Steefen
7 When u hr of wars and rumors v wars, the end is coming.
8 All this ruckus is the birth pains of the end
9 Personally, about the end, you’re going to be arrested, judged, flogged, and you will testify.
[Well, here’s a problem right here at verse 9, before we even get to verse 10.
s/b arrested > testify > judged > flogged
not arrested > judged > flogged > testify]
10 the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end of the world and before u being arrested, testifying, judged, flogged.
[So, before Jesus’ apocalypse 37 to 40 years later, get the word out.]
11 Now, that I got that Thing to Do plugged, let’s get back to your personal concern.
You’re going to be arrested > put on trial > get to testify. Just say the first thing that comes to mind.
Do not think before you speak.
12 Enough about that for now. I’m not going to get into judgments against you and punishment, the flogging.
I want to get back to the hell that going to break loose before the end: sibling betrayal, parents betraying their children. Children calling foul on those parents and insisting their parents be put to death.
brenmcg
The issue here is that “you will be brought before governors and kings but dont worry about what to say to them because the holy spirit will tell you” is the original single unitary concept.
steefen
Unitary concept? Apocalypse of the world AND birds eye view of what is going to happen at a personal level. “Let me make it real for you.” Third, can we get some Christian teaching in here before the end of the world? Maybe it will do some good, maybe not, I don’t know. It won’t stop the apocalypse. The gospel is good news of a military event, anyway.
brenmcg
Mark may have originated this concept but he has stuck “And the gospel must first be preached to all nations” into the middle of it. Either way its a secondary addition. In its immediate context it makes no sense – by the time the disciples have been brought before governors and kings and the holy spirit tells them what to say, the gospel must first be preached to all nations?
steefen
Jesus is talking to dense disciples, he has to jump around, speaking to a diverse audience with diverse interests and values.
brenmcg
Mark is showing signs of secondary additions to original single unitary concepts.
Mark is not simply an editor correcting errors – he’s a second author rearranging and adding in his own ideas. These errors are the kind of issues that show up when two authors have composed a piece. It shows up all over Mark.
steefen
It shows up all over Mark only when Jesus is talking to the 12 disciples?
Steefen
brenmcg jumps from informal dialogue to there must be multiple authors.
Jesus does not have to speak like he’s in English Composition where each paragraph has to have a unitary theme.
Mark does not have to write like he’s in English Composition where each paragraph has to have one thought.
Steefen said
Steefen
brenmcg jumps from informal dialogue to there must be multiple authors.
Jesus does not have to speak like he’s in English Composition where each paragraph has to have a unitary theme.
Mark does not have to write like he’s in English Composition where each paragraph has to have one thought.
But the point is – if Mark is writing first, we have two first century greek speaking christians, Matthew and Luke, who agree with me.
Both will have removed 13:10 from the position Mark placed it.
Because it doesn’t belong there.
brenmcg said
But the point is – if Mark is writing first, we have two first century greek speaking christians, Matthew and Luke, who agree with me.
Both will have removed 13:10 from the position Mark placed it.
Because it doesn’t belong there.
Steefen
Matthew does not follow Mark by placing it within Matthew 10: 17-20.
Matthew places the preach instruction chapters later at Matthew 24: 14.
Luke does not follow Mark but follows Matthew by not placing it within Luke 21: 12-15.
Luke places it where? (I do not see a cross reference for Luke.) Is that correct?
So,
Either
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark
or
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted a verse of Matthew into Mark.
= = =
10 the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end of the world and before u being arrested, testifying, judged, flogged.
[So, before Jesus’ apocalypse 37 to 40 years later, get the word out. Can we get some Christian teaching in here before the end of the world? Maybe it will do some good, maybe not, I don’t know. It won’t stop the apocalypse. The gospel is good news of a military event, anyway.]
World domination pre-Guttenburg?
Media blitz and the gospels are not written before Tribulation/Apocalypse of Temple Judaism.
A Jesus-Pharisees book of arguments is important to all nations? I don’t think so.
A rebellion of Jews against Rome is important to the Parthian Empire, Egypt along the Nile and its branches, Alexandria, India, the Gauls, the British Isles, Greece? I do not think so.
= = =
So, you are saying to make the Gospel of Mark internationally relevant, a later thought, a later plank in the Matthew platform (Let’s make these gospels internationally important), let’s insert the preach to all nations verse (where later means Mark was written before Matthew).
= = =
The Romans or the Jewish rebels more likely had international designs?
Well, it’s obvious. The text says, let’s preach this before the world ends in 40 years. The Romans did not preach the world was ending in 40 years. The gospels are the good news of how NOT TO BE rebels within the Roman Empire.
An empire has client states. A client state does not contain nations.
Let’s not just teach Israel-Judah a lesson of the good news of military defeat (Roman putting down the Jewish Revolt), let’s teach Edessa a lesson, too since they pumped up the Jewish rebels with this costly nonsense.
= = =
My Judgment on the Matter:
Matthew was a more international gospel AND Mark needed the preach to the nations verse somewhere in its gospel.
No, Robert, the original post does not have to push Matthean chronological priority.
Queen Helena, King Monobazus, Prince Izates and more of that bloodline are the Edessa contingent that were pro-Judah/Israel.
The first nation in line to be preached the pro-Roman gospel/good news of the military defeat of the Jewish Revolt would be the nation represented by the city, Edessa. What? That nation would be Osroene in Upper Mesopotamia?
It was also known as Antiochia on the Callirhoe from the 2nd century BC. It was the capital of the semi-independent kingdom of Osroene from c. 132 BC and fell under direct Roman rule in ca. 242. It became an important early centre of Syriac Christianity.
Robert said
Sorry, but Bren is constantly arguing for Matthean priority and in his first post of this thread he clearly claims that “Luke’s version follow’s [sic] Matthew” and “Mark 13:10 is itself not original but is again taken from Matthew.” That’s Matthean priority.
Steefen
The original post does not have to push Matthean chronological priority.
I am making the point that Matthew does not come first.
Mark came first but in a later version of Mark, the Matthew verse was clumsily inserted.
That is as far as I am willing to go.
Everyone knows Mark is not the myth document that Matthew is.
Matthew has priority due to it being more powerful a gospel than Mark is. Mark did not crystallize the Lord of Resurrection part of the Jesus Myth to challenge Serapis. Matthew does that.
The planks of Matthew that have priority over Mark are:
1. More international
2. Capable of putting Serapis out of commission; capable of putting Mithraism out of commission.
Good: you understand priority can have at least two bases.
You are pro-Markan priority: Mark was written before Matthew.
My position is that Mark was written before Matthew.
With reference to the original post, I answered that person, saying:
Either
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark (the gospel of Matthew is a correction of the gospel of Mark)
or
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted a verse of Matthew into Mark.
brenmcg is saying Option 2. I gave my reasons why I agree with brenmcg, Option 2.
You agree with Option 1 or Option 2?
Robert said
That’s OK, you don’t have to answer questions about your view or its weaknesses, but at least I hope you now understand how the two-source theory provides a better solution to the problem of the differing doublets created by Matthew and Luke.
Steefen
You have a serious weakness in reading comprehension.
Second, if you hope anyone now understands something because you’ve talked about it, they do not because you do not communicate clearly. Third, what is your problem with answering the question:
You are pro-Markan priority: Mark was written before Matthew.
My position is that Mark was written before Matthew.
With reference to the original post, I answered that person, saying:
Either
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark (the gospel of Matthew is a correction of the gospel of Mark)
or
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted a verse of Matthew into Mark.
brenmcg is saying Option 2. I gave my reasons why I agree with brenmcg, Option 2.
You agree with Option 1 or Option 2?
Fourth, please describe your use of doublets.
As I read the original post, brenmcg is speaking about a verse in Mark and Matthew.
He is also talking about Mark minus the preach to the nations verse.
So, there are the personal things that would happen (you will be arrested, you will testify, say the first thing that comes to mind) appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
brenmcg did not answer about the odd verse out also appearing in Luke.
The odd verse out appears in Mark (disturbing the flow of the paragraph) and it appears in Matthew (not disturbing the flow of the paragraph about the personal things that would happen).
Apparently, I am concerned only with Mark and Matthew. Why your reading comprehension missed that probably can only be explained by your prejudice to make a baseless criticism of me.
Fifth, the odd verse out deals with preaching to the nations. I identified a nation that supported the Jewish Revolt. Then you write there is something not clear about identifying a nation (Osroene) and a city (Edessa) in that nation that did learn about Jesus. You are beyond help with your erroneous criticism that you do not find this line of reasoning unclear. #1 The good news of a military victory needs to be preached to the nations. #2 Which nations needed to hear this gospel first? #3 Answer: the nations that supported the Jewish Revolt.
Steefen
Either
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark (the gospel of Matthew is a correction of the gospel of Mark)
or
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted a verse of Matthew into Mark.
brenmcg is saying Option 2. I gave my reasons why I agree with brenmcg, Option 2.
Robert
I do not choose Option 1 or Option 2. That is potentially a false dichotomy for those who accept the two-source theory.
Steefen
Then say, “Consider a third option.”
Robert
There is a two-source theory for Matthew: 1) Q and 2) Mark. Hence,
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark by removing Mark 13:10, not interrupting the flow of what the disciples would personally experience.
Robert: not necessarily. Mark, with the interruption, may have exactly copied Q. Matthew may have corrected Q and Mark.
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted the verse (Mark 13: 10) from Matthew.
Robert: not necessarily. Mark did not originally have verse 13:10 but Mark or somebody else inserted the verse from Q, not Matthew.
Option 3: Matthew, independent of Mark (either correcting Q, if Q included the interruption, or not correcting Q, if Q did not include the interruption) has its own sequence of verses.
The current scholarly consensus for the past century more or less is a two-source theory for Matthew.
As I’ve tried to show Bren above (Post 158), there is a possibility that something very much like Mk 13: 9 and 11 (excluding verse 10) was also included in the hypothetical Q-source.
Steefen
So Mark interrupted his own narrative in such a clumsy way. Possibility: yes. Probability: I doubt it was simply: I am a clumsy writer. I presented a reason why the good news of a military victory needed to be preached not just to the rebels but to the other municipalities that helped the rebels.
Robert
You had not yet clarified what your full solution was to the synoptic problem. If you’re not interested in the synoptic problem, that’s fine, but that’s what is being discussed here.
Steefen
So far as your participation in the thread, where you want to take the discussion. The original post is about Mark 13: 10 which also appears in Matthew, but without a clumsy narrative interruption.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)