Allow me to raise my hand and say I’m lost. He is telling them what their mission is to be, post the resurrection, but the (now) message of what it will be post resurrection (don’t go to gentiles, gentiles will come indirectly through judicial proceedings) is in conflict with what (he knows) he will then tell them post resurrection (go and minister straight to the gentiles)? I tell you now what to do then, but when you get to then, don’t do what I tell you now, but instead do its opposite. It’s a tad confusing.
The great commission is to make disciples of all nations, but as he has told them this mission is begun by preaching to the lost sheep of Israel first.
Matthew’s gospel isn’t a history book it’s a theology book. His understanding of the historic post crucifixion events is the apostles first preaching to Israel, being rejected and persecuted, being sent before gentile authorities, and finally preaching to the gentiles. He has Jesus predict all this in his apostolic mission. He’s also writing at a time when gentiles are being converted so has Jesus say the ultimate aim is the discipleship of all nations.
The apostles are known as apostles before and after the crucifixion. This only works in Matthew’s account, as in Mark and Luke as soon as the apostles return and tell Jesus what’s occurred their apostolic mission has ended.
Robert said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is the English translation of standard 2nd-level Greek grammar of the New Testament. It’s not mere a translation but has started to diverge in English from later German editions.
Similarly, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is the standard Greek Lexicon, also translated and developed from the German versions.
I will try to get back to this thread in the next day or two.
Thank you!
Robert said
And yet Matthew betrays his knowledge of these verses belonging in Mark’s section on the end-times and even creates a doublet in his own section on the last times:
Mt 10,21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Not only is Matthew reproducing word-for-word Mk 13,12-13 here, but he shows his own awareness that this comes from such a section and belongs there because he reproduces the last sentence word-for-word in his own version of Mk 13:
Mt 24,13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.
Hngherhman, it is these additional traces of Mark 13 in Matthew’s displaced verses in Mt 10 that not only betray his dependence upon Mark 13 but also do not require a Q-version of these verses to explain Matthew’s creation of doublets. As for Luke’s doublet of these verses, his version in Luke 22 is considerably changed in Luke’s Greek text there (parallel to Mk 13), while his displaced version in Lk 12 is closer to Mark’s Greek. There is very little lexical agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark that would require or suggest a Q-version of this logion.
Thank you. To quote that esteemed turn-of-the-century philosopher Ben Stiller, this is “I’d say strong…to quite strong.”
Hngerhman said
Robert said
And yet Matthew betrays his knowledge of these verses belonging in Mark’s section on the end-times and even creates a doublet in his own section on the last times:
Mt 10,21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Not only is Matthew reproducing word-for-word Mk 13,12-13 here, but he shows his own awareness that this comes from such a section and belongs there because he reproduces the last sentence word-for-word in his own version of Mk 13:Mt 24,13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.
Hngherhman, it is these additional traces of Mark 13 in Matthew’s displaced verses in Mt 10 that not only betray his dependence upon Mark 13 but also do not require a Q-version of these verses to explain Matthew’s creation of doublets. As for Luke’s doublet of these verses, his version in Luke 22 is considerably changed in Luke’s Greek text there (parallel to Mk 13), while his displaced version in Lk 12 is closer to Mark’s Greek. There is very little lexical agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark that would require or suggest a Q-version of this logion.Thank you. To quote that esteemed turn-of-the-century philosopher Ben Stiller, this is “I’d say strong…to quite strong.”
Doublets are seen throughout all 3 synoptics and the mere appearance of one can’t be used in deciding priority. What needs to be asked is, if Matthew is first does the verse make sense in both contexts? The answer is yes, in chapter ten the persecutions that begin when the apostles begin preaching will continue until the end-times. So there’s nothing in that the helps decide on priority.
However there are two telling differences in Luke and Mark that suggest Luke is taking verses from Matthew 10 and adding to Matthew 24 rather than editing Mark 13.
Luke 21:12-19
“12 But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.“
Why would Luke introduce this section with “before all this …” if his source is Mark? It makes sense though if he is taking this section from Matthew 10 and adding to Matthew 24.
Why would Luke add “but not a hair of your head will perish” to Mark? It makes sense if he’s taking material from Matthew 10.
Matthew 10:29-31 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.“
I have an extra-Matthew issue with the “failed mission to the Jews first, then shift to gentiles” interpretation. Paul in Romans seems to be (a) deep into the gentile mission (both in dedication and years) and yet (b) the mission to the Jews is not “failed” at that point in time. Perhaps surprisingly unsuccessful to date, but not failed. For Matthew to consider the launch of the gentile mission to post-date a failed Jewish mission is to miss the work of Paul and his cohorts, and according to Luke (and Paul), Peter’s work.
And even if it’s softened to an upon-a-stalled-mission-to-the-Jews interpretation, that still doesn’t work, for the same extra-Matthean reasons of timing. They were already out with gentiles early post resurrection, and the kings and governors mechanism is just not the launch point.
I’m trying to hold a hypothesis of Matthean priority aloft, Bren, and I’m continuing to find myself unable to do it. The strands double back upon themselves each time I attempt.
Robert said And Bren also holds to an impossibly early time of composition for Matthew and Luke.
But even so, the events narrated in Acts and Paul’s own view of the Jerusalem strain’s evangelical project undercut the “failed mission” thesis, even if Matthew was written the month after Easter…
Robert said
brenmcg said
Doublets are seen throughout all 3 synoptics and the mere appearance of one can’t be used in deciding priority.
One needs to decide if the doublets are obviously part of Mark’s redactional structure, as in Mark, or if they betray multiple sources. Regardless, I’m not using the doublets here to argue for priority, but rather acknowledging that it does bring up the possibility of a Q-source for some of this material.
Perhaps not the existence per se of doublets, but the content of the “at the end times” in Matthew in a section that isn’t supposed to be the end times, that counts against priority, correct?
Robert said
No, Bren, like Farmer, is a Neo-Griesbachian. He thinks Mark used both Matthew and Luke, which doubles his own admitted difficulty.
Yeah, I know – it’s just that the Matthean priority argument seemingly took a dog leg right, dropping Mark and went to find support via Luke. Which path is seemingly indistinguishable from Farrer.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)