Robert said
So, Bren, let’s see if you can evaluate the evidence objectively. What would you say is the strongest evidence against Matthean primacy, both with respect to this passage and in general?
I would say the strongest evidence in general is the observation that given Mark it’s easy to say why someone would write Matthew – but given Matthew it’s difficult to see why they would bother writing Mark. Also some passages where Jesus heals “all” who were sick in Matthew but only “many” in corresponding Markan. Jesus couldnt do many miracles in his home town in Mark wheres as Jesus didnt do many miracles in Matthew’s version. But overall its not impressive.
Specifically this passage, I’m not sure, possibly Mark and Luke agree against Matthew and have it in the same place.
Robert said
But Luke is the only evangelist who says anything at all about speaking in tongues–why would he eliminate a genuine prophecy of Jesus about the disciples speaking in tongues?
The context in Matthew is the Hebraic Jews rejecting the disciples so the holy spirit allows them to speak in tongues to teach the gentiles.
However Luke is a greek speaking Jew, possibly one from Libya near cyrene in Acts 2, so he sees the speaking in tongues being used to preach to diaspora Jews first.
Robert said
There is additional evidence from Matthew’s version that leads me to suspect that he is completely dependent on Mark for this saying (contrary to the possibility of an independent Q version).
Quite the cliffhanger… Where’s the ‘Next Episode’ button on this thing?!?!
brenmcg said
…governor always refers to roman rulers in the NT.
Thanks! I wish I could read the Greek here… I will accept this, but even if I didn’t I couldn’t dispute it! Ha.
Oh, and above, you mentioned that Mt & Lk both use the same grammatical structure for “kings and governors” vs. Mark. Mind expanding on that a bit for this layman (how different is it in Greek, why one would suppose it supports Matthean priority vs Farrer theory, etc.)?
brenmcg said
Try cherry garcia and that will be your introduction to ice-cream generally.
Yes – and now I’m pining for Ben & Jerry’s – but it would still be unnatural (for me at least) to say it in this manner. And given we’re discussing something (Mark 13:10) based on how unnaturally it feels, my inexpert stylistic comment seemingly remains relevant. But perhaps I’m missing your point.
brenmcg said
And misplaced parenthetical comments are not a Markan feature.
I hear ya, it’s just that I know a real smart guy who thinks differently. Maybe you guys should talk?
Ha. I’m so unqualified here…
Hngerhman said
Thanks! I wish I could read the Greek here… I will accept this, but even if I didn’t I couldn’t dispute it! Ha.
Oh, and above, you mentioned that Mt & Lk both use the same grammatical structure for “kings and governors” vs. Mark. Mind expanding on that a bit for this layman (how different is it in Greek, why one would suppose it supports Matthean priority vs Farrer theory, etc.)?
I don’t read greek either – just use an interlinear.
Matthew and Luke both use the accusative for “governors and kings” against Marks genitive. That is Matthew and Luke say the disciples will be brought to the governors and Mark says they will be stood in front of the governors.
There are many solutions to the synoptic problem and any one observation will support a range of them. If Markan priority is assumed, the above will support Farrer (or Mark Q overlap). But if we assume nothing accept a direct relationship between Matthew/Mark/Luke the above suggests Mark is not the original version.
Also Matthew and Mark have governors and kings, Luke has kings and governors. That is Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, Matthew and Mark agree against Luke. Matthew is the stable version – the one being edited.
Yes – and now I’m pining for Ben & Jerry’s – but it would still be unnatural (for me at least) to say it in this manner. And given we’re discussing something (Mark 13:10) based on how unnaturally it feels, my inexpert stylistic comment seemingly remains relevant. But perhaps I’m missing your point.
How about a band touring Europe might hope to perform in front of the Prime Minister, the Queen and the English.
brenmcg said
Robert said
But Luke is the only evangelist who says anything at all about speaking in tongues–why would he eliminate a genuine prophecy of Jesus about the disciples speaking in tongues?
The context in Matthew is the Hebraic Jews rejecting the disciples so the holy spirit allows them to speak in tongues to teach the gentiles.
However Luke is a greek speaking Jew, possibly one from Libya near cyrene in Acts 2, so he sees the speaking in tongues being used to preach to diaspora Jews first.
Actually in Luke’s initial use in chapter 12 he says don’t worry about how you will speak, the Holy spirit will teach you.
So when you worry about how you speak the holy spirit will be involved, else it will just be Jesus. Except in Mark when he’s amalgamating Matthew and Luke’s versions.
brenmcg said
How about a band touring Europe might hope to perform in front of the Prime Minister, the Queen and the English.
Ah! Now I think I see where we’re slipping past one another here. It somewhat turns on the size of audience suggested in the context. Where you are coming from: When believers are hauled in front of kings and governors, that is the beginning of the launch of the gentile mission. Where I am coming from: If believers were to be arrested and put before kings and governors (who are by definition, as you say, gentiles), then the introduction to gentiles would be implicit in the terms kings and governors. Further, there would be a VERY limited number of people the arrested parties would come into contact with during the process. So, in light of the very limited contact, it seems a bit weird to say this is the launch of the broad gentile mission. It’s the by its nature limited audience during an ancient judicial process that makes the “and the gentiles” statement ring strangely for me, especially when in the surrounding context Jesus is saying don’t go to them.
OK, something else just occurred to me. It’s a half-formed idea, but it’s a long holiday weekend so here goes: Who is Jesus talking to (here, in Matthew only) about getting pulled in front of kings and governors? Which of Jesus’s followers, prior to the great commission, got hauled in front of kings and governors? This is prior to the great commission, yes? And prior to that commission, Jesus says don’t go to gentiles (except perhaps via this circuitous route of judicial process), yes? I’m probably missing something here…
Right – and without the twelve being dragged before kings and governors prior to the great commission, the statement (as a launch of the gentile mission) makes little sense. Short of one of the twelve being dragged into an unrecorded judicial proceeding, the launch of the gentile mission was (and was after) the great commission. Don’t go to gentiles, except for when you are dragged before their leadership, which actually won’t happen until after I tell you (later) to go to them, in contravention of what I’ve told you just now, but at which point you’ll already be licensed/encouraged to be in front of civilian gentiles, at which point the dragging in front of their leadership will be a superfluous mechanism, which means it won’t be how you first encounter gentiles, which means it won’t be the launch of the gentile mission. Robert, I know you are all over this, but I’m slowly trying to catch myself (and perhaps others) up.
Robert said
An easily understood correction according to classical and still most common usage in Koine (BDF §233), especially with the use of Mark’s verb that Matthew and Luke both variously derive from Mk 13,11. To better understand Mark’s usage as nonetheless correct in a technical sense of a trial, see BDF §234(4) & BDAG 363.3.
My geeky excitement to read these pieces laid out above is only surpassed by my lack of any clue of what they are and how to find them… Ha. Robert – would you mind spoonfeeding this layman (me) even further than you already do, by (literally) pointing me in the direction of these works?
Robert said
Of course, Luke makes many, many changes to Mark, but you were mistaken to claim that he was following Matthew, and it’s good that you can now admit this. Next maybe you can begin to see the rationale of Luke’s changes, as well as Matthew’s to Mark. But I won’t hold my breath.
Uh oh. Look at this guy. He has to be right about something.
Hngerhman said
OK, something else just occurred to me. It’s a half-formed idea, but it’s a long holiday weekend so here goes: Who is Jesus talking to (here, in Matthew only) about getting pulled in front of kings and governors? Which of Jesus’s followers, prior to the great commission, got hauled in front of kings and governors? This is prior to the great commission, yes? And prior to that commission, Jesus says don’t go to gentiles (except perhaps via this circuitous route of judicial process), yes? I’m probably missing something here…
Matthew 10 is often interpreted as an immediate sending out of the disciples. Mark and Luke certainly took it this, adding verses about the disciples returning and telling Jesus all that happened.
But its really about 12 of the disciples being designated apostles and given instruction on what their mission will be. Everything in chapter 10 is about future events after the crucifixion – “you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” is a reference to the coming on the clouds with the angels, not Jesus catching up to them after a few days.
This designation of the 12 as “apostles” occurred earlier in the narrative of Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14 and in neither account are they actually sent out at that time.
Matthew 10:5 translated as “he sent them out … ” can have them meaning of “he gave them a mission … ” or “made them envoys … ” or ” designated them apostles”.
When chapter 10 is not misunderstood, Matthew’s version of the apostles only going forth on their mission after the crucifixion makes the most sense. Luke and Mark is best seen as a mis-understanding of Matthew (or a disliking of the “only go to lost sheep of Israel line). The disciples in both accounts immediately return to Jesus – neither have any description of anything that happened on the travels; nowhere else in all 4 gospels is Jesus separated for long periods from the disciples before his death.
“You will be dragged in front of governors and kings as a witness to them and the gentiles” is about the rejection of the faith by Israel and the switching of the gospel to the gentiles (the second part of which Mark seems to understand in his version).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)