Robert said
So now you retract your original argument and concede that the Markan text does indeed make sense in context.
The original argument is the immediate context of being taken for trial – not the context of the chapter as whole. 13:10 makes sense within the context of a discussion of the end-times but does not make sense sandwiched between 13:9 and 13:11
Again, you still have not grasped the issue. Not only does Luke place this saying in a wholly different context than Matthew, but he also provides a doublet in Mark’s context. Likewise, Matthew provides a doublet of some of this same material. Whereas you have no explanation for this, the two source theory gives a very good account of how and why this happened.
The two source theory involves a hypothetical source, it can explain whatever you want it to explain.
Doublets are found throughout the three gospels. The contexts that Matthew uses them share certain themes. There’s nothing remarkable about a doublet showing up here. Luke’s first use of the doublet is context free. It can be easily understood as being removed from Matthew’s context of apostolic instruction because of Luke’s dislike of “only go to lost sheep of Israel”.
Robert said
You are again just assuming your own source theory without considering other options. Mark’s story shows signs of originality that make good sense in an earlier if not original context, whereas Matthew abbreviates to retain what he feels is the central point, a common practice of editors.
See Joel Marcus, II, 941-942: “The first part of Jesus’ statement here echoes Deut 15:11: “For the poor will never cease out of the land” (RSV)—a verse that goes on to commend openhandedness to the poor. Jesus is not, then, devaluing service to the poor but assuming that it will remain a continuing duty in the coming period. … Since rabbinic discussions suggest that the duty of burial overrides other obligations (see, e.g., b. Ber. 14b; b. Meg. 3b), including perhaps almsgiving (see b. Suk. 49b and cf. t. Peʾah 4:19; Jeremias, “Salbungsgeschichte”), the halakic relevance of Jesus’ defense of the woman’s action is clear: the three hundred denarii are better spent on Jesus than on the poor, since the importance of burial supersedes that of almsgiving.”
John is even further removed from the original context and follows Matthew’s abbreviated version.
So the bold above is only seen in Mark’s verson. That is, Matthew and John can be taken naively as “don’t bother helping the poor they’ll always be around”, however Mark softens the language to say you can help them any time.
So can we take it as Matthew and John have the harder reading here?
–
In order for Mark to be first we must postulate 2 edits. Matthew and John both preferring the shorter version. With Matthean priority we just have 1 edit; Mark’s. Softening the statement about the poor.
Couple this with Mark 13:10 and Markan priority necessitates 4 edits, Matthew and Luke both disliking 13:10 and Matthew and John both disliking 13:7. With Matthean priority we only need one assumption. Mark likes sticking in parenthetical comments while editing.
You’d have to wonder why everyone’s copying Mark’s material when they dislike it so much.
Robert said
You’re still prevaricating. I merely appealed to the immediately preceding verses, not the whole chapter, though of course it also makes very good sense in the context of the whole chapter. But regardless you now concede that the Markan text does make sense in context.
No I don’t, because the context under discussion is the immediate context of a trial – if 13:10 does not make sense within that context then the original argument is correct. The context of the verses before 13:9 and in the rest of the chapter aren’t relevant to the original point.
You are still avoiding the specifics of these particular doublets. Not only does Luke place this saying in a wholly different context than Matthew, but he also provides a doublet in Mark’s context. Likewise, Matthew provides a doublet of some of this same material, not only in his own unique context but, differently from Luke, also in Mark’s context. Whereas you have no explanation for this, the two source theory gives a very good account of how and why this happened.
I don’t see how Matthew’s second use of the material in Mark’s context is different from Luke’s?
Robert said
You are failing to understand or address the actual point and ignoring the possibility that John simply follows Matthew. Do you use this type of illogical argumentation is real life?
Of course there’s a possibility of John following Matthew or Matthew following John or Mark following both.
The question is – what is the most likely? The Matthew and John both decided to make a change or just Mark made a change? Does Mark soften the language? What version is an original writer most likely to write?
Robert said
As with your original point and now again you are merely trying to avoid consideration of the context of Mk 13,9-11. But you’ve already admitted it makes sense in its immediate context. Do I have to quote you again?
Bren: “I understand the context is that the preaching to the gentiles must take place before the end.”
The immediate context is 13:9 and 13:11 – this is the argument. Within the context of 13:9 and 13:11 (the immediate context) 13:10 doesn’t make sense.
As a counterargument you could say
“yes within 13:9 and 13:11 it does not make sense, but given 13:8, and the rest of the chapter, 13:10’s placement does make sense”
or you could say
“no solely within the context of 13:9 and 13:11, 13:10 does make sense”
I don’t think you’re saying “no” but you’re saying “yes” I do not concede that the placement of 13:10 within 13:9 and 13:11 can be made sense of within the larger context of Chapter 13. 13:10 makes sense within chapter 13 but does not make sense placed between 13:9 and 13:11.
Matthew and Luke’s first use of this material are in totally different contexts. Then they provide differing doublet material in the Markan context.
Does Matthew’s double make sense on its own terms? How can we understand Luke’s edits given Matthew as source? How can we understand Mark’s edits given Matthew/Luke as sources.
Matthew’s doublet makes perfect sense. The apostolic instruction and end-times discourse both have the persecutions of evangelists as themes.
Luke doesn’t like a portion of the apostolic instruction, he foreshortens it and moves some of the material to a context free placement. And moves some of to the end-times discourse which shares the theme of persecution. No difficulty for Matthean priority here.
Mark shares Luke’s dislike of portion of the apostolic instruction, like Luke he moves a portion to the end-times section but unlike Luke does not move a portion to a context free position a couple of chapters later. No difficulty for Mattean priority here.
Do you even understand what you are saying? If John is following Matthew he is not deciding to make a change to Mark. He is simply following Matthew.
Yes he could be following Matthew. In which case the strength of the argument would be lessened. But we don’t know who John is following – all cases should be accepted as possibilities. Which version is most likely the original?
Robert said
You said Mk 13,9-11 did not make sense. I showed that it made perfect sense in its immediate context, ie, when seen in context with the immediately preceding verses of Mk 13,7b-8. You do not want to look at the immediately preceding verses, saying you only want to look at Mk 13,9-11. That is absurd. You are majing a ridiculous argument.
Here’s where we agree – Mark 13:10 makes sense in the context of an end-times account. This was never in up for discussion (Matthew has it as well).
Here’s where we appear to disagree – that does not mean Mark 13:10 can be placed anywhere in chapter 13 or anywhere after 13:8 and still make sense. There are some positions of 13:10 which do not make sense and any discussion of the overall context of ch13 or 13:8 would no longer be relevant. The discussion is limited purely to the correct positioning of 13:10.
Is 13:10 correctly placed between 13:9 and 13:11?
You are still ignoring the actual texts. I am not fooled. Deal with the actual differences in the texts or you cannot be taken seriously. Sorry.
You’d need to give an argument for why you think Matthew’s or Luke’s doublets here make more sense in 2SH that Griesbach.
I see them working either way.
Do you have any argument whatsoever for why we should not think John is following Matthew? Otherwise I don’t see any reason to doubt the obvious.
I’m not arguing that John is following Matthew – the claim is that the version found in Matthew/John is original to the one found in Mark. Regardless of who is copying who.
brenmcg said
I’m not arguing that John is following Matthew – the claim is that the version found in Matthew/John is original to the one found in Mark. Regardless of who is copying who.
Aside from asserting it, then asking that the onus be on disproving it, how would one compellingly substantiate this claim?
Hngerhman said
brenmcg said
I’m not arguing that John is following Matthew – the claim is that the version found in Matthew/John is original to the one found in Mark. Regardless of who is copying who.
Aside from asserting it, then asking that the onus be on disproving it, how would one compellingly substantiate this claim?
Firstly on a simple majority verdict – 2 against 1.
Secondly, additions are more likely than subtractions in the synoptic problem.
Thirdly we can see what Mark might have added the extra words. Matthew and John’s version might naively be thought of as devaluing helping the poor. Mark softens the language. Matthew and John have the harder reading.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)