TJ Comments

Comments are welcomed on the comparisons between the verses or passages shown from the Gospel of Matthew and their TJ parallels. TJ stands for Talmud of Jmmanuel, discovered in 1963 by Eduard Meier and Isa Rashid.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

DISCUSSION OF TJ 15 AND MATTHEW 13

My further responses to Ben’s comments, and comments of others on the material in these particular chapters, will be found here.

posted by Jim Deardorff @ 11:28 AM  

24 Comments:

  • At 2:02 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote (in a 7:08 a.m. post, under "More Discussion of the TJ and Matthew"):

    “It has already been noted the extreme set of coincidences or intentional falsifications on all 3 gospel writers, just talking about chronological progression and no other details, that would have been necessary to change J’s return to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve, into no return at all.”

    Deardorff responds, 3/20/08:

    Ben, your arguments on this have been difficult for me to follow, since you seem to imply here that in Matthew there is no return of J to Nazareth after the twelve are sent out, whereas in the TJ there is. In Mt 10:5 the twelve are sent out; in Mt 13:53-58 J came back to his own country, to Nazareth, where the people knew his brothers, sisters, mother and father. The gap here in progression of events is quite large, such that it is only natural to suppose that 13:53 occurred later than 10:5. If you don’t agree, I don’t know anyone else who would agree with you. Scholars unaminously assume, as far as I know, that Mt 13:53 refers to J’s return to Nazareth. (I’ve already commented on why the writer of Matthew omitted the name “Nazareth.”)

    Thus the writer of Matthew was merely following the TJ’s sequence of events, as usual. Both have J returning to Nazareth some time after he sent out the twelve.

     

  • At 6:16 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    For simplicity, all contradictions of Chronological events of the TJ which end at Matthew 13:1 will be presented here. Refer to chronological sequence under "More Discussion of TJ."

    1. Critical Junction: Matthew 1:25 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails.
    (Matthew progresses forward 8 days, harmonizing with the grand chronological sequence. The TJ remains on the night of the birth, contradicting the sequence.)
    The birth scene in the TJ has the "star" guiding the wise men to J on the very night of his birth, contradicting the grand timeline. Matthew's star appeared on the night of the birth and the wise men make it to J months later, agreeing with the timeline.

    2. Critical Junction: Matthew 8:14 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails.
    (Matthew reverts to the time when Peter's Mother-in-Law was healed (event 6), harmonizing with the grand chronological sequence. The TJ progresses forward by editing Matthew's time indicator and, instead, saying “And Jmmanuel came to Peter's house and saw, which are presented as two subsequent and successive events after the previous one mentioned. Thus, the TJ contradicts the overall timeline.)

    3. Critical Junction: Matthew 8: 19 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails.
    (Matthew returns to the day the sea was made serene (event 29) after making the narrative insertion of a future travel on a road to a village (which occurred some 21 events or so beyond the given timeline according to Luke) where the two men were tested by statements from J. The TJ, if it progressed with Matthew at all, has J walking along a road and then instantly coming to the other side of a lake, leaving behind evidence of something having been "cut." Thus, the TJ could not have progressed with Matthew and only makes sense if the two came at the time before J crossed the sea which none of the gospel writers indicate is true. The TJ, once again, contradicts the timeline.)

    4. MAJOR CRITICAL JUNCTION: Matthew 10:2- Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails miserably, creating domino effect of more failures.
    (Matthew uses this time to give the names of twelve disciples that have been following J for a long time (since event 16), having been selected on the mountain before the giving of the Beatitudes. The Talmud of Jmmanuel says that Judas is first found and then selected at this point in the TJ narrative (event 35), bringing the number of disciples up from 5 to 12 instead of recounting who the twelve were that had already been chosen at the time of the Beatitudes and who had already been following J for a long while, thus creating the impossibility for the TJ's Judas to have recorded ANYTHING that J had taught if the TJ author follows any of the next sequences correctly which Matthew does follow correctly. The TJ has made an insert resulting from not knowing when the 12 where selected and has contradicted the sequence once again.)

    5. Critical Junction: Matthew 12:1 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails.
    (Matthew has reverted back to a past event when the grain was plucked on the Sabbath (event 13), a time before the TJ says that Judas was ever found or following J. The Talmud of Jmmanuel could not possibly have reverted back to this time or else Judas would not have been able to write a single thing that he is recorded to have done in the following chapters.)
    Matthew, having reverted back to a time before the 12 were chosen on the mountain, passes right through this choosing between verses 21 and 22. The TJ quits right before the 12 were selected according to the master chronological sequence and does not mention them having been selected by the TJ author, something that should and would have been done if the TJ author knew of the sequence in the first place. Massive evidence of editing has been left behind and the TJ, once again, contradicts the master sequence.

    6. Critical Point: Matthew 13:1 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails.
    (Matthew has remained in the time period (event 28) before Judas was even found and selected as one of the 12 in the TJ (lining up with event ). The TJ has progressed forward from a scene with Judas already having written some of J's teachings down, which is an impossibility if the TJ had been in the right time period in the first place.)
    "That same day"... what a tremendous day indeed. In the TJ, J walks an amazing 70 miles from Bethlehem to the Sea of Galilee without any mention of the aid of alien space craft. Matthew, having successfully returned to the correct time period, describes the scene that was cut by the TJ and simply has J walking out of the house that was located right next to the Sea of Galilee, confirmed by all 3 gospel writers. The TJ has left behind a contradiction that is impossible to even begin to reconcile.

    7. Critical Junction: Matthew 13:53-58 - Matthew Succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel Fails.
    (Matthew reverts back to the time when Nazareth rejected J for the second time, occurring before the 12 were sent out to the cities. The Talmud of Jmmanuel progresses forward, having J staying in Nazareth by its minor alteration to the text of Matthew when Herod hears of J and has John the Baptist beheaded.)
    The TJ has J staying in Nazareth when Herod hears of him after the second rejection by the city instead of being out with his disciples doing what they were doing as Mark records, even though the TJ stated the departure with the 12 in the EXACT same manner as Matthew in the TJ’s cognate of Matthew 11:1. The TJ has left behind massive evidence of editing without understanding Matthew’s regressions, contradicting the sequence once again in an irreconcilable manner. [Only the "scholars" that Deardorff checks do not know that Matthew has reverted at this point. Deardorff ignores all of the others who do, consistent with his entire treatment of Matthew.]

    8. Critical Junction: Matthew 13:1 - Matthew Succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel Fails.
    (Matthew does not have J staying in Nazareth because Matthew knew J was traveling from place to place when Herod heard of him, setting an example that his disciples were to follow. Talmud of Jmmanuel has J hanging out in the city while the disciples are doing all of the work (if the TJ ever regressed, which it obviously did not! The TJ, with its minor editing, has created another contradiction at this critical moment in Matthew.)

    Note: These are only the major chronological contradictions of the TJ. Matthew presents events in the EXACT order of the TJ and never contradicts the grand sequence at any of the above points. The TJ presents events in the EXACT same order as Matthew and has made contradictions at EVERY single point above.

    Mr. Deardorff... please. LOOK at this. Don't just refer me to the modified Augustinian hypothesis again. LOOK AT THIS. Find the weaknesses if you can. Arguments presented on the assumption that the TJ is right just because "it has to be" will not be considered. Critique the language of the gospel writers and determine if they ever contradict the sequence and compare the chronology presented in the TJ by the TJ's language and extra details to the sequence if you make remarks at all.

     

  • At 6:32 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    On point 6, I meant to write that the TJ event lines up with around event 35 on the master timeline.

     

  • At 12:30 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Point 8 should read Matthew 14:1

     

  • At 8:34 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote: "1. Critical Junction: Matthew 1:25 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails."

    The TJ happens to agree with those scholars who find that Mt 1:25 was an insertion of the writer of Matthew -- an invented statement designed to emphasize the righteous character of Joseph and to emphasize that J's name was "Jesus", as he had come to be known in the previous 80 years, and not the "Immanuel" of Isaiah's prophecy. Matthew succeeds only in stating the writer's hope and lie. The scholars' opinion about Mt 1:25a should not be ignored.

    Ben wrote: "2. Critical Junction: Matthew 8:14 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails."

    Here the writer of Matthew copied straight from the TJ. The only thing he needed to change was to alter "Jmmanuel" into "Jesus." The fact that the two verses are essentially identical should not be ignored.

    Ben wrote: "3. Critical Junction: Matthew 8:19 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails."

    Matthew here is again essentially the same as the TJ. They are getting ready to "go over to the other side" of the Sea of Galilee. They arrive there after 5 subsequent verses in the TJ and 4 in Matthew, except for another 5 verses in Matthew on the "stilling of the storm." This latter was an invention of the writer of Matthew, designed to show Jesus' great spiritual powers. Capable scholars agree it was an invention. Matthew's writer succeeds in further plagiarizing and also in inventing a passage. What scholars think of this "miracle" should not be ignored.

    Ben wrote: "4. MAJOR CRITICAL JUNCTION: Matthew 10:2- Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails miserably, creating domino effect of more failures."

    Here the writer of Matthew followed the TJ closely in naming the 12 disciples. From the TJ one gains the new thought that the disciples not previously mentioned had only shortly before been added to the 12 to fill out their number. One does not know if Judas Iscariot was among them or had been recruited earlier. Either way, the circumstance that the TJ was written by Judas largely from Jmmanuel's memory of events dictated to Judas years after the crucifixion, should not be ignored.

    Ben wrote: "5. Critical Junction: Matthew 12:1 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails. (Matthew has reverted back to a past event when the grain was plucked on the Sabbath ...a time before the TJ says that Judas was ever found or following J.")

    See above for 4. From the TJ one gains the strong impression that Judas Iscariot was reluctant to write about himself unless it was a major part of the story that J was dictating to him. This deduction comes from TJ 31:27-30, when both Peter and Judas rushed to view the empty tomb, with Judas getting there first but only mentioning himself as "the other disciple." Hence, Judas may have joined the Twelve as early as immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, but not have mentioned it. We don't know.

    Ben wrote: "6. Critical Point: Matthew 13:1 - Matthew succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel fails. (Matthew has remained in the time period (event 28) before Judas was even found and selected."

    Judas was selected as a disciple some time before the call of the 12 in TJ 10:1, which is paralleled by Mt 13:1. Only 3 chapters later in the TJ did the event occur of their walking through the field of grain. There are 5 pericopes in between.

    Ben wrote: "7. Critical Junction: Matthew 13:53-58 - Matthew Succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel Fails. (Matthew reverts back to the time when Nazareth rejected J for the second time, occurring before the 12 were sent out to the cities."

    The rejection of J by Nazareth occurred only once, at TJ 15:67-83, which is paralleled by Mt 13:53-58, by Mk 6:1-6, and by Lk 4:16-30 (in which the plot is altered but the rejection still occurs).

    Ben wrote: "8. Critical Junction: Matthew 14:1 - Matthew Succeeds; Talmud of Jmmanuel Fails. (....Talmud of Jmmanuel has J hanging out in the city while the disciples are doing all of the work").

    In his home town of Nazareth at this point (TJ 15:66-83 // Mt 13:53-58) there is no mention of the disciples; likewise with Matthew. J probably let his disciples take some time off while he was in Nazareth, I would guess, but that wasn't germane to a talmud of Jmmanuel and so wasn't reported. The disciples are next seen at TJ 16:20 // Mt 14:15, having returned to Jmmanuel an unknown time prior to this, in both the TJ and Matthew.

     

  • At 3:22 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    This responds to some comments that should have been placed in this section.

    In www.tjresearch.info/mksec3.htm I wrote,
    Mk 4:2,33 These two verses occur at the beginning and end, respectively, of the parable section in Mark, and indicate that its writer knew that what he presented were only selections from all the parables that Jesus had taught. But how would he know that unless the parables he didn't present were in his source?

    Ben’s Response:
    I find it difficult to conclude that an author could only know that a teacher, of whom it was known that the teacher taught in parables for months, spoke more parables than the handful of parables that the author chose to include in his report ONLY by having a complete written source that contained more parables, some of which the author would willingly chose to omit.

    Deardorff responds:
    I believe the only way the gospel writers knew that “Jesus” often used parables in his teaching is from the TJ source and thence from the Hebraic gospel of Matthew. This is consistent with the Gospels having been written only well into the 2nd century after oral tradition had faded (and after a transcription of the TJ entered into the scene), and is especially plausible for a gospel written in Rome (Mark). If you think there’s mention of his teaching in parables in either Paul’s epistles or Ignatius’s (short recensions), please let me know. Ignatius does present some oral tradition, such as the “star” of Bethlehem and communion practice not following the words in the Gospels.

    In assessing direction of redaction, one can only ask which is the more plausible, and not ask for absolute proof from any one instance. Here one asks, which is more plausible, that the writer of Mark (known in the external evidence for abbreviating out whole sections) omitted some of the parables in Matthew that he deemed inessential or non-understandable, or that the writer of Matthew, if following Mark, noticed the remark in Mark and so decided he would invent a few more parables so as to validate the remark in Mark? The former, I say, but one does not claim this as proof. Instead, one accumulates all the evidence one can find, and later assesses the whole of it.

    Ben wrote:
    Concerning Jesus, the writer John wrote, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John would have, no doubt, known this from having walked with and talked with Jesus for a long period of time, especially since John could not have had access to so many books that had not even been written.

    Deardorff responds:
    From the TJ we know that the writer of John had had access to the TJ. But part of our disagreement here stems from your belief that the Gospels were written rather early, as opposed to the (lack of) evidence favoring an early date, plus TJ evidence indicating they weren’t written until at least three generations after the crucifixion.

    Ben wrote:
    It was said that the parable of the sower and mustard seed reveal a dependence of the two authors (Matthew and Mark) upon each other.

    Much else does, too. Just read the NT critical literature. That’s one of the few things that all others can agree on.

    Ben wrote:
    Concerning the parable of the sower, if one studies the two parallel passages, one of the primary differences that one will notice is Mark’s persistent use of the singular form as opposed to Matthew’s persistent use of the plural form, which can even be easily noticed if one uses a literal English translation of the two passages. Other than this, the parallel passages do appear rather similar to each other, apart from the large variances at the conclusion of the parable which largely result from a resorting. Some questions on this section arise concerning this:

    1. Assuming that one of the gospel writers depended upon the other, how can it be proven whether Matthew was the one who changed the singular forms into plural forms or vice versa?

    Deardorff responds:
    Remember, don’t ask for proof from any single example, just assess plausibility. But in this instance your above comment lacks any backing. In this parable neither the word “seed” nor “seeds” (plural) is used. Both Matthew and Mark imply the use of the singular “one” to denote who does the sowing, while both imply seeds (plural) from the verb form: “some fell by the way.” And if you consider that Matthew was translated into Greek after Mark came out, and that the writer of Mark also had to translate from the Hebraic Matthew, one needs something more substantial than this degree of nothingness from which to draw even a plausibility argument on which came first.

    Ben wrote:
    2. Under the same assumption, how can it be proven whether Matthew changed the arrangement at the end of the parable or vice versa?

    Deardorff responds:
    If you read my presentation, you’d know that I’m not the only one, by far, to suggest that it’s more likely for a redactor to alter “the one a hundred, the other sixty, the other thirty” into “in thirty, and in sixty and in a hundred” for dramatic effect, than for the reverse. So this favors Matthean priority over Mark, but only slightly of course.

    Ben wrote:
    3. Since the above two questions assume the dependence of one of the authors upon the other, the other good question is why does a couple of similar parallel passages indicate that the one of the gospel writers had access to or was depending upon the entire document of the other writer?

    Deardorff responds:
    You answered this question yourself. One looks at it all, not just two out of 106 parallel verses and groups of parallel verses.

    Perhaps you’re ready now to explore the method I used with the TJ and Matthew, which I know you’ve long been exposed to but seem not to have absorbed. Judge as objectively as possible the plausibility that in any one instance the redaction proceeded in one direction or the other (e.g., from the TJ to Matthew, or from Matthew to Mark, etc.). Assign a fair quantitative estimate to your plausibility argument. Then after doing this for all the parallel verses or pericopes, use Bayesian statistics (a simple formula, actually) to accumulate each of these hundreds of plausibility arguments (probabilities) in order to arrive at a single overall estimate that the writer of Mark utilized Matthew or vice versa. In doing this one needs to view and assess the argumentation on both sides of each issue.

     

  • At 12:02 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Since it was said that I did not have any backing concerning Mark's use of the singular as opposed to Matthew's use of the plural, I will try to show it as best as this blogger allows me. I originally intended to save some space.

    Let’s examine the parable in the Greek language, using the Received Text of Robert Estienne produced in 1550 A.D.:

    MT 13:3: kai elalhsen "autoiV" polla en parabolaiV legwn idou exhlqen o speirwn tou speirein
    MK 4:2: kai edidasken "autouV" en parabolaiV polla kai elegen autoiV en th didach autou
    MK 4:3: akouete idou exhlqen o speirwn tou speirai

    MT 13:4: kai en tw speirein auton a men epesen para thn odon kai hlqen ta peteina kai katefagen "auta"
    MK 4:4: kai egeneto en tw speirein o men epesen para thn odon kai hlqen ta peteina tou ouranou kai katefagen "auto"

    MT 13:5: "alla" de epesen epi "ta petrwdh" opou ouk eicen ghn pollhn kai "euqewV" exaneteilen dia to mh ecein baqoV ghV
    MK 4:5: "allo" de epesen epi "to petrwdeV" opou ouk eicen ghn pollhn kai "euqews" exaneteilen dia to mh ecein baqoV ghV

    MT 13:6: hliou de "anateilantoV" ekaumatisqh kai dia to mh ecein rizan exhranqh
    MK 4:6: hliou de "anateilantos" ekaumatisqh kai dia to mh ecein rizan exhranqh

    MT 13:7: "alla" de epesen "epi" taV akanqaV kai anebhsan ai akanqai kai apepnixan "auta"
    MK 4:7: kai "allo" epesen "eiV" taV akanqaV kai anebhsan ai akanqai kai sunepnixan "auto" kai karpon ouk edwken

    MT 13:8: "alla" de epesen "epi" thn ghn thn kalhn kai edidou karpon o men ekaton o de exhkonta o de (triakonta)
    MK 4:8: kai "allo" epesen "eiV" thn ghn thn kalhn kai edidou karpon anabainonta kai auxanonta kai eferen en (triakonta) kai en exhkonta kai en ekaton

    MT 13:9: o ecwn wta akouein akouetw
    MK 4:9: kai elegen autois o ecwn wta akouein akouetw

    For those not familiar with Greek, words which appear very similar to each other but which have different endings result from the difference between the singular and plural forms of the words. To mark these, I have placed quotations around the transliterated words. One of the primary differences that one will notice, then, is Mark’s persistent use of the singular form as opposed to Matthew’s persistent use of the plural form, which can also be easily noticed if one checks a literal English translation of the passages, as stated before (In Mark, the word “allo” should be translated as “another,” being singular, as opposed to “alla,” which would be “some.” I am not sure why so many literal translations inconsistently combine the “some” with singular forms of words, which is improper). Other than this, the parallel passages do appear rather similar to each other, apart from the large variances at the conclusion of the parable which largely result from a resorting.

    One must then ask the question: what would be Mark’s motivation for using the singular form, regardless of what source he retrieved the parable from? A good possible answer is that Mark decided to focus in on one seed, which would relate to one particular individual. The other way around, then, would be that Matthew could have changed the singular into plural, if the singular was in the original source that he was using, whatever it was, in order to have the parable apply to a group of people (such as the Jews as a whole) as opposed to just an individual person.

    Again, the comment made that "all others can agree on" the notion that the gospel writers depended upon each other ignores a large body of literature produced by many spiritual writers who have thoroughly investigated the matter and who have concluded otherwise. It has often been said that I choose to ignore the other side than the one upon which I stand. I believe this whole discussion has revealed that I have been trying to thoroughly consider the other side. I am simply attempting to give the arguments of the side that disagrees with the conclusions made on this site, which has no attention given to it anywhere on the main webpage.

     

  • At 1:53 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    I missed some quotation marks when trying to quickly adapt my original study notes onto the blog since I didn't want to go through the hassle of adding all of the html tags to my notes to make the bold appear.

    One should also notice the “speirein” vs. “speirai” in MT 13:3 - MK 4:4, and the differences between the "o" and "en" in various parallel passages, which also reveal the difference between the plural and singular form respectively.

    To add a further comment which could support why Matthew may have been the one who changed the order at the end of the parable and not Mark, since Mark's parable pertains to the individual, it would make sense to have the number of fruit increasing since the individual largely increases in his spiritual development over time. If one wants to say it reveals a dramatic effect, then it would be said that it would have made more sense for J to have given a dramatic effect in the first place.

    On the other hand, Matthew's narrative, showing the plural form which would pertain to his original audience, the Jews, likely changed it to be decreasing to show that the nation of Israel, as a whole, was on a spiritual down fall which would culminate in the nation's full rejection of its king. This would be consistent with Matthew's method of changing the order of many things throughout his entire narrative.

     

  • At 8:44 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Regarding Ben's 12:02pm comment above:

    Thanks for spelling this out in the Greek. I see what you mean now, except for a couple instances (re Mt 13:3 and Mk 4:2, autois is translated “to them” and autous “them,” both plural.) And re Mk 4:8, the first preference in Nestle-Aland is “alla”, which receives support from Aleph*, B,C,L, W, theta, etc., while “allo” is a close second choice. (and epi & eis don’t exhibit number.)

    I would first consider the obvious possibility that it was not perfectly clear how to translate the Aramaic into Greek, and that the translation in Mark is not as good as the later translation by the translator of Hebraic Matthew.
    Getting a good translation of it was not an easy task, I'd say.

    My second or additional choice is that the writer of Mark felt free to make his rendition less than literally correct, thereby purposely making “small changes for the sake of change.”

    Ben wrote:
    One must then ask the question: what would be Mark’s motivation for using the singular form, regardless of what source he retrieved the parable from? A good possible answer is that Mark decided to focus in on one seed, which would relate to one particular individual. The other way around, then, would be that Matthew could have changed the singular into plural, if the singular was in the original source that he was using, whatever it was, in order to have the parable apply to a group of people (such as the Jews as a whole) as opposed to just an individual person.

    Deardorff responds:
    I don’t see any virtue in the possibility that the writer of Mark had in mind a single person while the writer of Matthew had in mind a whole people (Jews), since the former would have gentiles in mind, and gentiles greatly outnumbered Jews.

    Instead, the writer of Matthew had no reason to alter the TJ’s plural into the singular, nor did the later translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek.

    But beyond that, the seed(s) refer to the word(s) of God (or of truth: TJ). Either can be treated as singular or plural. So I don’t regard their number, singular or plural, as related to the number of receiver(s) of that which was disseminated, which in the case of the seed(s) was the ground or soil or thorns, and in the case of the parable’s explanation, the listener(s).

    Ben wrote:
    Again, the comment made that "all others can agree on" the notion that the gospel writers depended upon each other ignores a large body of literature produced by many spiritual writers who have thoroughly investigated the matter and who have concluded otherwise.

    Deardorff responds:
    I had in mind the critical literature. Your word “spiritual” here refers to those whose interpretations place maintaining faith above seeking truth, whenever there is a conflict.

     

  • At 9:45 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote, in his 1:53pm comment above:
    To add a further comment which could support why Matthew may have been the one who changed the order at the end of the parable and not Mark, since Mark's parable pertains to the individual, it would make sense to have the number of fruit increasing since the individual largely increases in his spiritual development over time. If one wants to say it reveals a dramatic effect, then it would be said that it would have made more sense for J to have given a dramatic effect in the first place.

    Deardorff responds:
    In that case, you’re suggesting that the writer of Mark made an improvement over Matthew.

    Ben wrote:
    On the other hand, Matthew's narrative, showing the plural form which would pertain to his original audience, the Jews, likely changed it to be decreasing to show that the nation of Israel, as a whole, was on a spiritual down fall which would culminate in the nation's full rejection of its king. This would be consistent with Matthew's method of changing the order of many things throughout his entire narrative.

    Deardorff responds:
    Or, again, the writer of Matthew was copying from the TJ, and saw no need to alter the TJ’s order. He was instead concentrating on weeding out all heresies through omissions, alterations and substitutions. There was no obvious heresy or unacceptable teaching involved in this last part of the parable whether a descending or ascending order is used.

    The question then becomes one of wondering if Jmmanuel, when dictating it to Judas, or recalling what he had spoken, had any particular reason for using a decreasing order. Judging from the TJ, J had no particular philosophy of “more is better,” while comparing Mark against Matthew, the former emphasizes material possessions (e.g., Mk 4:25 as opposed to Mt 13:12 – different contexts for being given more; also Mark's omission of "Give to him who begs from you," "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "You cannot serve God and mammon" from the Sermon on the Mount, while its writer did extract several verses from that Sermon; and Mk 10:28-29 vs Mt 19:30 wherein the former refers to gaining riches in the present life while the latter refers to gaining them only in a future age to come).

     

  • At 4:52 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Even though Mark's intended audience was the Gentiles, the focus of his narrative is not on the audience as it is with Matthew. The primary purpose of Mark's gospel is to focus on the aspect of the suffering servant. This is how Jesus Himself is portrayed and this is how those who desire to follow Him can expect to be received by the world of unbelief.

    Thus, Mark's narrative is very personal to the reader and the reader can more readily relate on a one-on-one basis with the Suffering Servant. As such, the seed(s) portrayed in Mark's account are uniform as in Matthew. Though they are many in number, they are all of the same kind. It is the ground which can be distinguished as either an individual person or a group of people. The ground, indeed, represents the heart or hearts of individual(s). Being that the ground only receives one seed each time in Mark's account, Mark is relating the ground to one individual, who receives one message which he can receive or reject. The multiple seeds in Matthew's account shows the same message being distributed in multiple places, thus being given to multiple people, each of whom can receive or reject it.

    I see that your understanding of the word "faith" is as incorrect as Michael Horn's. Faith does not mean blindly holding to a belief without seeking proof. "Faith" means putting your trust and confidence in someone. Somebody can have "faith" in their spouse in the same way that someone can have faith in the Plejarens. It has nothing to do with whether or not that entity exists. One who holds to the teachings of the Meier case is putting their "faith" (trust) in the Plejarens, a race which gets upset whenever someone charges them with being dishonest and which, nevertheless, tries to charge all earthly historians as being liars and have earth humanity only put its trust in them and noone else.

     

  • At 5:00 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Deardorff said:
    In that case, you’re suggesting that the writer of Mark made an improvement over Matthew.

    Response:
    Not at all. I am suggesting that J stated it as Mark has it in the first place. Mark recorded it in the original way, Matthew rearranged it.

     

  • At 5:08 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    For clarification to any who might read this, a "spiritual" writer is one who can actually understand the intended meaning and purpose behind a statement or teaching that is found in the Bible. The greater the understanding he exhibits, the greater of a "spiritual" writer he is.

     

  • At 5:32 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    It was said in Mark vs. Matthew:
    Mk 4:10-34 In Matthew it is clear that these listeners had been the crowd all along, and so this was clear in the mind of the writer of Mark also, but not in his own altered text.

    Response:
    It is true that it is not until Mark 4:34 – “But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples,” that the “them” is clearly distinguished as referring to a group separate and distinct from the smaller group, the disciples; therefore, the reader then knows at verse 34 that the “them” that was used the whole time must refer to the same “them” of Mark 4:2, which obviously refers to the multitudes.

    Nevertheless, the case is no different in Matthew’s narrative because it is not until Matthew 13:34 – “All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,” that the “them” which has been used the whole time in Matthew after verse 10 is clearly defined as referring back to the multitudes. Matthew 4:10 – “And the disciples came and said to Him, ‘Why do You speak to them in parables?’” clearly shows a conversation that excludes the rest of the multitudes since the multitudes are being spoken of as if they are not even present. Jesus continues to respond to the disciples apart from the rest of the crowd and then the narrative flows into further statements of Jesus addressed simply to “them,” which could simply be taken by the reader to refer only to the new plural group that has been introduced, the disciples. At no time until verse 34 does Matthew clearly reveal that his use of the “them” in verses 24, 31, and 33 refers back to the whole multitude. The reader, then, could have easily been misled that such parables were only spoken to the disciples until the reader finally comes to verse 34.

    So both Mark and Matthew stand on the same ground in that the identification of “them” is not clearly made until the end of both of their sections. Therefore, it would be difficult to use this argument to support who could have possibly improved upon the other or who could have possibly been careless in editing the other’s document.

    It was also said:
    Mk 4:12 Jesus was telling the people gathered about him that those outside the kingdom of God hear everything just in parables, "so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."

    Responses to the criticisms:
    Unfortunately, in this case, the understanding of what is being taught by both Mark and Matthew needs to be addressed as opposed to who included extra details or who omitted details.

    Butler’s criticism reveals a clear lack of understanding of the meaning of the passage of Isaiah as recorded in Mark’s gospel, supposing that the statement of Isaiah suggests that the preacher does not desire for those listening to repent and be forgiven. The phrase “lest they should turn and be forgiven” ties to the two recorded facts that the people do not perceive and do not understand, which are both recorded by Mark in his reference to Isaiah. The people themselves are the ones choosing not to perceive and choosing not to understand what they are being given, lest they should turn (repent) and be forgiven. The statement itself implies that if they had perceived and understood, then they would have turned and repented. Thus, the statement “lest they should turn again and be forgiven,” as found in Mark, shows an unwillingness on the part of the people listening, not an unwillingness on the one who is preaching. The phrase “so that they may indeed see” shows that the preacher truly showed them what they needed to see in order to repent, and the phrase “and may indeed hear” also shows that the preacher told them precisely what they needed to hear in order to receive forgiveness. Nevertheless, the people who heard such did not desire to search for the meaning of the statements for if they did, they would perceive and understand their meanings. And since forgiveness and repentance must be freely sought for by one’s own free will, meaning it cannot simply be taught or spoon-fed to people, the strategy of parables does apply well to forgiveness and repentance. One should be able to grasp this simply by looking at Mark’s statement alone. This is, indeed, made even clearer by Matthew’s citation. Logic should tell someone that if the preacher truly did not want the audience to turn and repent, then he wouldn't have spoken anything to them at all.

    It's rather interesting that Butler's criticism brings out a further truth than what even Mark gives us. Mark said that the people would hear the parables (what they needed to hear) and yet not perceive or understand stand them. Butler even hears the explanations of the parables, and yet does not perceive or understand the explanations, lest he should turn and be forgiven.

     

  • At 1:02 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mk 4:13 "...all the parables." At this point Jesus had only preached the one parable, so that "all" does not belong. And "the" also does not belong, since it implies that "the parables" were already a known aspect of Jesus' teaching… In addition, this verse contains the needless interruptive clause discussed in this section under Mk 2:27, which further indicates its secondary character relative to Matthew.

    Response:
    The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture and are two words which have caused much confusion. In this case, the Greek “pas,” which is translated as “all” can be taken in a number of different ways (i.e. individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, collectively, some of all types, etc.) and the context is what determines how the word is to be taken. Actually, it is very rare in Scripture that the "all" means all persons or things taken individually. In this case, the context shows that “pas” can be well-meant as “each,” and so the statement can also be read as “how then will you understand each of the parables?” (some translations even read “the rest of the parables?”) Given that J is being quoted here by Mark and is speaking in the future tense, using the word “will,” it is certainly not necessary for Mark to have mentioned any parable before quoting Jesus, who set before them the rhetorical question of how WILL they (in the future) understand the rest of J’s parables if they can’t even understand the first (and most likely the simplest) one? If the comment was truly made by Jesus after the first parable and Mark is simply quoting what Jesus said, then the argument has to be taken up with Jesus and not with the writer of Mark.

    Once again, the interruptive clause alerts the reader that what was said by J at the end of verse 12 and at the beginning of verse 13 was not part of a continuous and uninterrupted quote of Jesus. Since the reader could have been misled to believe otherwise without the interruptive clause, it should not be classified as being unnecessary.

    Further Criticisms:
    Mk 4:24 “he saying about "the measure you give will be the measure you get" is here prefixed by the editorial interruption "And he said to them"

    Response:
    The same reason for the interruptive clause applies once more. It was already mentioned that the Greek does not have quotation marks to separate remarks which do not continuously flow into each other. I can simply write in English:

    1. He told me the other day, “if you don’t do this”… “then I am going home.”

    2. He told me the other day, “if you don’t do this, then I am going home.”

    An English reader who reads my first sentence will readily conclude that there must have been more dialogue that was omitted between the two parts of the statement. An English reader who reads my second sentence would conclude that it was a continuous quote. Here is what could have hypothetically been said in reality relating to the first quote:

    He told me the other day, “if you don’t do this for me then there is no possible way that I have enough time to do this, and if you don’t even care that I don’t have enough time to do this, then I am going home.”

    If I simply abbreviated the hypothetical full quote in the manner as shown in 2, then I could have falsely misled the reader to conclude that I had reported the whole quote, but I did not. Therefore, I properly abbreviated it in the manner as shown in 1. Mark, by using the interruptive clause, also reports two separate statements using a correct means that was available to him.

    The comment pertaining to this section: “In that case, these verses were not spoken consecutively by Jesus after all, and thus are not in their original contexts, indicating that the writer of Mark borrowed them from somewhere” is correct in the first part of its conclusion, up to the “after all.” The only thing that can conclusively be said in looking at this section alone is that Jesus obviously did not say the two statements of verses 23 and 24 side-by-side during that day of His life. There must have been something more that Jesus spoke that day in between. Mark could have known this through any number of possible means that were available to him, rather than just by looking at one other book that somewhat resembles his which happens to have survived for over 2,000 years apart from any other possible source available to Mark at that time.

     

  • At 1:47 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote, in his 4:52 AM comment:
    Even though Mark's intended audience was the Gentiles, the focus of his narrative is not on the audience as it is with Matthew. The primary purpose of Mark's gospel is to focus on the aspect of the suffering servant. This is how Jesus Himself is portrayed and this is how those who desire to follow Him can expect to be received by the world of unbelief.

    Deardorff responds:
    In following Matthew, the writer of Mark (Amark) obviously carried along some of the “suffering servant” material from Matthew. But by his alterations of Matthew it’s equally evident that AMark was altering the text into one more suitable for gentiles with his own beliefs, which included anti-Jewish opinions. It has not escaped me that you, Ben, cannot tolerate the evidence that turns this into a fact, upon realization that Hebraic Matthew was the first Gospel, as the early church fathers stated. So you must therefore go along with the belief that either the writers of Matthew and Mark wrote independently, or that AMark wrote first then AMatthew later. By that strategem, AMark’s harsh views against the Jewish disciples and Jewish people need not be compared to the Matthean text that he altered, but can merely be considered inexplicable harshness. I cannot consider the ignoring of the obvious evidence as anything a truth-seeking scholar should tolerate.

    Thus, Mark's narrative is very personal to the reader and the reader can more readily relate on a one-on-one basis with the Suffering Servant. As such, the seed(s) portrayed in Mark's account are uniform as in Matthew. Though they are many in number, they are all of the same kind. It is the ground which can be distinguished as either an individual person or a group of people. The ground, indeed, represents the heart or hearts of individual(s). Being that the ground only receives one seed each time in Mark's account, Mark is relating the ground to one individual, who receives one message which he can receive or reject. The multiple seeds in Matthew's account shows the same message being distributed in multiple places, thus being given to multiple people, each of whom can receive or reject it.

    Are you being serious? The ground receives only one seed by the wayside, one seed in the rocky place, one seed among the thorns, and one seed onto the good earth? The sower only sowed four seeds? The birds along the wayside all fought to snatch the one seed there? But you must not mean that, since you also said the seed(s) were many in number. The listeners to the parable in Mark were also large in number, as they constituted a “very large crowd,” all receiving the parabolic message from your suffering servant.

    I see that your understanding of the word "faith" is as incorrect as Michael Horn's. Faith does not mean blindly holding to a belief without seeking proof. "Faith" means putting your trust and confidence in someone.

    I still know of no scholarly works that don’t accept that either AMatthew utilized Mark or vice versa. Their argumentation looks very strong to me. So I contend that you have faith that those ministers and such who believe that Matthew & Mark were written each independently of the other, and who ignore the obvious evidence otherwise, are not wrong. Your faith says they’re right. It takes a blind faith like that to ignore the obvious, multiple pieces of evidence that could lead to a large, undesired shift in one’s faith.

     

  • At 8:58 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    It was said:

    "Are you being serious? The ground receives only one seed by the wayside, one seed in the rocky place, one seed among the thorns, and one seed onto the good earth? The sower only sowed four seeds? The birds along the wayside all fought to snatch the one seed there? But you must not mean that, since you also said the seed(s) were many in number."

    Mark 4:3-8 (NKJV)

    Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. And it happened as he sowed that ONE (SINGULAR) fell by the wayside; and the birds of the air came and devoured IT (SINGULAR). ANOTHER (SINGULAR) fell on stony ground, where it did not have much earth; and immediately IT (SINGULAR) sprang up because IT (SINGULAR) had no depth of the earth. But when the sun was up IT (SINGULAR) was scorched, and because IT (SINGULAR) had no root IT (SINGULAR) withered away. And ANOTHER (SINGULAR) fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked IT (SINGULAR) and IT (SINGULAR) yielded no crop. But ANOTHER (SINGULAR) fell on good ground...

    I have already said that many literal English translations, for the most part, do justice to the Greek. However, I have also already said that I do not know why so many of them translate the "another" as "some" improperly. As such, I had to adjust the "some"s into "one" and "another" in each respective case for each to read properly, which one can confirm for him or herself if he or she actually picks up an Interlinear Greek-English Bible and reads it.

     

  • At 9:03 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    In Ben’s 5:32AM comment, he wrote:
    It was said in Mark vs. Matthew:
    Mk 4:10-34 In Matthew it is clear that these listeners had been the crowd all along, and so this was clear in the mind of the writer of Mark also, but not in his own altered text.

    This is in reference to the final sentence in the following analysis summary, from www.tjresearch.info/mksec3.htm:
    Here Jesus starts explaining the parable of the sower to his disciples and to a certain number of others from the crowd. He keeps speaking to "them" in Mk 4:13,21,24,33. However by the time one reaches Mk 4:34 it is clear that "them" has shifted from referring to just the disciples and a few others to the whole crowd. By the time of Mk 4:33, and presumably somewhat before, Jesus was no longer speaking privately (see Mk 4:34 below, where "them" represents a larger group than just the twelve disciples). This error is a consequence of the curious deviation of Mk 4:10 from its Matthean parallel at Mt 13:10, the motivation for which is suggested in Section 6(3). But with the Gospel of Matthew on hand to follow, the writer of Mark had again grown careless (or fatigued) and failed to redefine Jesus' listeners following his alteration. In Matthew it is clear that these listeners had been the crowd all along, and so this was clear in the mind of the writer of Mark also, but not in his own altered text.

    It is true that it is not until Mark 4:34 – “But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples,” that the “them” is clearly distinguished as referring to a group separate and distinct from the smaller group, the disciples; therefore, the reader then knows at verse 34 that the “them” that was used the whole time must refer to the same “them” of Mark 4:2, which obviously refers to the multitudes.

    Deardorff responds:
    Anyone reading Mk 4:10, from the Greek (which the RSV renders pretty well), reads, “And when he was alone, those who were around him with the Twelve asked him [about] the parables.” So there should be no quibbling over Amark saying there that after J had finished teaching the crowds, he separated himself from them and then spoke just to his disciples plus those who were round about them. The word “alone” cannot be ignored. This occurred after he had finished his parable talk to the crowds with “Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Hence, Mark’s “them” refers in 4:11 to the Twelve plus a few others.

    It appears that in Mark it is at 4:26 that one can most safely assume that J was back speaking to the crowds, and not just to the Twelve plus some others. One might think it could be earlier at Mk 4:21, except that “them” there still grammatically refers to the Twelve plus some others. But not if one assumes that there “them” is a more general “them” referring back to the large crowd. These ambiguities are clearly present in Mark.

    “Nevertheless, the case is no different in Matthew’s narrative because it is not until Matthew 13:34 – “All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,” that the “them” which has been used the whole time in Matthew after verse 10 is clearly defined as referring back to the multitudes. Matthew 4[13]:10 – “And the disciples came and said to Him, ‘Why do You speak to them in parables?’” clearly shows a conversation that excludes the rest of the multitudes since the multitudes are being spoken of as if they are not even present.”

    With Matthew, it is pretty clear that by Mt 13:24 the explanation to the disciples is over, and a new parable is being given – to the crowds, quite evidently, not to just the disciples. There, the “them” is then “the crowds” and remains the crowds through Mt 13:34
    Thus, it is Mark that has the “them” problem, which is caused, first, by the introduction of an indeterminate number of people, but hardly a crowd, with the Twelve when J was alone with them, at Mk 4:10.
    Secondly, the ambiguity is furthered by the “them” in Amark’s introduction of Matthew’s saying of “the lamp,” etc., from 4:10-4:25. Grammatically, this “them” refers to the Twelve plus some others.
    If Amark was following along Matthew’s text, while introducing several inserts, one can easily see how the extra ambiguities in Mark occurred. The insertions follow along the motivational lines of many of his other insertions. It is less plausible that AMatthew noticed these ambiguities in Mark, while copying from Mark, and removed the (inserted) sentences that caused the problem.

    In the TJ it is clear that J spoke the explanation of the parable of the sower just to the disciples, as he also explained to them (TJ 15:41) the purpose of speaking in parables being to make the people think for themselves so as to better learn. When AMatthew omitted this and the following verse from the TJ, it may be less clear in Matthew that it is at Mt 13:24 where the “them” refers back to the crowds.

    In the TJ, however, the presence of TJ 15:41-42 should make it clear that the “them” there refers again to the ”many people” of TJ 15:2.

    If time permits, I'll make my explanation on this, in www.tjresearch.info/mksec3.htm clearer.

     

  • At 5:14 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Since I apparently was not as clear as I originally thought, allow me to make it more simple and clear:

    Jim’s Explanation of Mark:
    Here (Mark 4:10) Jesus starts explaining the parable of the sower to his disciples and to a certain number of others from the crowd. He keeps speaking to "them" in Mk 4:13,21,24,33. However by the time one reaches Mk 4:34 it is clear that "them" has shifted from referring to just the disciples and a few others to the whole crowd.

    My Explanation of Matthew:
    Here (Matthew 13:11) Jesus starts explaining the parable of the sower to his disciples who had to “come” to Him in verse 10 and who spoke of the crowd as if they were not even present, showing that this is a conversation being made on the side, apart from J speaking to the masses. J keeps speaking to "them," after explaining the parable only to the mentioned disciples, in Matthew 13: 24, 31, 33. However by the time one reaches Matthew 13:34, it is clear that "them" has shifted from referring just to the disciples to the whole crowd.

    I have no idea why a charge was apparently made that I was “quibbling over” Mark saying that J separated Himself and the disciples came to him alone with others. The same thing can be said of Matthew, though Mark is clearer about this, because the disciples had to “come” to Jesus and they spoke of the crowd as if it was not even present. This would be a strange conversation to have openly and publicly before a large crowd, thus showing that it was a conversation that occurred on the side. It has been mentioned before that Matthew focuses much more on character in his narrative rather than properly setting up and explaining the details of a new scene. Here is one case where Mark supports that the scene in Matthew occurred while the crowd was not present.

    It was said, “With Matthew, it is pretty clear that by Mt 13:24 the explanation to the disciples is over, and a new parable is being given – to the crowds, quite evidently, not to just the disciples. There, the “them” is then “the crowds” and remains the crowds through Mt 13:34”

    Response:

    This is a bold statement that shows no support. As such, it basically says “it is clear that Matthew is now talking to the crowds in MT 13:24 simply because I said so.” This should, indeed, be made much clearer as to why this is so clear in Matthew in your explanation found on tjresearch, especially since Jesus' addressing of "them" in MT 13:24 simply follows Jesus' addressing of "you" in MT 13:17, after saying that blessed are "your" eyes in MT 13:16, both of which are clearly addressing the disciples and nobody else. As your argument stands, no explanation appears at all.

     

  • At 10:33 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    In regards to the singular seed of Mark, I found a good translation which needs no editing. Here is John Darby's translation of the passage. For those not familiar with John Darby, he was well-versed in English, French, German, Greek, and Hebrew and created translations of the Bible in German, French, and English. He was also one who made the remark that of all of the translations or texts of the Bible in the five languages that he knew and ever read, the worst translation he ever read was that of Martin Luther, which just happens to be the translation that the TJ reads so closely to:

    Mark 4:

    3Hearken: Behold, the sower went forth to sow.

    4And it came to pass as he sowed, one fell by the wayside, and the birds came and devoured it.

    5And another fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth, and immediately it sprung up out [of the ground] because it had no depth of earth;

    6and when the sun arose it was burnt up, and because of its not having any root, it withered.

    7And another fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

    8And another fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and bore, one thirty, and one sixty, and one a hundred.

    As one can see, the birds are, indeed, fighting over one seed and devouring it. That's just how Mark has it according to the Received Text.

     

  • At 12:59 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote, at 5:14 AM:
    Since I apparently was not as clear as I originally thought, allow me to make it more simple and clear:

    Jim’s Explanation of Mark:
    Here (Mark 4:10) Jesus starts explaining the parable of the sower to his disciples and to a certain number of others from the crowd. He keeps speaking to "them" in Mk 4:13,21,24,33. However by the time one reaches Mk 4:34 it is clear that "them" has shifted from referring to just the disciples and a few others to the whole crowd.

    My Explanation of Matthew:
    Here (Matthew 13:11) Jesus starts explaining the parable of the sower to his disciples who had to “come” to Him in verse 10 and who spoke of the crowd as if they were not even present, showing that this is a conversation being made on the side, apart from J speaking to the masses. J keeps speaking to "them," after explaining the parable only to the mentioned disciples, in Matthew 13: 24, 31, 33. However by the time one reaches Matthew 13:34, it is clear that "them" has shifted from referring just to the disciples to the whole crowd… .

    As I’ve noted, it’s most reasonable to assume that it’s at Mt 13:24, not 13:34, that J has resumed speaking to the masses. That’s because there he starts speaking a new parable. It was the previous parable’s explanation he was giving just to his disciples. Recall, it was they, the disciples, who were privileged to know the secrets of the kingdom; they could learn them straight from J. The masses had to figure the parables out for themselves – those at least among them who had enough curiosity and who were seeking truth. So we have that basic disagreement here.

     

  • At 1:18 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben said, at 10:33 AM:

    In regards to the singular seed of Mark, I found a good translation which needs no editing. Here is John Darby's translation of the passage. For those not familiar with John Darby, he was well-versed in English, French, German, Greek, and Hebrew and created translations of the Bible in German, French, and English. He was also one who made the remark that of all of the translations or texts of the Bible in the five languages that he knew and ever read, the worst translation he ever read was that of Martin Luther, which just happens to be the translation that the TJ reads so closely to:

    Mark 4:

    3Hearken: Behold, the sower went forth to sow.

    4And it came to pass as he sowed, one fell by the wayside, and the birds came and devoured it.

    5And another fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth, and immediately it sprung up out [of the ground] because it had no depth of earth;

    6and when the sun arose it was burnt up, and because of its not having any root, it withered.

    7And another fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

    8And another fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and bore, one thirty, and one sixty, and one a hundred.

    As one can see, the birds are, indeed, fighting over one seed and devouring it. That's just how Mark has it according to the Received Text.

    And more illogic: one seed fell onto good ground and yielded 30 fruit, another of this one seed grew up and bore 60 fruit. Etc. A weird translation or interpretation, eh? I prefer to blame the awkwardness of Mark's text on the difficulty for AMark of translating the Aramaic in Hebraic Matthew, rather than on AMark not knowing that a sower sows many seeds. He may have been a careless editor with worse faults, but he wasn’t totally stupid.

     

  • At 5:44 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    The explanation for why it is clear that Matthew has resumed speaking to the crowds again in MT 13:24 was stated as "That’s because there he starts speaking a new parable."

    If that explanation is sufficient for Matthew, then I must confess that I am having difficulty understanding why that same explanation does not hold up for Mark because in Mark 4:21, "there he starts speaking a new parable."

    It was also said:
    “And more illogic: one seed fell onto good ground and yielded 30 fruit, another of this one seed grew up and bore 60 fruit. Etc. A weird translation or interpretation, eh?”

    Response:
    Observe the verse in question very closely:

    “And another fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, GROWING UP AND INCREASING; and bore, one thirty, and one sixty, and one a hundred.”

    If Darby’s translation of the “one thirty, one sixty, and one hundred,” is disliked or causes confusion, then one can look at the others who render it “thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold.” Then, it also properly reads as:

    “And another fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, GROWING UP AND INCREASING; and brought forth thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold..”

    The focus is on ONE seed and, therefore, one tree that was GROWING UP AND INCREASING over its lifetime. Thus, the 30, 60, and 100 refer to the observing of the seed at different periods of time over the course of its lifetime. One time, it was seen to bring forth thirtyfold. A time after that, it brought forth sixtyfold, and later on in its life, it produced a hundredfold. Indeed, the same seed and, therefore, the one tree is producing thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. The only confusion one might have while at looking at this is if he is trying to force the end of Mark’s passage to appear in the same way as it does in MT, where different trees are producing different amounts of total fruit. It is okay to be confused on this section since many translations do confuse the Greek. Nevertheless, one who has knowledge of Greek would not be confused, so Mark’s original intended audience would have seen the lesson much easier than today’s English readers. Again, it is recommended that one should consult a Greek authority if one is having difficulty understanding things found in the New Testament.

     

  • At 12:27 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    At 5:44 AM Ben said:
    The explanation for why it is clear that Matthew has resumed speaking to the crowds again in MT 13:24 was stated as "That’s because there he starts speaking a new parable."

    If that explanation is sufficient for Matthew, then I must confess that I am having difficulty understanding why that same explanation does not hold up for Mark because in Mark 4:21, "there he starts speaking a new parable."

    Deardorff responds:
    Apparently, then, you are assuming that the question posed in Mk 4:21, and its answer, in 4:22, qualify as a parable. I doubt that logic can dissuade you of this misconception, but in case there are any other interested readers, I’ll expand on this. A parable is a simple narrative that sketches a setting, describes an action, and shows the results. It is not a question. In 4:21, no action is described, just the possibility of dumb action in the form of a question. No result of the questionable action is given, other than the obvious lack of light upon hiding the lamp, in 4:22. In the previous parable to the masses, they weren’t given the explanation. Thus 4:21-22 (and similarly 4:23-24) don’t fit into the parable section, and instead fit the hypothesis of an inappropriate Markan transplant of Matthean verse.

    Looking at it the other way around, the writer of Matthew would have noticed Mk 4:21-22, and decided he could use those verses to describe the enlightenment the disciples were receiving, and how they should promulgate it rather than hide it, as it would fit right in with his “You [disciples] are the light of the world” statement. Such editorial action would be less probable, I contend, than that of AMark, as it requires more care and ingenuity to extract and utilize a few verses in an appropriate context than it does to extract and use them inappropriately.

    Moreover, this editorial behavior on the part of AMark fits his overall character profile relative to Matthew. Upon reading this in Matthew, AMark did not like its context there as it lauds the Jewish disciples, just as he wanted the good news (Messianic secret) kept secret from the Jews but loudly proclaimed to gentiles (as in Decapolis). So he altered the context of 4:21-22.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home