jakejones said
where did mark say “any time you’re walking through grainfields on sabbath you can pluck…..” ?
He doesn’t say it because that would be ridiculous. Just as it is ridiculous to understand this passage as giving “extenuating circumstances” as an explanation for the violation of the law. The law in this passage is being ignored.
“Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food,26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?”
why did mark have to mention “he and his companions were hungry and in need of good” ?
was jesus commiting false equivallence fallacy according to mark?
No Mark’s Jesus is here showing the hypocrisy of the pharisees – that they will accept violations of the law when it suits.
23 One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25
you just make things up. jesus does not say that the pharisees are wrong here. he never said that the pharisees invented any restrictions. he attemps to justify the behaviour of the disciples by distorting the torah text :
And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, 26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?”
brenc makes things up .
Robert said
I think that discussion was whether the Lord in mark 13:20 was Jesus.
If you want to claim that Jesus is not the judge of humanity in Mark you will need to provide justification for understanding Mark 13:27 “he will gather his elect” as anything other than Jesus gathering those he himself has selected.
See my response above to Jake and the thread where we’ve already discussed this at length.
“As for his elect, the ‘his’ is not present in some important Greek manuscripts. Rather it might have been added in assimilation to Matthew’s text (a common scribal phenomenon).”
Lets say the original text of Mark here does not contain “his” but rather it is added by a later scribe in assimilation to Matthew’s text.
Would you accept that the change to “his elect” would be made to make explicit that it is Jesus doing the electing?
Found in Mark’s parable of the tenants – “he had one left to send, a beloved son”?
Nope. For Mark, this parable was told against the chief priests, scribes, and elders, not against Arius or adoptionists.
Do you accept that internally to the parable the phrase “still one having, a beloved son, he sent him last to them” can only be understood as the son being loved prior to being sent to the tenants?
jakejones said
“No Mark’s Jesus is here showing the hypocrisy of the pharisees – that they will accept violations of the law when it suits.”23 One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25
you just make things up. jesus does not say that the pharisees are wrong here. he never said that the pharisees invented any restrictions. he attemps to justify the behaviour of the disciples by distorting the torah text :
And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, 26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?”
brenc makes things up .
So you are claiming that Jesus’s justification for his disciples breaking the sabbath was that they were hungry?
Robert said
JAS said
I am not sure what the point of all this is even if someone should grant the assertions offered. To what conclusion are these assertions leading?
For Bren it is always and only about his obsession with inventing silly idiosyncratic arguments for Matthean priority, a position that has for over a century been rejected by the overwhelming majority of critical scholars. He thinks it’s fun to ignore scholarship. ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I can see that as likely, as the end point, but I cannot see what line would connect those points. Perhaps I am simply being dense . . . and I admit to not entirely following every detail of this long-running argument.
jakejones said
“So you are claiming that Jesus’s justification for his disciples breaking the sabbath was that they were hungry?”all i can see is that the law was not broken but an exception was created which was dependant on the story from the old testament.
1. Where does it say the law was not broker? (it says David did something unlawful)
2. What was the exception that was created?
Robert said
Matthew might have wanted to make that explicit, but Matthew also has the parable of the sheep and the goats in this context where it is indeed the Son of Man who does the separating. Mark has no such parable. If a scribe assimilated the text of Mark to the better known text of Matthew that is typically an accidental scribal error, not necessarily an intentional change of meaning. Again, please take this up in the thread where this has already been discussed at length.
So you agree that by writing “his elect” Matthew is making it explicit that Jesus did the choosing?
Do you accept that internally to the parable the phrase “still one having, a beloved son, he sent him last to them” can only be understood as the son being loved prior to being sent to the tenants?
It does not necessarily imply a pre-existent son who is then to be incarnated and sent into the world. That’s simply your eisegesis
Just internally to the parable does the phrase “still one having, a beloved son, he sent him last to them” necessarily imply that the son is loved prior to being sent to the tenants? Or can you interpret the phrase so that the son only becomes loved after being sent to the tenants?
24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?
26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath;
“1. Where does it say the law was not broker? (it says David did something unlawful)”
he didnt say it is not lawful to eat in emergency situation for other than high priest.
“2. What was the exception that was created?”
quote:
However, we need to take a closer look at the story about what Jesus and his disciples are doing on the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-28. A very helpful source is by Maurice Casey, “** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Jesus’ disciples were plucking grain left unharvested at the border of a field, a biblically mandated form of charity for the poor and hungry (Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22). Neither this act, nor healing by speaking a word (Mark 3:1-6), needs to be seen as breaking the command about working on the Sabbath. Some scholars read the words “to make a way” in Mark 2:23 as indicating that the disciples carved out a royal road through the field for king Jesus, which would be work on the Sabbath, but this reads too much into Mark’s admittedly awkward phraseology and Casey insists that Mark was just trying to translate an Aramaic source. However, the Pharisees were concerned to build a “fence around the Law” so that one would not even get close to violating a command and they may have defined plucking grain or healing as work in their own oral traditions that served as a guide for how to observe the Law.
To counter the Pharisees indignation, Jesus raises the objection that David and his followers ate the bread of the presence that was only meant for the priests in the temple to eat (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6). Just as the disciples were hungry and in need, the example may suggest that human need takes precedence over strict regulations, though the situation does not seem quite analogous to the accusation that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath commandment. Yet Casey offers evidence that it was culturally assumed that David was eating the sacred bread on the Sabbath when the shewbread was changed, so Jesus’ example may be more relevant than it first appears. In a subsequent episode, while the Pharisees may have objected to Jesus healing a non-life-threatening condition (a person with a withered hand in Mark 3:1-6) on the Sabbath, Jesus was convinced that his mission to liberate people from all forms of physical and spiritual ailments had priority.
Finally, it is crucial to highlight that Mark 2:27-28 may suggest that the Sabbath was created as a gift for humankind, rather than the reverse, and that humans are the rightful masters of the Sabbath. Casey views this as equivalent to other Jewish texts that speak about humans as ruling over all created things (4 Ezra 6:54; 2 Baruch 14:18). Of course, whatever Aramaic traditions underlie the text of Mark, Mark 2:28 seems to treat “the Son of Man” as a title distinctly in reference to Jesus. However, the logic could still follow that since the Sabbath was given to humankind, Jesus as the Human One par excellence can rightfully interpret how the Sabbath is best to be observed. By omitting Mark 2:27, Matthew and Luke may cut out some important aspects of the original argument and heighten Jesus’ personal authority over the Sabbath institution.
It seems to me that the fundamental flaw in the argument that Mark must follow Matthew is the assumption that even if one accepted the idea that Mark reveals a “higher” or more sophisticated position on Jesus’ role, that necessarily means that it represents an “evolution” from Matthew. The origins of the Bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible. I think that the presumed order of composition must be established by other arguments, and I see no particular justification sufficient to overturn the most established sequence which puts Mark as first (with the later additions).
Robert said
So you agree that by writing “his elect” Matthew is making it explicit that Jesus did the choosing?
Possibly. As I said, it would agree with Matthew’s own parable of the Son of Man separating the sheep and goats in this context and it also agrees with Matthew deleting from Mk 13,20 that it was the Lord who chose the elect in Mt 24,22. You walked into that
“Possibly?”
So you think it possible that the words “his elect” are chosen to state explicitly that it is Jesus doing the selecting?
Why would Matthew delete that it is the Lord doing the selecting when both Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus is Lord?
Mark uses “God” in v19 and “Lord” in v20 – the implication is that he is referring to two different people.
Why does Mark have “the elect whom he has chosen“? who else but the Lord will be doing the electing? Unless of course by “Lord” he means Jesus and wants to clarify that Jesus will be doing the electing.
Of course he had ‘a beloved son’ before said ‘beloved son’ could be sent to the tenants, but that’s a meaningless tautology. There’s no indication of the son being begotten or beloved for all eternity before the slaves were sent and only being incarnated afterwards. Your attempts to read an allegory of pre-existence and incarnation into the parable are not simply supported by the text.
So we’re agreed that the owner of the vineyard in the parable has a beloved son before he sends this son into the vineyard to the tenants. And we’re agreed that this parable is about Jesus and the Pharisees.
Do we also agree that nowhere else in his gospel does Mark speak on nature of what it means for Jesus to be the “Son”?
Is there anything in the gospel to stop us applying in analogy the preexistence of the parable “Son” to the actual “Son” of the Mark’s gospel?
JAS said
It seems to me that the fundamental flaw in the argument that Mark must follow Matthew is the assumption that even if one accepted the idea that Mark reveals a “higher” or more sophisticated position on Jesus’ role, that necessarily means that it represents an “evolution” from Matthew. The origins of the Bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible. I think that the presumed order of composition must be established by other arguments, and I see no particular justification sufficient to overturn the most established sequence which puts Mark as first (with the later additions).
Matthean priority does not assume that Mark reveals a “higher” or more sophisticated position for Jesus.
But lets say that it does and that the “Bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible” and that ” the presumed order of composition must be established by other arguments” then essentially all arguments for Markan priority would be ruled out and we would need to rely solely on external patristic evidence.
brenmcg said
Matthean priority does not assume that Mark reveals a “higher” or more sophisticated position for Jesus.
But lets say that it does and that the “Bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible” and that ” the presumed order of composition must be established by other arguments” then essentially all arguments for Markan priority would be ruled out and we would need to rely solely on external patristic evidence.
No, I don’t think that “all arguments for Markan priority would be ruled out.” It depends on the specific argument and the overall case. In scholarship, just as in law (except when we get too many purely politically aligned judges), a certain degree of precedence becomes established and is generally accepted unless a much better case can overturn it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)