two separate coincidences in separate contexts. Here both, the omission and the addition, are used to answer the same question.

Toto.
I have read that "do not defraud' is in the Hebrew scriptures albeit in different form. That is the essence of the idea is there. I'm not sure where exactly, perhaps 'thou shall not bear false witness'?

I don't read JP.

JoeWallack

JW:
O foolish InfiDelphians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes "Mark's" Christ's Paulmary source was openly set forth?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_7

"7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
7:6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.
7:7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that."

JW:
"Mark's" Primary source for his Jesus was Paul. The Jewish Bible was a Secondary source for "Mark". "Matthew"/"Luke" are flipped. For them "Mark" was not Scripture and therefore a higher source was the Jewish Bible. This is why when they deviate from "Mark" it is often a Type story with the Jewish Bible as source.

I've already indicated in:

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

that the Source for "Mark's" Jesus' Passion prediction was Likely Paul. In my future Thread:

Outsourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love. Paul as Primary Source for "Mark"

I will likewise indicate that "Mark's" source for the Eucharist was Paul. Especially telling regarding Paul as Source for "Mark" are the many words of Paul that "Mark" places in his Jesus' mouth.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

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

Ben C Smith

So Mark takes the figurative language of Paul, where defrauding is applied to sexual relations between husband and wife, and turns it into one of the commandments on a par with do not steal?

That seems like a reach.

At least as likely: Mark got μη αποστερησης from, say, Sirach 4.1:

Do not defraud [μη αποστερησης] the poor of his living.

I do think that Mark knew the Pauline epistles, either directly or indirectly; I just do not think we have to stretch the evidence to make the case.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Maybe this is less of a reach:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_6

"6:7 Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?
6:8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.
6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

JW:
And what is the Context here Private Benjamin? Looks to me like the Commandments (for the kingdom of God).



Joseph