Robert said
Thus there is a two-fold interpretation of the sign of Jonah in Matthew, ie, composite. So, even if one does not accept the Q hypothesis, it is reasonable to believe there may have been an earlier/original version of this story before someone (Matthew?) added the resurrection interpretation.
Matthew has a single interpretation of the sign of Jonah as three days and three nights. Luke interprets the sign as being Jonah himself. “For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.” Nowhere does Matthew have a second interpretation of the sign.
Matthew’s meaning is clear. The presence and preaching of the son of man should be enough for this generation. He is greater than Jonah and Solomon but even they were enough to bring Nineveh and the Queen of the south to seek God. This generation however, being wicked, seeks an additional sign. None will be given except the three days and three nights sign. Nothing about this suggests its a composite of ideas of more than one author.
Luke has Jonah himself being a sign to the Ninevites, but that also his preaching convinced them. This is muddled compare to Matthew. And is suggestive of editing someone else’s material. Luke’s moving “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah … ” to after “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment … ” further muddles his narrative.
In isolation this particular muddled edited narrative is far more likely to have Matthew’s acctount as the original rather than Mark’s plus a hypothetical Q.
Mark’s story is hardly pointless. Otherwise, why would Matthew maintain it as a doublet in 16,1-4-5a? It is indeed a difficult saying, which is why Matthew and Luke both soften or eliminate it. You’re relying on an imprecise English translation here. “Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.” What Jesus literally says in the gospel of Mark is, “Truly I say to you, if a sign shall be given to this generation …!”*
But he doesn’t keep it – he says “no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Otherwise its a pointless story.
The correct intention of Mark 8:12 is probably “Truly I tell whether this generation will be given a sign.” Mark forgetting that he has edited out the “no sign will be given” from Matthew.
Robert said
Sorry, Matthew also has this exact same sign as Luke:
Compare with Luke:
You really can’t see the similarity?
They both talk of the “sign of Jonah”, but for Matthew this sign is three days and three nights
Matthew 12:39-40 “except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.“
For Luke the sign is Jonah himself. Luke 11:29-30 “none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.“
These are different signs. I don’t see anything here making Matthew look like a composite of many authors?
Robert said
How can you not see that what Luke identifies as the sign of Jonah:“… but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation. … The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”
… is also contained exactly, word-for-word in Matthew:
“… but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. … The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”
And Matthew has an additional element (Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish), hence composite.
Would it be clearer in the original Greek, to avoid the possibility that it was modified in translation for the sake of conformity? (I certainly could not read the Greek, but . . .)
Robert said
JAS said
Robert said
How can you not see that what Luke identifies as the sign of Jonah:
“… but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. … The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”
… is also contained exactly, word-for-word in Matthew:
“… but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. … The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”
And Matthew has an additional element (Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish), hence composite.
Would it be clearer in the original Greek, to avoid the possibility that it was modified in translation for the sake of conformity? (I certainly could not read the Greek, but . . .)
The two sections of Luke and Matthew quoted here (excelpt for the placement of the ellipses) are also word-for-word identical in the Greek.
That, of course, makes it pretty clear to any reasonable person that they are either copied from each other or they are both copying from a common source. Thanks for verifying.
Robert said
How can you not see that what Luke identifies as the sign of Jonah:… is also contained exactly, word-for-word in Matthew:
And Matthew has an additional element (Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish), hence composite.
Luke 11:30 “For just as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites … “
Of course they have a large section which is word for word the same but the important point is that the “sign” if different – in Luke the sign is Jonah himself.
He is a sign to the Ninevites. In Matthew there was no sign to the Ninevites. They don’t know Jonah was 3 days and nights in the fish. They repent at Jonah’s preaching.
Matthew does not have an “additional” element, he has a separate element. The “sign” is different in both accounts. Even if he did have an additional element there’s no reason to conclude its composite. Otherwise you’d be forced to conclude Mark is composite in so many other instances.
Again nothing in Matthew’s Jonah account suggests it is a composite. Single understanding of the “sign”, coherency of thought throughout.
Robert said
Whether you call it an ‘additional’ element or a ‘separate’ element does not matter. The ‘separate’ element in Matthew is what Luke considers to be the sign of Jonah. Matthew also has this ‘separate’ element and another element that he considers to be the sign of Jonah. Hence composite. Do you not know what composite means?
No completely wrong. The separate element in Matthew (three days and three nights) is not in Luke.
The “sign” in Luke is “Jonah”.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “For just as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites … “
The “sign” in Matthew is the three days and three nights.
In Matthew this wicket generation get a sign even though the Ninevites did not need a sign. In Luke the Ninevites receive a sign (“Jonah”).
In order to show Matthew is a composite account you need to show the “sign” being understood in two different senses in his account.
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. But he answered them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nin′eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.“
Robert said
No. Matthew’s account is composite in this sense. It contains the elements of what Luke considers to be the sign of Jonah (but which Matthew does NOT call the sign of Jonah) and it contains Matthew’s own unique understanding of what the sign of Jonah is.
No – for Luke the sign is just Jonah. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “For just as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites … “. Matthew doesn’t have this.
They both have “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here” but in neither case is this a sign. Its just preaching.
In Matthew the Ninevites don’t receive a sign – that’s the point of his account (this wicked generation asks for one). Its only Luke’s muddled narrative that would lead you to reading this as a sign – because “just as Jonah was a sign” doesn’t mean anything. This is reason to believe Luke’s narrative is composite but there’s nothing like that in Matthew.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)