Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 10-27-2010, 12:59 PM

Regardless if it existed or not, the theory is based on the fact that a big chunk of the text between Luke and Matt is similar enough to make them think they used a second source. Or is it that they need to use the idea of a second source because of the differences between the material the are trying to compare? I haven't looked into how similar the Q material is between the two and don't really know why they don't think one copied the other.

PhilosopherJay · 10-28-2010, 07:37 AM

Hi Elijah,

Thanks for the response.

Perhaps this will help, of the 110 references to the term "son of man" in the Old Testament, 94 of them are in the book of Ezekiel. Only one person in the Old Testament is repeatedly addressed and referred to as "son of man" - Ezekiel.

This week I had prepared three different multiple choice tests for my 120 students. When I came across the statement in Matthew:

Quote:

16.13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"

16.14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 16.15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

I recognized this immediately as a multiple choice quiz. The writer of Matthew was presenting the answer to the question "Who is the Son of Man?" as a multiple choice quiz, first giving the A, B, C, and D choices and then giving the proper answer. I realized that the second question ""But who do you say that I am?" did not logically follow from the question "Who do men say that the Son of man is?".

Imagine these two quiz questions:

1) People say that "Frankenstein" was written by A) Mary Shelley, B) Percy Shelley, C) Lord Byron and D) one of their friends. Who do you think wrote the novel "Waverley"?

2) 1) People say that "Frankenstein" was written by A) Mary Shelley, B) Percy Shelley, C) Lord Byron and D) one of their friends. Who do you think wrote "Frankenstein".

The number one form makes no sense. There is no real connection between the choices and the question. Why introduce the four possibilities for the Mary Shelley novel, if you are going to ask about the Walter Scott novel. In the same way the Matthew text as is makes no sense. There is no real connection between the four choices presented by the "Who do people say the son of man is?" question and the "Who do you say I am?" question. Why introduce the "son of man" question and give four choices, if you not going to answer the question and are going to ask a question about Jesus instead? If this was the actual form that the writer of Matthew wrote, raising significant questions, giving choices and then starting a new question without answering the first one, we would consider him crazy.

The number two form makes sense. The first question is related to the second question in a simple, clear, normal and logical fashion. In Matthew's text, only if the second question was "Who do you say he is?" would it be related to the question "Who do people say the son of man is?" in a simple, clear, normal and logical fashion.

Now, assuming the number two form is correct, let us say that someone answered, the question "Who wrote Frankenstein?" with the fourth choice, one of their friends. This could be right, but it would not be impressive. After all, you could have been guessing. You have a 25% chance of being right. I would not respond enthusiastically by saying something like, "Blessed are you, ______ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

But let us say, your answer was "Leigh Hunt". Leigh Hurt was a poet friend of Mary Shelley an Percy Shelley. They might of had a Ménage à trois. After Percy Shelley's death, Leigh Hunt was the man who handed Percy Shelley's heart to Mary. This is not common knowledge and only someone who had really studied and researched the story of the Mary Shelley and "Frankenstein" could have known this. It might really shock me that you knew this. I might exclaim (assuming I was a religious person) ""Blessed are you, ______ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church," or (assuming I was not a religious person) "Wow, you're really good, I'm going to let you teach the class from now on."

The enthusiastic response of Jesus in the Matthew text only makes sense if Simon had hit the nail on the head and had identified not only Jesus as the son of God, but the exact prophet who was the son of God. If any other prophet had been named, the author would have had to stop to explain why it was correct. Only the answer "Ezekiel" would have been clear enough to every Jew who had read the Hebrew Scriptures. The author would not have had to explain why Ezekiel was the "son of man," as the Hebrew Scriptures directly calls him the "son of man."

Regarding the question, "Do you think they are suggesting that it’s Ezekiel resurrected, reincarnated or just Jesus is a prophet of his type/spirit?"

I would tend to think that Matthew was saying that Jesus was Ezekiel resurrected as resurrection was a concept associated with Ezekiel:

Quote:

He said to me, 'Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life."' So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life, and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.' "Therefore prophesy, and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel." (Ezekiel 37:9-12)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Elijah,
Glancing at Mark, we see:

I think it is important that he says "Christ" and not Son of God. Probably Christ was in the original Matthew, which I believe Mark edited in this passage. I also believe that Simon Peter explicitly named Ezekiel. Otherwise, the fact that Jesus says that Simon Peter got the information directly from God wouldn't make sense, he could have guessed that Jesus was the Son of Man, but not that he was Ezekiel (choice number 4).
So a more precise reconstruction of original Matthew would be this:
Mark, simply eliminated the whole Son of Man thing, eliminating the first two lines and changing the answer "The son of Man, Ezekial, the Christ" to the simple "The Christ" answer.
The four choices that are given 1) John the Baptist, 2) Elijah, 3) Jeremiah, or 4) one of the prophets indicates that we are dealing with a pre-Marcion text. Otherwise, "a prophet from another God" would have been presented as another false choice.
This indicates the movement of the title "Son of man" in the text/movements
Probably John the Baptist was originally declared as "the Son of Man." Other Jews argued for Elijah, and others added to the debate by putting in Jeremiah's name as a candidate, and those who couldn't decide just said "one of the prophets."
That it was Ezekiel was a new revelation.

I’m a little lost, sorry. This is a stab at it. Him using “son of god” you think was originally “son of man” and that this is a title for Ezekiel who is different from the messiah which is a later addition? You also think that it’s too obvious for Peter to guess that Jesus was the messiah so he had to say something else to get the type of response that it was a revelation from God?

Do you think they are suggesting that it’s Ezekiel resurrected, reincarnated or just Jesus is a prophet of his type/spirit? When they say “son of man” they mean the guy who was called it in the OT, it’s not a title but a nickname of a particular person?

I think that the "it’s a revelation from god" is more likely a response to one of the other gospels who showed Peter’s faith in Jesus as coming from John the Baptist (Mark, John). If you look at Mark and John he’s just someone who believed what John said but that wasn’t good enough for the writer of Mathew who wanted to make it look like Peter was divinely revealed instead of man made.

Did Ezekiel actually raise the dead or have a vision that his prophecy could do it? You have other prophets in the OT that resurrect the dead so it’s not necessarily a reference to Ezekiel or the other two who actually did but just trying to put their messiah on equal footing with the feats of the OT folks collectively.

Quote:

In the case of the Gospel of Matthew, since Jesus has behaved as a prophet and in fact makes a prophesy after Simon Peter identifies him we may assume that the identification that Simon Peter made was originally that Jesus was a prophet instead of "The Christ, son of God" Jesus will build his church on Peter because Peter has correctly identified him, not because he is the son of God. Why would the Son of God need a church anyway?

I forgot I wanted to make a quick statement about why the Churches. They are trying to establish a new kind of kingdom within the literal kingdoms with the churches. A new kind of kingdom that could provide for the people, without borders or a king to oppress you; because instead of having to die and serve the authority like in the standard kingdom, with this kingdom the king served and died for the people.

But I do agree that Jesus probably couldn’t have envisioned the Church aspect of the movement, so that’s not something he could have said but not because he was so powerful that they would be unnecessary. Which I guess you are suggesting with why would the “Son of God” need a church instead of “Jesus”.

show_no_mercy · 10-28-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Elijah,

Glancing at Mark, we see:

Quote:

8.27And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 8.28And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." 8.29And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ.

I think it is important that he says "Christ" and not Son of God. Probably Christ was in the original Matthew, which I believe Mark edited in this passage. I also believe that Simon Peter explicitly named Ezekiel. Otherwise, the fact that Jesus says that Simon Peter got the information directly from God wouldn't make sense, he could have guessed that Jesus was the Son of Man, but not that he was Ezekiel (choice number 4).

Neither Mark's nor Matthew's rendition of this pericope makes any sense. Matt's doesn't make sense for the logical consistency you pointed out, and Mark's because Jesus' disciples already knew of a John the Baptist who lived contemporaneously with Jesus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 2:18

Now John [the Baptist]'s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"

Here it's intimated that John and Jesus are two different people who coexisted... unless Jesus really was some sort of shapeshifter/alter-ego.

Juststeve · 10-28-2010, 09:52 AM

Elijah:

I am not arguing against the existence of Q. I think it a reasonable theory to account for observed instances in which Matthew and Luke agree but Mark is silent. I was suggesting that the existence of Q is not a unanimous opinion, nothing more.

Steve

Elijah · 10-28-2010, 11:45 AM

If it was multiple choice and the choices are already given by masses of people then the choice that Peter makes is no big deal because he is just choosing one of the popular opinions of who Jesus is. It’s only because he chooses one of the options that others aren’t saying that he gets recorded down as significant in the text. This works in Mathew because in Mark and John Peter is already told Jesus is the messiah by John making it not a revelation.

Just like how Paul emphasized his coming to Christ by revelation instead of human conversion, it’s because there was value seen in coming to conclusions on your own intellect vs. following along with your group’s thinking. The only thing that is really confusing is how he (the writer) uses “Son of Man” instead of “I am” in the beginning because it looks like two questions. Why they did this is a shoulder-shrugger to me but the question comes up enough other times in the synoptics that it should seem like something that particular writer was trying to articulate there, not an unhidden marker for what the story was originally. Luke 9:7 and Mark 6:14 also lay out the same formula of who is this guy doing miracles. JtB, Elijah or one of the other prophets. Peter gets the question right that it’s the messiah and not any of those, which is the main point of the story that is presented.

Think of the multiple choice quiz as happening verbally aloud in your classroom and you point to a picture and go who is this and some of your class shouts “Bob” and another side shouts no it’s “Tom” and some more go nope it’s “Sam” but when you ask a particular student they don’t choose any answers they hear but answer it correctly without being told who it was by the room.

That kid would get the gold star but if he chooses one of the other things the kids say it’s not as impressive which is probably why Matthew decided not to have JTB tell Peter that Jesus was the messiah because it just make him look like a follower of JTB and not a true convert (by faith) to Jesus.

I have no argument in saying Ezekiel popularized the term “son of man” but it gets used as a title for the messiah, I think. Now when this started or how accurate it is, I don’t know. But thinking “son of man” isn’t a title of a person they were expecting to help them but the title of the specific person (Ezekiel) would need to be supported. It’s possible they were expecting him because they were similarly waiting on Elijah to return but you need something more than using the title for Jesus to say it was actually Ezekiel. You need someone saying “son of man” in this time is Ezekiel actually.

The parable use and shepherd comparison just seem too common place to try to say these are indicators of this individual specifically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Elijah,

Thanks for the response.

Perhaps this will help, of the 110 references to the term "son of man" in the Old Testament, 94 of them are in the book of Ezekiel. Only one person in the Old Testament is repeatedly addressed and referred to as "son of man" - Ezekiel.

This week I had prepared three different multiple choice tests for my 120 students. When I came across the statement in Matthew:

Quote:

16.13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"

16.14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 16.15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

I recognized this immediately as a multiple choice quiz. The writer of Matthew was presenting the answer to the question "Who is the Son of Man?" as a multiple choice quiz, first giving the A, B, C, and D choices and then giving the proper answer. I realized that the second question ""But who do you say that I am?" did not logically follow from the question "Who do men say that the Son of man is?".

Imagine these two quiz questions:

1) People say that "Frankenstein" was written by A) Mary Shelley, B) Percy Shelley, C) Lord Byron and D) one of their friends. Who do you think wrote the novel "Waverley"?

2) 1) People say that "Frankenstein" was written by A) Mary Shelley, B) Percy Shelley, C) Lord Byron and D) one of their friends. Who do you think wrote "Frankenstein".

The number one form makes no sense. There is no real connection between the choices and the question. Why introduce the four possibilities for the Mary Shelley novel, if you are going to ask about the Walter Scott novel. In the same way the Matthew text as is makes no sense. There is no real connection between the four choices presented by the "Who do people say the son of man is?" question and the "Who do you say I am?" question. Why introduce the "son of man" question and give four choices, if you not going to answer the question and are going to ask a question about Jesus instead? If this was the actual form that the writer of Matthew wrote, raising significant questions, giving choices and then starting a new question without answering the first one, we would consider him crazy.

The number two form makes sense. The first question is related to the second question in a simple, clear, normal and logical fashion. In Matthew's text, only if the second question was "Who do you say he is?" would it be related to the question "Who do people say the son of man is?" in a simple, clear, normal and logical fashion.

Now, assuming the number two form is correct, let us say that someone answered, the question "Who wrote Frankenstein?" with the fourth choice, one of their friends. This could be right, but it would not be impressive. After all, you could have been guessing. You have a 25% chance of being right. I would not respond enthusiastically by saying something like, "Blessed are you, ______ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

But let us say, your answer was "Leigh Hunt". Leigh Hurt was a poet friend of Mary Shelley an Percy Shelley. They might of had a Ménage à trois. After Percy Shelley's death, Leigh Hunt was the man who handed Percy Shelley's heart to Mary. This is not common knowledge and only someone who had really studied and researched the story of the Mary Shelley and "Frankenstein" could have known this. It might really shock me that you knew this. I might exclaim (assuming I was a religious person) ""Blessed are you, ______ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church," or (assuming I was not a religious person) "Wow, you're really good, I'm going to let you teach the class from now on."

The enthusiastic response of Jesus in the Matthew text only makes sense if Simon had hit the nail on the head and had identified not only Jesus as the son of God, but the exact prophet who was the son of God. If any other prophet had been named, the author would have had to stop to explain why it was correct. Only the answer "Ezekiel" would have been clear enough to every Jew who had read the Hebrew Scriptures. The author would not have had to explain why Ezekiel was the "son of man," as the Hebrew Scriptures directly calls him the "son of man."

Regarding the question, "Do you think they are suggesting that it’s Ezekiel resurrected, reincarnated or just Jesus is a prophet of his type/spirit?"

I would tend to think that Matthew was saying that Jesus was Ezekiel resurrected as resurrection was a concept associated with Ezekiel:

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham · 10-28-2010, 09:54 PM

Very interesting Jay! I've read that passage many times and in my mind, Jesus=son of man=Christ is so ingrained that I never saw the discontinuity.

That said, what if it was similarly ingrained by the author of Matthew?

PhilosopherJay · 10-30-2010, 08:16 AM

Hi spamandham,

Thanks for the comment and question.

To review, I started with the idea that people were so accustomed to seeing Harold Lloyd on a big screen with glasses, that when he stood without glasses in front of the the people who had just seen him on a big screen with glasses, they did not recognize him.

Like Lloyd, I think that people are so accustomed to hearing and thinking of Jesus as the "Son of God," that they are unable to see the text which mainly labels him the "Son of Man". The "Son of Man" when used directly in the Old Testament meant the prophet Ezekiel. There is no reason to believe it does not mean Ezekiel in certain cases in the New Testament.

I think I can refine my reconstruction of the questions and answers in the recognition sequence:

Matthew:

Quote:

16.13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"

16.14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 16.15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16.16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mark:

Quote:

8.27And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 8.28And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." 8.29And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."

We have two questions and two answers in Matthew, and two slightly different questions and two slightly different answers in Mark.

Matthew Q and A:

Quote:

Q1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
A1: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Q2: "But who do you say that I am?"
A2: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mark Q and A:

Quote:

Q1: "Who do men say that I am?
A1: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
Q2: "But who do you say that I am?"
A2: You are the Christ

As noted MtQ2 (Who do you say I am?) matches MkQ2 (Who do you say I am?) but doesn't follow logically from MtQ1 (Who do they say the son of man is?) The question that does and should follow logically from MtQ1 is (Who do you say the son of Man is?)

As noted, the logical answer would not be the Christ, as it is not one of the answers given in the questions. The logical answer would be Ezekiel because he is one of the prophets and he is the only one referred to the son of man.
Thus we can reconstruct Matthew as originally having these Q and A:

Quote:

MtQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
MtA1: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

R(Reconstructed)MtQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
RMtA2: "Eziekiel.

At this point, we can see that it is logical for Jesus to ask the two questions in Mark. He has asked about the Son of Man according to the people and according to Simon. Now he logically should ask about himself according to the people and according to Simon.

Quote:

MtQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
MtA1: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
R(Reconstructed)MtQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
RMtA2: "Eziekiel.
MkQ1: "Who do men say that I am?
MkA1: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
MkQ2: "But who do you say that I am?"
MkA2: You are the Christ[

Note that the MtA1 and MkA1 now matches with the exception of the name Jeremiah added to MkA1 or substracted from MtA1. But the MtA2 "the Son of Man" does not match the MkA1 "the Christ". Logically, since everything else is parallel (I will talk about the minor insertion or exclusion of Jeremiah later) the second Mark answer should match the second Matthew answer. Thus logically we get:

Quote:

MtQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
MtA1: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
RMtQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
RMtA2: "He is Eziekiel.
MkQ1: "Who do men say that I am?
MkA1: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
MkQ2: "But who do you say that I am?"
RMkA2: You are Eziekiel. [

Let us take Jeremiah out for a moment and we can see the parallelism of the questions and the answers:

Quote:

MtQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
MtA1: "[Some say] John the Baptist, others say Elijah, [others Jeremiah or] one of the prophets."
RMtQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
RMtA2: "He is Eziekiel.
MkQ1: "Who do men say that I am?
MkA1: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
MkQ2: "But who do you say that I am?"
RMkA2: You are Eziekiel. [

Let us take out the words we have bracketed and relabel the questions and answers TR (Theoretical Reconstruction)

Quote:

TRQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
TRA1: "John the Baptist, others say Elijah, one of the prophets."
TRQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
TRA2: "He is Eziekiel.
TRQ3: "Who do men say that I am?
TRA3: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
TRQ4: "But who do you say that I am?"
TRA4: You are Eziekiel. [

What do our two authors Mark and Matthew do with this material.

Mark cuts out the first two questions and answers. He only uses questions and answers three and four and changes "Eziekiel" to "Christ"
Matthew Keeps the first Q and answer, but leaves out question and answers 2 and 3 and just uses 1 and 4 and changes "Eziekiel" to "Christ".

The methodology that both are employing is too similar to be coincidental. They are both cutting down from a longer text (the longer TR text). They are just choosing different questions and answers to keep (Matthew keeps TR 1 and 4 and Mark keeps 3 and 4. Either Mark had seen what Matthew had done with the original text (the theoretical reconstruction) and decided to do something different or Matthew had seen what Mark had done with the original text and decided to do something different.

One can see why Mark or Matthew would want to change "Ezekiel" to "Christ," but why ruin the much better rhetorical structure of the earlier longer version of the gospel?

More later.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Very interesting Jay! I've read that passage many times and in my mind, Jesus=son of man=Christ is so ingrained that I never saw the discontinuity.

That said, what if it was similarly ingrained by the author of Matthew?

PhilosopherJay · 10-31-2010, 12:58 PM

Hi All

In the previous post, I analyzed the contradictions between Mark and Matthew versions of the passage where Simon [Peter] identifies Jesus as the Christ or Son of God or Son of Man. [Mt 16:13-22 and Mk 8:27-33]. I concluded that they had both been cut from a fuller, rhetorically more perfect, gospel.

I think this would agree with Stephan Huller's and David Trobisch's ideas as expressed in post #6557985 / #4.

Conclusions - The following is just provisional. There is no evidence whatever of the set of four Gospels before Irenaeus. There were several Gospels, but no person or group used a set of four with equal authority. Geographical distribution is often mentioned in the textbooks, but several scholars have pointed out that there is no evidence for this. The evidence confirms a picture of a set of four shortened Gospels made by abridging the books MADE TO BE ASSOCIATED AS IF WITH a sect (which means careful selection of what to leave out). The ending of John was adjusted so as to make it read like the conclusion to the set of four. The set of four was probably published in Rome in about 170 CE It was in Greek and only in Greek. Translations into other languages were delayed for reasons uncertain. The older long single Latin Gospel, in the edition of the Diatessaron and probably also in an edition like the one used by Justin, was used for all preaching and teaching in Latin and for all liturgical purposes in Latin. Serious books were written in Greek in Latin-speaking areas and these quoted the Fourfold Gospel. No-one writing in Latin used the set of four before Tertullian, and he read them in Greek and did his own translating as needed. There was no use at all for any purpose of the set of four in areas where the language was Aramaic or Armenian or Georgian for centuries afterwards. (I don’t know yet about areas where Ethiopic or Coptic or Arabic or Gothic were used. However, the indications are that the pre-Islamic Arabic Gospel was a single book).

Looking at the theoretical reconstruction we can see what was left out and changed:

TRQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
TRA1: "John the Baptist, others say Elijah, or one of the prophets."
TRQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
TRA2: "He is Ezekiel (Crist).
TRQ3: "Who do men say that I am?
TRA3: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
TRQ4: "But who do you say that I am?"
TRA4: You are Ezekiel. (Christ)

TRQ2 and TRA2 ("But who do you say that he is?" and "He is Eziekiel.)" is left out of Mark and Matthew, and since Luke just copies Mark, it is missing from all of the synoptics.

Actually we should acknowledge that we cannot be sure when the term "Christ" replaced the term "Ezekiel" in the passage. It is probable that the text that the synoptic writer/s cut from contained the word "Christ," instead of "Ezekiel." What we can be sure of is that since "Ezekiel" is consistently referred to as the Son of Man, he would have been one of the choices in any Jewish multiple choice quiz on "Who is the Son of Man?"

Now, I have given about 300 multiple choice quizzes in my 15 years of teaching. One thing I know is that one starts with the correct answer and then figures out other false answers which might fool inattentive or completely non-studious students. For example, in asking a question to an introductory class on Humanities, I might ask which ancient beautiful woman was blamed for the Trojan War? 1) Helen, 2) Cleopatra 3) Nefertiti or 4) Clytemnestra

What I am not going to list as an answer is 1) Helen, 2) Cleopatra, 3) Nefertiti 4) one of the ancient beautiful women. Therefore the last choice in the Son of Man question -- "one of the prophets" has to be suspect. It is too general an answer and would not help us to solve the problem. It does not make sense to ask who is the Son of Man and to answer vaguely "one of the prophets." It would be like asking "Who is the greatest home-run hitter of all time?" and answering vaguely, "One of the major league players." That would leave us with just 1) John the Baptist, 2) Elijah and 3) Ezekiel in the original question. But there is another possibility.

Note that MtQ1 has another choice: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." It seems clear that Jeremiah is an equally good choice as Elijah. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, was considered "the suffering servant" whom Isaiah wrote about. (Isaiah 53.)

I suggest that in the earliest text we had either four choices of named prophets for the Son of Man: 1) "John the Baptist," 2) "Elijah," 3) Jeremiah and 4) Ezekial

At this point we have to bring in another text that is in a similar question and answer form as the one we have been examining:

Quote:

Mt 14.1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus;
14.2 and he said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."

Quote:

MK: 6.14King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." 6.15But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 6.16But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

Quote:

Luke:
9.7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 9.8 by some that Eli'jah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen. 9.9 Herod said, "John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him.

Here it is Herod who is being quizzed about an identity. Note that once again Matthew only retains lines 1 and 4 in the passage. Just as in the reconstruction of the earlier Mark-Matthew identity passage, we find that there a missing line 2.

Quote:

1) King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known.
2) _______
3) Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." 6.15But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
4) But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

It is not hard to fill in the missing line:

Quote:

1) King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known.
2) King Herod asked "Who is Jesus?"
3) Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." 6.15But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
4) But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

Why has the question been removed? I suggest that in the earlier text the discussion was of John and not Jesus. It went something like this:

Quote:

1) King Herod heard of it; for John's [Jesus'] name had become known.
2) King Herod asked "Who is John"
3) Some said, "Ezekial [John the baptizer] has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." 6.15But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is Jeremiah [a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.]"
4) But when Herod heard of it he said, "It is Elijah who beheaded Jezebel who [John, whom I beheaded], has been raised."

The original quiz was about John being compared to ancient Hebrew prophets, probably Ezekial, Elijah and Jeremiah. (see this Femme Fatale Redux for the relationship of Elijah to Jezebel matching John's relationship to Herodias)

Of cause this reconstruction of John equalling Elijah is found in Matthew and Mark:

Quote:

Matthew: 17.10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" 17.11 He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; 17.12 but I tell you that Eli'jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands." 17.13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

Quote:

Mark 9.11And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" 9.12And he said to them, "Eli'jah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 9.13But I tell you that Eli'jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."

So we have a level of text where John the Baptist is the answer to the question which has a multiple choice of three ancient prophets. I believe we can find even a deeper Jewish level where there is no contemporary answer at all.

We can pause here for now.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 11-02-2010, 03:38 PM

Hi All,

I wanted to finish the concept in this thread that the Jesus Character is best identified as a textual development of three Old Testament prophets: Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Elijah.

In the last post we looked at three multiple choice quizzes:

1) Matthew: Jesus' Who is the Son of Man/Who am I? Quiz

2) Mark/Luke: Jesus' Who am I? Quiz

3) Synoptic: King Herod's Who is John? Quiz

There is one more quiz in the gospels that needs to be in the group. It is the John: Who is he? Quiz

Quote:

1.19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 1.20 He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 1.21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No." 1.22 They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 1.23 He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said."
1.24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 1.25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 1.26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 1.27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

The multiple choice answers to the question put to John, "Who are you?" are 1) The Christ 2) Elijah and 3) The Prophet
The second question is "What do you say about yourself?"
He answers with a quote from Isaiah that he is the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

The one crying in the wilderness would be the Lord. This is made explicit in the book of Ezekiel. He asks the prophet Ezekiel to be his voice in Ezekiel 20.

Quote:

13 “‘Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands— 16 because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. 17 Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them or put an end to them in the wilderness. 18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am the LORD your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 20 Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.”

21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’

27 “Therefore, son of man, speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In this also your ancestors blasphemed me by being unfaithful to me: 28 When I brought them into the land I had sworn to give them and they saw any high hill or any leafy tree, there they offered their sacrifices, made offerings that aroused my anger, presented their fragrant incense and poured out their drink offerings. 29 Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to?’” (It is called Bamah[a] to this day.)

If, instead of Christ, the Son of Man was the first choice, than the answer "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," would cause us to recognize John as Ezekiel. He is trying to get the Jews to repent their transgressions.

I suggest that the text said Son of Man before Christ. Just as the Mark text erases the "Son of Man" question and both Mark and Matthew give a Christ answer, I would suspect that the "Son of Man" question and answer has been changed a "Christ" question and answer.

The prophet "Elijah" is a stable element in all four quizzes. We may assume it was always there. "The prophet" has been substituted for "one of the prophets," or viser-versa. I think Jeremiah, mentioned in the Matthew multiple choice Quiz was also the third answer here.

I think that the descriptions of both Elijah or Jeremiah could match John:

Quote:

Elijah
2 Kings 1:8 (HCSB) —They replied, “A hairy man with a leather belt around his waist.” He said, “It’s Elijah the Tishbite.”

Jeremiah
13: 1Thus the LORD said to me, "Go and )buy yourself a linen waistband and put it around your waist, but do not put it in water."
2So I bought the waistband in accordance with the word of the LORD and put it around my waist.

Compare to Matthew 3.4:
3.4 Now John wore a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around his waist

Probably, the identification is meant to be with Elijah, but that may be a later identification.

We can propose that originally we have a simple question about the "Son of Man" Who is the Son of Man? The three answers are 1) Elijah 2) Jeremiah and 3) Ezekiel. It is a schoolboy question that any Jewish boy who had read the Hebrew Scriptures should have been able to answer. The correct answer is the Son of Man is Ezekiel.

The character of John was probably based originally on Ezekiel (the voice of one crying in the wilderness) but later, in debates over the character he was probably changed to fit Jeremiah and lastly Elijah.

Thus the Quiz is probably originally directed by Jews towards the John character.
Later the Quiz is changed and directed at Herod.
Next the Quiz becomes a quiz given by Jesus to his disciples regarding the Son of Man.
Finally, in its fourth incarnation, it becomes a quiz about Jesus himself.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All

In the previous post, I analyzed the contradictions between Mark and Matthew versions of the passage where Simon [Peter] identifies Jesus as the Christ or Son of God or Son of Man. [Mt 16:13-22 and Mk 8:27-33]. I concluded that they had both been cut from a fuller, rhetorically more perfect, gospel.

I think this would agree with Stephan Huller's and David Trobisch's ideas as expressed in post #6557985 / #4.

Conclusions - The following is just provisional. There is no evidence whatever of the set of four Gospels before Irenaeus. There were several Gospels, but no person or group used a set of four with equal authority. Geographical distribution is often mentioned in the textbooks, but several scholars have pointed out that there is no evidence for this. The evidence confirms a picture of a set of four shortened Gospels made by abridging the books MADE TO BE ASSOCIATED AS IF WITH a sect (which means careful selection of what to leave out). The ending of John was adjusted so as to make it read like the conclusion to the set of four. The set of four was probably published in Rome in about 170 CE It was in Greek and only in Greek. Translations into other languages were delayed for reasons uncertain. The older long single Latin Gospel, in the edition of the Diatessaron and probably also in an edition like the one used by Justin, was used for all preaching and teaching in Latin and for all liturgical purposes in Latin. Serious books were written in Greek in Latin-speaking areas and these quoted the Fourfold Gospel. No-one writing in Latin used the set of four before Tertullian, and he read them in Greek and did his own translating as needed. There was no use at all for any purpose of the set of four in areas where the language was Aramaic or Armenian or Georgian for centuries afterwards. (I don’t know yet about areas where Ethiopic or Coptic or Arabic or Gothic were used. However, the indications are that the pre-Islamic Arabic Gospel was a single book).

Looking at the theoretical reconstruction we can see what was left out and changed:

TRQ1: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
TRA1: "John the Baptist, others say Elijah, or one of the prophets."
TRQ2: "But who do you say that he is?"
TRA2: "He is Ezekiel (Crist).
TRQ3: "Who do men say that I am?
TRA3: "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets."
TRQ4: "But who do you say that I am?"
TRA4: You are Ezekiel. (Christ)

TRQ2 and TRA2 ("But who do you say that he is?" and "He is Eziekiel.)" is left out of Mark and Matthew, and since Luke just copies Mark, it is missing from all of the synoptics.

Actually we should acknowledge that we cannot be sure when the term "Christ" replaced the term "Ezekiel" in the passage. It is probable that the text that the synoptic writer/s cut from contained the word "Christ," instead of "Ezekiel." What we can be sure of is that since "Ezekiel" is consistently referred to as the Son of Man, he would have been one of the choices in any Jewish multiple choice quiz on "Who is the Son of Man?"

Now, I have given about 300 multiple choice quizzes in my 15 years of teaching. One thing I know is that one starts with the correct answer and then figures out other false answers which might fool inattentive or completely non-studious students. For example, in asking a question to an introductory class on Humanities, I might ask which ancient beautiful woman was blamed for the Trojan War? 1) Helen, 2) Cleopatra 3) Nefertiti or 4) Clytemnestra

What I am not going to list as an answer is 1) Helen, 2) Cleopatra, 3) Nefertiti 4) one of the ancient beautiful women. Therefore the last choice in the Son of Man question -- "one of the prophets" has to be suspect. It is too general an answer and would not help us to solve the problem. It does not make sense to ask who is the Son of Man and to answer vaguely "one of the prophets." It would be like asking "Who is the greatest home-run hitter of all time?" and answering vaguely, "One of the major league players." That would leave us with just 1) John the Baptist, 2) Elijah and 3) Ezekiel in the original question. But there is another possibility.

Note that MtQ1 has another choice: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." It seems clear that Jeremiah is an equally good choice as Elijah. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, was considered "the suffering servant" whom Isaiah wrote about. (Isaiah 53.)

I suggest that in the earliest text we had either four choices of named prophets for the Son of Man: 1) "John the Baptist," 2) "Elijah," 3) Jeremiah and 4) Ezekial

At this point we have to bring in another text that is in a similar question and answer form as the one we have been examining:

Quote:

Mt 14.1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus;
14.2 and he said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."

Here it is Herod who is being quizzed about an identity. Note that once again Matthew only retains lines 1 and 4 in the passage. Just as in the reconstruction of the earlier Mark-Matthew identity passage, we find that there a missing line 2.

It is not hard to fill in the missing line:

Why has the question been removed? I suggest that in the earlier text the discussion was of John and not Jesus. It went something like this:

The original quiz was about John being compared to ancient Hebrew prophets, probably Ezekial, Elijah and Jeremiah. (see this Femme Fatale Redux for the relationship of Elijah to Jezebel matching John's relationship to Herodias)

Of cause this reconstruction of John equalling Elijah is found in Matthew and Mark:

Quote:

Mark 9.11And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" 9.12And he said to them, "Eli'jah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 9.13But I tell you that Eli'jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."

So we have a level of text where John the Baptist is the answer to the question which has a multiple choice of three ancient prophets. I believe we can find even a deeper Jewish level where there is no contemporary answer at all.

We can pause here for now.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

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

10-27-2010, 12:59 PM	#11
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	Regardless if it existed or not, the theory is based on the fact that a big chunk of the text between Luke and Matt is similar enough to make them think they used a second source. Or is it that they need to use the idea of a second source because of the differences between the material the are trying to compare? I haven't looked into how similar the Q material is between the two and don't really know why they don't think one copied the other.

10-28-2010, 09:52 AM	#14
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Elijah: I am not arguing against the existence of Q. I think it a reasonable theory to account for observed instances in which Matthew and Luke agree but Mark is silent. I was suggesting that the existence of Q is not a unanimous opinion, nothing more. Steve

10-28-2010, 09:54 PM	#16
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Very interesting Jay! I've read that passage many times and in my mind, Jesus=son of man=Christ is so ingrained that I never saw the discontinuity. That said, what if it was similarly ingrained by the author of Matthew?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.