Robert said
It’s trivial to demonstrate that the negative version is part of the Q hypothesis, regardless of whether one thinks of Q as a single document or many. My credentials do not imply any authority at all in this context, other than what can be easily demonstrated for those who are interested. If you are no longer interested in this specific question or in disputing the scholarly consensus, that’s certainly fine by me!
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, so I’ll interpret it as an apology for starting an argument where none was required. 🙂
Robert said
Consider the much easier rationale I provided in the link above for why Luke provides both versions of the saying as part of his natural narrative progression. Matthew, on the other hand, is simply avoiding a contradiction between two of his sources. Not at all convoluted.
This rationale for matthew and luke changing mark certainly works but the problem is its not helpful in deciding priority (rationale for the reverse matthew to mark work just as well)
Whats helpful for deciding on priority is the surrounding material in mark/luke which can be seen to be broken pieces of matthew
This is Mark 9:37-42
Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me. John said to him, (Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us. But Jesus said, Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.) Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
What’s in bold above is Matthew 18:5-6
Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
its clear the two verses in bold naturally flow into each other.
The underlined from above is the start and end of Matthew 10:40-42
He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
Again the verses in Matthew are all connected in meaning and one verse flows into the next.
That Luke 9:48-50 is contained in what is bracketed in Mark 9:37-42, but excluding the underlined portion, is testament to the fact that Mark’s gospel is being pieced together from Matthew/Luke.
Robert said
Yes, I agree, it is indeed easy to understand why Matthew brought together the saying about a child with the one about ‘these little ones’ in constructing the fourth of his five great discourses.
But is it easy to see why Mark originally had them separated?
Is it easy to see why Luke, who himself broke up Mk 9:37-42, didnt think to bring them together?
Its the nature of synoptic problem that one author is breaking up and moving around blocks of text from an original author. This very process breaks the flow of narrative and separates verses where we can both easily see should be brought together.
Mk 9:37-42 is characteristic of the this process. Its not found when comparing Matthew against Mark.
I don’t really have anything to add to this thread other than to say to Robert that I finally found a reasonably priced copy of Prof Adela Yarbro Collins’ well regarded commentary on Mark for Hermeneia. It offends my sensibilities to pay full price for scholarly works so I was patient. I also have Elizabeth Clark’s book on the First Origenist controversy on the way. Hmmmm…do we have a book review thread?
Robert said
Actually, it was originally you who challenged what I said about the negative statement being in Q. It is easy to demonstrate this, but if you’re no longer interested, you’re no longer interested.
But as you’ve just once again tried (and failed) to convince Bren, Mark wrote first, and we don’t know his sources. We don’t know what Q was, or where whatever was in it came from. Not all scholars are convinced Q existed, at least as a single collection of sayings and anecdotes. Bart is open to the possibility that it didn’t. I have no dog in the fight, other than believing all the gospel authors had sources, but the only source for any of the latter three gospels that survives is the first one.
This much we know–the saying I posted–without commentary–wasn’t from Q. You were the one who started in on that, because you wanted to find fault with what I said, entirely because I said it. But all I said was “Here’s a saying I think might be authentic.” Period.
In your typical anal-retentive pettifogging manner, you managed to turn my posting a few words from Mark into yet another silly pointless circular argument. That I have opted out of. Not because I’m not interested in the subject. But because I’m bored with you. And if you think I’m the only one…… 🙂
Robert said
Yes. Rather than a long discourse on connected topics, Mark has been weaving a long narrative which is continuously indicating how the disciples do not understand Jesus and his teachings.
Mk 8,17-21: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? … “Do you not yet understand?”
Next Peter does not understand that Jesus must die and is rebuked as Satan (8,33). Then he misunderstands the transfiguration (9,6); they don’t understand about the resurrection (9,10), about Elijah (9,11). Then the rest of the disciples are involved in an argument with scribes and a crowd because they were not able to cast out an evil spirit (9,14-29). Again they do not understand Jesus’ prediction of his death and resurrection (9,32). Instead they were arguing with each other about who was the greatest (9,34). This is Mark’s preceding context for the story about them trying to stop someone else who was successfully able to cast out demons in Jesus’ name.
Throughout this whole preceding context, Matthew is constantly ameliorating in minor or major ways the woeful role of the disciples as portrayed by Mark. Finally, where Mark has a few verses strung together of teaching (9,42-50), Matthew has expanded this into a much longer discourse (18,1-34), which begins not with the disciples shamelessly arguing with each other about who was greater, but merely innocently asking for a teaching from Jesus about who is greatest in the Kingdom of God. The overwhelming majority of scholars can easily see that Matthew is secondary here.
But if we understand the development of christianity as moving away from its Jewish roots and preaching doctrines not known to the earliest disciples we should expect later gospels to be more likely to portray the disciples as not understanding Jesus and his teachings.
The above is going in the wrong direction of Markan priority.
Also when examining Matthew 18:1-34, his supposed extension of Mark 9:42-50, we find
“it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come“
closely followed by “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone” and “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?“
The “millstone” verses are found much later in Luke – chapter 17 – but here again we find it closely followed by forgiving your brother Luke 17:3, and up to seven times Luke 17:4.
It is Matthew who has the stable ordering which Mark and Luke are jumping into and out of.
Robert said
That’s a great idea! Once you’ve read this book (or any other book you’d like to discuss), I would suggest starting dedicated threads for each book to be discussed.
So you think it would be better to have a separate thread for each book rather than a single book review thread for everything?
Robert said
Bren, we’ve already discussed your crazy ideas about Matthew’s virgin birth being evidence for an earlier and lower christology ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (and perhaps elsewhere). Please go back to one of these other threads if you want to have a serious discussion where you answer my challenges and let’s stop cluttering up Steve Clark’s fine thread. Thanks, bro!
Is this any crazier than Stephen thinking Jesus was arrested in the temple courtyard? Or Bart Ehrman being a ‘traditionalist’?
I call for equal treatment for crazy ideas!
Honestly, that’s most of the ideas here. Which is why I’m busting outta this booby hatch come spring.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)