** you do not have permission to see this link **
14:00 into video – “Mark is dealing with an imminent revelation of the glorious returning son of man … ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory‘ Mark 13″
15:05 “… and of course Matthew and Luke know that Mark was wrong … which is why they change what Jesus supposedly said”
The professor here correctly establishes the original version of the text ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory‘
The two edited versions clearly being the below.
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
There’s only one problem – she incorrectly identifies Mark as having the original version.
Matthew 16:28
Luke 9:27
Mark 9:1
But you do agree she got the likely original version correct but incorrectly ascribes it to Mark?
Mark’s existence is explained by a desire to remove causes of contention from Matthew/Luke and make a gospel more accessible to a gentile audipence. Its survival is due to a belief that its author was Peter’s translator.
brenmcg
14:00 into video – “Mark is dealing with an imminent revelation of the glorious returning son of man … ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory‘ Mark 13″
15:05 “… and of course Matthew and Luke know that Mark was wrong … which is why they change what Jesus supposedly said”
The professor here correctly establishes the original version of the text ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory‘
The two edited versions clearly being the below.
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
There’s only one problem – she incorrectly identifies Mark as having the original version.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Steefen
As you might recall, this is very important to me.
The Biblical Jesus is a false prophet because of this. I point to Matthew 16:28 but you seem to say only Mark says Son of Man whereas corrected versions in Matthew and Luke know Jesus does not come back gloriously, so they just say the kingdom of God comes.
#1: Matthew 16:28 does not correct from Son of Man to simply Kingdom
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.’
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Mark 9: 1
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”
So maybe you’re saying Matthew came first and Mark and Luke corrected Matthew.
#2
There was no Jewish Apocalyptic glorious Kingdom of God by the end of the Jewish Revolt: Jesus is still a false prophet.
Steefen said
So maybe you’re saying Matthew came first and Mark and Luke corrected Matthew.
Yes exactly. Mark and Luke updated to a more acceptable version.
Prof Fredicksen instinctively knows what the original version was but erroneously attributes it Mark. Matthew has the original.
#2 Possibly Jesus is a false prophet or possibly we should understand Matthew 16:28 in the same sense of John 8:52 and Hebrews 2:9. Where “taste death” means to “experience the state of being dead”, rather than “to die”.
“The Jews said to him, now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, whoever keeps my word will never taste death.”
“but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
brenmcg
#2 Possibly Jesus is a false prophet or possibly we should understand ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Where “taste death” means to “experience the state of being dead”, rather than “to die”.
“The Jews said to him, now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, whoever keeps my word will never taste death.”
“but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
Steefen
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
becomes
there are some here who will not taste death (experience the state of being dead)
there are some here who will not have a near death experience
before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
I am not persuaded by that possibility.
It has nothing to do with a near death experience.
It means they will die but will not experience the state of being dead. They will have new life.
Look at the lead up to the verse.
Matthew 16:25 “For those who want to save their life will lose it and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”
They will die but will find life.
brenmcg said
It has nothing to do with a near death experience.It means they will die but will not experience the state of being dead. They will have new life.
Look at the lead up to the verse.
Matthew 16:25 “For those who want to save their life will lose it and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”
They will die but will find life.
An NDE is not a taste of death?
I am not persuaded.
We agree to disagree.
You tried to make a point but I will stick with the regular understanding of the verse.
The significance is not what you bring up, the significance is whether the Son of Man or the Kingdom of the Son of Man of Jewish Apocalypticism appeared before AD 74, particularly AD 70.
A simple observation is that the earliest dated gospel Mark states – “In the lifetime of listeners” Later gospel Matthew states “In this generation” as it hasn’t happened yet. Luke gospel doesn’t know when or is being very circumspect. There were no reporters taking notes at the time so no one actually knows what was said on the topic.
*9,23-27: Demands of Discipleship
9,23 But he said to them all, “If someone wants to follow behind me, let him deny himself and then follow me. 24 he who loses his life for my sake will save it. 25 the whole world but loses himself or suffers harm? 26 For he who wants to save his life will lose it. And For what is the use if a man gains and of those who belong to me, of him I also will be ashamed. 27 He who is ashamed of me But truly, I say to you: There are some among those standing here who will not taste death before they will see the coming of the Son of Man in his glory.”
“3. As shown by Tertullian’s presentation of *9,26, the statement about the Son of Man and about his ‘coming in glory’ must have been absent in *Ev. It was inserted in this passage through Mark 8,38 and represents a rather factual statement about the point in time at which judgment will be held over those who are ashamed of the ‘Son of Man’: ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. Because of this intervention, two statements about the ‘coming’ are juxtaposed, each with a different function. According to 8,38, the ‘Son of Man will come ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ’ to judge those who are ashamed of him; according to 8,39, on the other hand, ‘the kingdom of God will come ἐν δυνάμει’ fulfilling the imminent expectation. Matthew adopted both statements about the ‘coming’ from Mark, amplified the judgment aspect of Mark 8,38 || Matt 16,27, and added: καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ. At the same time, Matthew accommodated the declaration about the (imminent) coming of the Son of Man from *Ev (*9,27) by adopting the coming of the kingdom of God from Mark 8,39 and by having the ‘Son of Man’ come into ‘his kingdom’ (Matt 16,28).5 Luke avoided this slightly awkward formulation by mentioning not the ‘coming’ (of the Son of Man in his glory: *Ev; of the Son of Man in his kingdom of God: Matthew; of the kingdom of God in power: Mark) in 9,27 but rather the ‘seeing’ of the kingdom of God. Therefore, Luke contained only one statement (adopted from Mark 8,38c) about the coming of the Son of Man in Luke 9,26c. Nevertheless, Luke’s formulation still shows the influence of the source text *9,27 fin.: the Son of Man will come ‘in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’; a conformation of *Ev and Mark (because of the holy angels):
4. The example of the redaction of *9,26f is instructive in several respects. Confirmed for this model of tradition history is not only Mark’s dependency on *Ev (whose text he revises), but also Matthew’s direct access of *Ev, which means ‘he bypassed Mark’; Luke’s dependency on *Ev is presumed anyway. Furthermore, the contours of the editorial process become evident: the later stages of the *Ev-reception by Matthew and Luke could not have been attained without knowledge of each of the previous editorial steps. Next to *Ev, Matthew was also familiar with the Markan version; and next to *Ev, Luke also compared…..”
This is a general public podcast, not a dissertation defense. As good as Bart’s books from Harper One. If anyone wants to seriously deal with a problem for example Klinghardt and its original version * 9: 27 then feel free to do so. Just download VitalSource Bookshelf and contact me for login …
Robert said
Mark and Matthew both say it:
Yes that’s the point, they both say it. That’s contrary to Highfits claim “A simple observation is that the earliest dated gospel Mark states – “In the lifetime of listeners” Later gospel Matthew states “In this generation” as it hasn’t happened yet.“
That Paula Fredriksen misspoke is obvious also from the fact that she is actually thinking of ‘the apocalyptic aria of Mk 13′ and how Matthew and especially Luke both interpret Mk 13 differently than how Mark most likely intended it. I don’t agree with her that Mark is necessarily thinking of a two-generation model because I see Mk 8,12 as a literal curse or threat which points both to Jesus’ own death and the destruction of the Temple as God’s righteous vengeance for Jesus’ death. There seems to be an overlap between “some” of Jesus’ generation and that of Mark.
She’s didn’t misspeak she miss attributed. She understands “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory” sounds like the earlier version and therefore misattributes to Mark. The earlier version belongs to Matthew.
While the bigger difference is in how Matthew and Luke both reinterpret Mk 13, there is still a subtle difference between Mk 9,1 and Mt 16,28. Whereas Mark believes that some of Jesus’ own generation and Mark’s own generation have seen the beginning of the birth pangs, the destruction of the Temple as the Kingdom of God having already come (pluperfect) in power, which was the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God coming in power and great glory as seen by the high priests and the others left behind in Jerusalem (13,26 14,62). Matthew thinks of the Son of Man as still coming (present participle) in his Kingdom. Here I agree with Fredriksen. Enough time has gone by since the destruction of the Temple for Matthew to see that the final end was not as imminent as Mark seems to have thought it would be.
Where’s the subtle difference? Mark 13:26 and 14:62 are both paralleled in Matthew. And Matthew’s version of 14:62 again indicates Matthew to be earlier.
Mark 14:26 “you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 26: “from now you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
It’s Mark again removing the immediacy of Matthew.
Robert said
Jarek, your quotation of (Mk? Marcion?) 9,23-27 is jumbled and incoherent at parts. I also couldn’t follow very well the logic of your post/quotation. Could you lay out clearly what you think was the original version in Marcion’s gospel?
It is translation of Marcion gospel *9,23-27. Logic is presented by Klinghardt on 6 pages with a few tabels. I can copy and paste here but maybe it is easier to take a look in the book via my account. What do you prefer?
Robert said
Just tell me what you and Klinghardt think the original text of Marcion’s gospel was for what became Mk 9,23-27.Is that what you were trying to do with this?
*9,23-27: Demands of Discipleship
9,23 But he said to them all, “If someone wants to follow behind me, let him deny himself and then follow me. 24 he who loses his life for my sake will save it. 25 the whole world but loses himself or suffers harm? 26 For he who wants to save his life will lose it. And For what is the use if a man gains and of those who belong to me, of him I also will be ashamed. 27 He who is ashamed of me But truly, I say to you: There are some among those standing here who will not taste death before they will see the coming of the Son of Man in his glory.”
If so, it seems jumbled up with a few non-sentences. For example, the beginning of 9,25 doesn’t make sense. The second sentence in 9,26 doesn’t make sense. The first part of 9,27 also seems to be a sentence fragment.
Sorry … You are right. I did not notice that it is impossible to copy the text in an easy way because it cuts out the words.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert