spamandham

It IS a good analysis. This is better than the possibility I suggested that perhaps the story was added to Mark after Matthew had written his Gospel. Regarding why Matthew would combine them - is it possible he recognized the stories as different versions of the same story, and so simply combined them? ...or was he simply combining them to simplify matters (as opposed to shortening the text)?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

I have been thinking about the changes Matthew made. I supposed that he might have skipped the two miracles by accident. However, he does use the description of the audience reaction before the first miracle in the synagogue at Capernaum to describe the reaction of the audience to the sermon on the Mount.
It is clear that Matthew has consciously substituted the audience reaction at the Mountain for the audience reaction at the synagogue. This leads us to suspect that the editing was done consciously. It might have been the choice of location for the miracle that caused Matthew to censor it. Perhaps it was the synagogue setting or the Capernaum setting?

Matthew does have a healing in a synagogue at 12.9 And he went on from there, and entered their synagogue. 12.10 And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. which matches Mark's 3.1. Therefore, the synagogue setting does not seem to have been offensive to Matthew. What about Capernaum?

Except for the fact that Jesus dwelt in Capernaum after living in Nazareth, Matthew does not give a sense that Capernaum was important to the story. It seems like just any other town. Compare this to Mark's references to Capernaum

So Mark definitely makes Capernaum the hometown of Jesus.

Compare John's references to Capernaum:

Again, Capernaum is the hometown of Jesus.

We can also note the beginning of the Gospel of Marcion

It seems quite possible that Matthew consciously replaced the first miracle scene in Marcion's Gospel with the Sermon on the Mount. He probably wanted to underplay the connection of Jesus to Capernaum, which is much stronger in all three gospels of Marcion, Mark and John.


The leaving out of the second Marcan miracle at Bethsaida is more difficult to understand. It is the only miracle that Mark places in Bethsaida. However, when Jesus walks on water, Mark (6.45) also has him headed to Bethsaida. Matthew records the miracle, but cuts out the name of the town. It seems that Matthew, besides wanting to downplay Jesus' connection with Capernaum, wanted to downplay any connection with Bethsaida.

Because he does not show Jesus doing any miracles in Bethsaida, the curse of the city that Matthew includes is hard to understand.

We may take it that there was a pre-Marcan/pre-Matthew/pre-Marcion/ pre-John gospel in which Jesus (or somebody) from Capernaum did a great deal of his miracles in Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. What we see in these gospels are revisions of that earlier gospel. It is possible that both Matthew and Mark are selecting from a longer list of miracles found in that earlier gospel.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

None whatever. Indeed the scanty information that we have about the composition of Mark says that it was composed over a period of time by collecting what Peter said, and only finalised after his death.

This would not be surprising -- it seems a natural thing for someone recording events from the testimony of others to do.

A similar situation obtained with the Life of St. Columba written by St. Adomnan, and we are somewhat better informed about this. Adomnan worked on the text all his life, adding anecdotes of Columba as he encountered them. (I think the stories got more impressive as time went by!). Copies were taken from his autograph manuscript at all stages -- presumably as people came by and asked for permission to make one --, and some of these still exist (which is how we know what happened).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

robto

The criterion of embarrassment is actually used in a completely different way. It claims that stories that are included in spite of being embarassing are likely to be true. The reasoning is that if these stories weren't already well-known, the author would simply have omitted them.

The usual example is the baptism of Jesus "for the forgiveness of sins". If Jesus was perfect and sinless, why would he need to be baptized? This is embarrassing from the point of view of orthodox Christianity. Since it is included in 3 out of 4 gospels, it must have happened. (So goes the argument - I'm not saying it's correct.)

That is, the criterion of embarrassment is used as an aid in establishing the authenticity of stories that are included in a gospel. AFAIK it is not used to explain the absence of stories that are omitted. But maybe others here know better?

Toto

That is how the criterion of embarrassment is used. But in practice it is illustrated by pointing to how certain words or concepts are modified in later gospels - Mark has Jesus baptized for the remission of sins, but the presumably later gospels eliminate the sin aspect or have John declare that he is not worthy. . . so Chistians must have realized at a late date that the baptism didn't square with their theology, too late to modify Mark.

Ben C Smith

I am not as certain about the rest of your post, but I think this part is spot-on correct. Yes, I do think that Matthew has distilled the synagogue reaction out of Mark and used it for his grand sermon.

Ben.

schilling.klaus

no, it's the other way round.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus

Those who believe in the remission of sin as the goal of the baptise are thoroughly deluded. Only late, degenerate gospels like that according to Mark try to force you to believe in this, while it isn't the case. Only the Judaisation that came along with the Catholic church, not before mid to late second century, try to force you to believe in a connection of basptise and remission of sin.

The goal of the baptise is the acquisition of intellect (nous), as best expressed in the Hermetic writings. John is not to be understood as the prototype of a baptising minister, but as the herald (keryx) of the baptise which is not to be understood as an external ritual, but as a conversion, mental reorientation (metanoia) towards the True God, away from the pseudogod of the Jews and the idols of pagan folklore.

The remission of the sins is a late deliberate corruption by the forger of Mark's gospel, thus has nothing to do with embarrassment. Matthew's version is not later than Mark's, it just shifts the remission of sin from the baptise to the cup of the eucharist.

Klaus Schilling

paarsurrey

Hi

I don't see or recall any Principle of Embarassment. Where is it mentioned?

There is no direct relationship between sins and remission of sins with Jesus' cursed death on Cross. This seems to be invented by Paul at Rome.

Jesus did not cure any real blind man from birth; yes with his medicines and prayers he could cure a nearly blind man or a person who had lost his vision temporarily due to some disease. Neither he could raise anybody from the dead nor he himself was raised from the dead.

He could raise a person who was near dead by his medicines or prayers; as he was himself raised from the near-dead by treatment in the tomb with medicines of Nicodemus physician and his own prayers to GodAllahYHWH at the garden of Gethesmane and also his beseachments on the Cross as also mentioned in the NTBible.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Joan of Bark

Citations please?