Robert said
Of course she did. How else can you explain the fact that she literally references Mk 13, where this verse does not even appear? She doesn’t even cite Mk 9,1 (or Mt 16,28) correctly and she never specifically mentions Mt 16,28 or Lk 9,27. You’re trying to create an imagined argument out of nothing.
Because just as she attributes the quote incorrectly she also cites the wrong chapter for its parallel.
The point she is making is that Mark is claiming an imminent return, which those listening to Jesus will be alive to see. And she quotes a verse dealing with this subject. She incorrectly assigns it to chapter 13 in Mark which doesn’t (explicitly) mention with an imminent return.
Now you’re imagining that I’m trying to create an over-arching argument by pointing out a subtle difference. Try as you may, you cannot solve the synoptic problem by pointing out a subtle difference in an individual verse,
I don’t – I try to solve it by pointing out subtle differences in many verses – which together point to Matthew.
No, while Mark has Jesus’ words referring to the future destruction of the temple, which has just occurred in the present day of Mark, Matthew tries to historicize this into the past, from the time of Jesus’ trial. Historicizing and eschatologizing is not making something more immediate.
No that’s a fantasy interpretation, made to protect Markan priority from criticism.
Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:26 both are put on the mouth of Jesus at his trial – Matthew claims an immediacy to when Jesus will be seen on throne.
Anyway here’s the pertinent question “Why, when making the point that Mark is dealing with an imminent return of Jesus did Fredriksen quote ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory”?
What point was she trying to make?
And the answer to this question will support Matthean priority.
Robert said
That makes better sense, but it does not seem to agree with your citation (of Klinghardt?):“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. …”
So does *Ev. represent an earlier copy of the primitive gospel prior to the version of Marcion’s gospel that Tertullian possessed? Or is *Ev. the version possessed by Tertullian, which is a later version than that of Marcion?
** 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 **
** 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 **
Robert said
Hence, you agree with us that she misspoke. The verse she paraphrases does indeed indicate an imminent coming of the Kingdom. Most critical scholars also consider Mark 13 to be most likely speaking of an imminent return.
She’s not trying to paraphrase, she’s trying to quote. And she’s quoting it to back the claim that Mark is dealing with an ‘imminent’ return of the son of man.
” … will not taste death … “
That’s Mark 8 and Matthew 16, not Mark 13 and Matthew 24.
Yes, but it is an immediacy put into the past. Thus historicized. Do you not understand what it is to historicize?
Matthew is historicizing Jesus’s claim of the immediacy of his return? Is that what claiming? This goes against Fredriksen’s claim in the video, where Matthew and Luke, unlike Mark, supposedly know the return hasn’t occurred and edit Mark to reflect this.
Not at all. If you listen to her video, she says that Mark is creating a “pipeline” from the time of Jesus to Mark’s present time. It is essentially the same thing as my saying that there an overlap between “some” of Jesus’ generation and Mark’s generation.
She has quoted a verse with ” … will not taste death til they see the son of man come again in glory” to support her claim that Mark is dealing with an imminent glorious return of the son of man. What do you think is the reason for quoting this verse in particular? Why doesn’t she quote Mark’s version of it?
Robert said
That makes better sense, but it does not seem to agree with your citation (of Klinghardt?):“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. …”
So does *Ev. represent an earlier copy of the primitive gospel prior to the version of Marcion’s gospel that Tertullian possessed? Or is *Ev. the version possessed by Tertullian, which is a later version than that of Marcion?
Klinghardt thus reconstructs all 555 verses of Marcion’s gospel. After the book was published in German, it was reviewed in detail by P.A. Gramaglia “Marcione e il Vangelo di Luca”. Klinghardt has made corrections, has released an English version and is probably awaiting further comments. It is a very interesting project because it is always open.
Why did I choose Klinghardt? Because he has the same understanding of Marcion. Marcion was the leader, he standardized the offer by basing it on new writings. He created the first organized church. He would rule Rome if he were allowed to carry out unlimited missionary action. He would defeat everyone else. Therefore, he had to be removed and condemned.
Robert said
But she mistakenly quotes it as Mk 13. Do you have a point here??
Yes. Fredriksen’s claim is that Mark is dealing with an imminent return of the son of man, but that Matthew and Luke knowing this didn’t occur change Mark as a result.
And in support of this claim she picks an excellent example of a verse which does indeed get changed by later gospel writers to obscure the suggestion of an imminent return of the son of man.
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man come again in glory”
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.“
“some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.“
Do you agree that this is an excellent example of two later authors editing the original in response to the fact that the son of man had not yet returned? And if not, why not?
As an advocate of Johannine priority I find these arguments meaningless and absurd. And any suggestion that my position is being assumed simply to mock synoptic conspiracy theories I find offensive and take as an assault on my deepest sensibilities. I refuse to elaborate for two reasons: A) My position is too complicated to explain to you, and, B) I haven’t thought of a really cool name for my position yet.
Robert said
No. As I’ve already explained, Mk 9,1 presumes that some of Jesus’ disciples would still be alive when the Kingdom has come (pluperfect). Matthew changes this subtly to say that some would see the Son of Man coming (present), which he believes was happening already at the time of Jesus’ confession before the high priest.
No Mark is saying some of the disciples would see the kingdom, it having had come with power (puperfect, at the point in time when they see it).
What’s actually happening is that Luke and Mark are changing the meaning to a spiritual arrival of the kingdom, and Luke is the originator of this idea
Luke 17:20-21 “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, Here it is or There it is because the kingdom of God is in your midst.“
Matthew has a physical observable event – ‘the coming of the son of man on the clouds’ that he is claiming some of the disciples standing there will see. And Fredriksen is correct to quote this as the original and to claim that later writers knowing the physical observable event didn’t occur are editing this. But she’s incorrect in attributing this original verse to Mark.
Jarek
Klinghardt thus reconstructs all 555 verses of Marcion’s gospel.
After the book was published in German, it was reviewed in detail by P.A. Gramaglia “Marcione e il Vangelo di Luca”.
Klinghardt has made corrections, has released an English version and is probably awaiting further comments.
Marcion was the leader, he standardized the offer by basing it on new writings.
He created the first organized church.
keywords=Marcion+and+Klinghardt&qid=1667260271&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjQ2IiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=marcion+and+klinghardt%2Caps%2C88&sr=8-1
Note the reader review by Brad Hansen:
This book, however, is nothing more than an English translation of Klinghardt’s own German translation, even reproducing Klinghardt’s justification for his Greek translations without any citation or indication that this is what the translator was doing (!!!). This is at best lazy and at worst plagiarism. Moreover, the abbreviated sigla adopted by Klinghardt in his own translation is done on the assumption that readers are familiar with the careful process by which he arrived at his textual decisions. Instead, the presentation in this volume suggests that Mcn and Lk are identical except for the few situations where it is marked.
Jarek,
What can you say about BeDuhn’s translation(?) ?
No, yes: translation. The description has this:
Jason BeDuhn introduces Marcion, reconstructs his text, and explores his impact on the study of Luke-Acts, the two-source theory, and the Q hypothesis.
I am asking because I settle on this book. I do not think I would have selected Klinghardt based on amazon entries.
keywords=the+first+new+testament&qid=1667260442&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjM1IiwicXNhIjoiMC40MCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=The+First+New+%2Caps%2C111&sr=8-1
Robert said
brenmcg said
Robert said
Were you able to convince Bart of Matthean priority?
Not yet no.
Why do think that is? Why is it you can never find any critical scholars who hold the same positions that you defend so passionately? Obsessively? You’ve already clarified that you were not dropped on your head as a baby, so what is the real explanation?
🤣🤣🤣
Robert said
Why do think that is? Why is it you can never find any critical scholars who hold the same positions that you defend so passionately? Obsessively? You’ve already clarified that you were not dropped on your head as a baby, so what is the real explanation?
As I’ve posted before I think the answer will be related to Mark Goodacre’s comments in his article on Fatigue in the Synoptics
“Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark’s rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible. For most, this is not a problem: the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time; it provides a sound basis for convincing redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke and, most importantly, the alternatives seem unattractive and implausible … ( … Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis)“.
Once it’s realized that Griesbach isn’t in the least bit implausible the arguments in its favor will be seen to be completely overwhelming.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert