TJ Comments

Monday, May 19, 2008

NEW SPACE FOR MORE COMMENTS ON TJ 3 OR 4

Please post new comments on these TJ chapters here.

16 Comments:

At 10:54 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Regarding:
The Criticisms against Matthew 4:1-11:
"This is the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Beare (p. 105) noted that, even symbolically, one probably should not think of the wilderness as the abode of the devil, which this story does. His abode was supposed to be in Hades."

Ben wrote:
"The Bible states that Satan has the ability to walk to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it (Job 1:7) and that he walks about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8); therefore, it does not matter what his permanent abode is. Satan can go just about anywhere and be found anywhere until the appointed time. J did not enter the abode of Satan, but rather, J entered a place where J would be weakened, being without access to food, water, or shelter."

But first, the Spirit had to know where it was that the devil would come to contact Jesus at, namely the desert. How could the Spirit expect that the devil would come out of his abode in Hades and go to just the right spot in the desert to find Jesus and contact him there when his abode was in Hades? Only after contact was made could the devil take Jesus to wherever he wanted.

So Beare's criticism seems quite apropos. However, the Spirit just might have been in direct communication with the devil, and have told the devil where to go to locate him. Beare may have included his qualifier, "probably," to cover such a possibility.

Regarding my further criticism:
“Even a casual reader can spot the contradiction of God's spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil himself, whereas Jesus (later) taught his followers to pray to their Father (God) not to be led into temptation. “

Ben wrote:
"Notice that the FOLLOWERS were taught to pray not to be led into temptation. When he said, “bring US not into temptation,” he was giving words as an example for what his FOLLOWERS were to say, not what he himself needed to say. The followers are not above their master and can fail where the master cannot. J had to succeed where Israel had failed in the past as part of his mission, and God purposed to show the devil, at this time, that this one would never fail. Thus, J alone could confront this, but his followers could not."

But the point is that it's not good to be led into temptation, whether your name is Joe or Jesus. The Prayer makes clear the undesirability of it. Yet Jesus willingly follows the Spirit into a seemingly suicidal situation -- being in the desert 40 days without water or food. That doesn't qualify as a temptation, however. Did the Spirit itself supply some temptation to induce Jesus to follow it towards potential death by thirst? Did the Spirit tell him in advance that he would be tempted by the devil, which Jesus then looked forward to? So I may remove this further criticism, if Jesus is considered to have been too close to death at the time of being tempted to be able to think straight or avoid temptation or whatever.

However, if the above considerations were swept aside, notice that there are Matthean verses that indicate J was not immune from his own advice. Jesus made it clear that he was born (or incarnated) to do this and that as a human being, and that he was not exempt from his own teachings to humans, being a human himself. He made it clear that he was subject to what his followers were subject to: he came to serve them (Mt 20:28), not just vice versa. He would give his life as ransom for many, just as others would be martyrs for him. Most important, he hated hypocrisy (relevant verses abound). Therefore, he would hardly tell his followers to avoid that which he himself wouldn't avoid. So he suggested that they avoid temptation as he avoids it.

However, contradictions are frequent within Matthew, so that there must be still other verses that point in the other direction.

Regarding my criticism:
The title "Son of God" appears for the first time in Matthew within this section. One wonders why the writer did not introduce it earlier, within the Nativity section of Matthew, so as to emphasize the connection between the divine Sonship of Jesus and the miraculous conception.

Ben wrote:
"J, at the baptism, was just declared to be the Son of God before the people for the first time. Prior to this, it was largely unknown except to a small few, according to God’s intended purpose."

Your answer then seems to be that it just wasn't God's purpose to reveal that Jesus was the Son of God until the baptism. However, one still wonders why the writer of Matthew didn't mention Jesus in those terms much earlier. You wrote: "Matthew consistently does not introduce subjects until their proper time throughout his narrative." However, the writer called Jesus by "Christ" back in verses 1:18 and 2:4.

So I still see it as something to wonder about.
At 6:02 AM , Ben said...

Your points almost fully cover the concern of J being led into temptation: “the point is that it's not good to be led into temptation, whether your name is Joe or Jesus… That doesn't qualify as a temptation, however.”

I agree. Notice that the verse does not say that J was led into temptation; it says that he was led into the wilderness. Notice that it also does not say that the Spirit desired the devil to tempt J. This, more likely, came from the devil’s own desire. I do not know who the first person was who stated that the present permanent dwelling place of the devil is in Hades, but this is nowhere to be found in the Old or New Testaments. In the future, according to Revelation, the devil is to be temporarily placed into the abyss and then released for a season and then cast into the lake of fire forever (Hades). But for now, he roams about the earth, so the Bible says. As was mentioned, the devil was most likely at the baptism and heard the voice say “this is My beloved Son.” (MT 3:17) For whatever reason, the Spirit did not forbid the devil to be there. After hearing this, then, it was likely the devil’s own desire to test J on this (MT 4:3) since the devil shows that he knew of what was to occur to this one based on the devil’s own understanding of the scriptures, and the devil hoped he could prevent all from being fulfilled. The Spirit, knowing that the devil wanted to tempt J on being the Son of God, did not forbid the devil to tempt him but also did not lead J to where the devil was, but instead led J into the wilderness. The devil, by his own will, followed J and waited until J was at his weakest moment to tempt him, saying “since you are the Son of God…” It could very well be that the Spirit, in knowing that the devil desired to confront J and in knowing that J would not fail, led J to a place where nobody else would come in harms way of the devil. But J was also led there to be tested by the Spirit with hunger and thirst to prove that J would remain faithful where the Israelites, in a similar situation in Exodus, did not. The Spirit will test individuals for faithfulness, but the Spirit does not tempt individuals to sin.

Now the whole purpose of J’s mission, according to the New Testament, was that he came to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8) It would not be possible to destroy an enemy or his works without, at some point, confronting the enemy. It would also not be possible to confront the devil without the devil trying to tempt the confronter to sin. That’s just who the devil is; he desires to tempt all that he comes in contact with, according to the scriptures. Since the devil had to be confronted at some point in order for his works to be destroyed which would then lead to him performing his role as the tempter, the Spirit did not forbid the devil from tempting J at this early moment, but this would not be the final confrontation. Of course, the Spirit also did not have to lead J to the devil since the devil could find J by himself. At the same time, since J was the only one who, according to the Bible, was capable of confronting the devil without failing, this is why J had to be the one and only one to confront him. The followers of J are never required or desired by the Spirit to be confronted by the devil, and the Spirit would certainly never lead the followers to the devil. Nevertheless, the devil still has the ability of finding the followers and tempting them.
At 1:33 PM , Ben said...

Hello again, Mr. Deardorff.

This comment actually referes to TJ 2:25. In your discussion regarding Herod Antipas, not King Herod, you set forth details that state that Jmmanuel was likely born around 6 A.D. By doing so, are you stating that you conclude that the information given to Billy Meier concerning the birth of Jmmanuel, as stated in the prophecy of Jeremiah, is incorrect?

Jeremiah states: "When the new prophet appears 1,937 years after the birth of the prophet Jmmanuel..." Billy Meier was born in 1937, which would make the birth of Jmmanuel in the year before 1 A.D., which I believe should be 1 B.C. since there was no year "zero" from what I have learned in previous studies.

What are your thoughts on this and how can this be reconciled?
At 8:44 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben,

I don't know where the error lies. Perhaps there's an error in our standard chronology of events, such that some six years were omitted in the decades and centuries following 6 CE.

Or, perhaps what we think was A.D. 6 was really A.D. 1 or 1 B.C., due to some six extra years having been fed into the historical reconstruction before 1 B.C. Could such an error have occurred due to some writer having said that so-and-so ruled for 16 years when it had only been 10?

Or perhaps Jeremiah, and Billy, are wrong by some six years.
At 3:30 PM , Ben said...

In your discussion of Matthew vs. Mark, you make the following comments which relate to Matthew chapter 3:

Mk 1:2 "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face...'" This is the well known error on the part of the writer of Mark wherein he attributed this first part of his scriptural citation to Isaiah although it derives from Malachi... If, on the other hand, Mark were considered primary, one would need to assume that not only did the writer of Matthew notice this error in Mark, he decided to repair Mark's error by not using the Malachi verse within Mt 3:3 but instead within a section of his text (Mt 11:2-15) which fortuitously needed this quotation to complete the pericope's major theme."

RESPONSE:
The first problem in your reasoning which you use to help support that Matthew came before Mark is that you do not inform the readers of your page about the variances between ancient manuscripts on the proper reading of this verse, which could mislead them to think that the original author of Mark truly and definitely made an error here. The second problem is that you then form an argument based on a detail that does not even necessarily apply to Mark's original writing.

Even though the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions, as well as some Greek copies of Mark read, "as it is written in the prophet Isaias;" nevertheless, the Arabic versions, Ethiopic versions, and the majority of Greek copies read "As it is written in the prophets..." This is the reading which appears in the Received Text, the text used by the King James translators.

Because of the variances between copies of the ancient texts, it is not fair to charge the original author of Mark with an error because of an error that could have very well been made at a later time by scribes who were simply trying to manually write out copies of Mark. It is even more dangerous to form an argument over something that might only apply to copies of an original which contain mistakes as opposed to the original document itself.
At 8:34 AM , Ben said...

The Criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew 3:

Mk 1:6 "Now John was clothed with camel's hair..." Although this verse closely parallels Mt 3:4, in location it comes after the verse (Mk 1:5) stating about all the people that went out to hear John. In this location, Mk 1:6 gives undue emphasis to his clothing and diet, since it appears sandwiched between the two more important items of Mk 1:5 and of the following verse that tells something of what he spoke…. Thus, Mark's especially awkward syntax here is explained by his abbreviations and reordering of the Matthean text.

Response:

Even though I do not agree with the dependence of any gospel writer on another gospel writer, I will nevertheless report what others have said in this connection who do feel that it is the other way around, that Matthew improved Mark, which actually does make much more sense.

Others have noted that Mark will often in his gospel use excessive verbosity. Mark also regularly includes extra details in scenes that the other writers do not, which many feel to be unnecessary. When one closely looks at Matthew, one will find that Matthew regularly focuses his attention on people and pays little attention to extra details within a scene. One will also notice that Matthew reveals himself to be an experienced and intelligent writer, while Mark shows more inexperience. This, I can also see myself when looking at them in such a way.

The argument, then, is:
If Mark was looking at a well-ordered and well-written account, why would he exchange such for excessive verbosity? To just say that he did so as a result of carelessness or to be different is not at all an argument founded upon a rock. If Mark can, indeed, be said to reveal excessive verbosity and unnecessary details in his writing, that would more likely show his in experience compared to the author of Matthew and a lack of access to an already well-written account. It would make sense if Mark desired to include extra details in addition to what was already well-written according to his purpose and keep the already well-written order, which he would be able to plainly see, otherwise in tact. But to change that which is well-written into that which can be criticized to be poorly written would not make any sense and would be less likely than one viewing that which is awkwardly written and revising it to be well-written, which is the job of many editors even to this day.

I have no idea why the conclusion is made that an explanation does not exist for Mark’s ineptness in the first place. An inexperienced writer who does not have access to and who is not plagiarizing a well-written document will, in most cases, produce an inept writing. Since the gospels were regarded to be sacred documents early on in those days and since writers didn’t have to worry about copyright laws like we do to day, it would actually make sense for a writer who desires to write an additional record for his readers to keep in tact that which already came before him and that which he would have regarded to be an authoritatively written work, while including extra details that he desired to include for his particular reasons. Since Mark was believed to be a follower of Peter and was not as experienced as the apostles, it stands to reason that a document that he went about writing without the aid of an already well-written document would receive such criticisms, which could reveal a lack of access to such a document. And in this case, since the information in question is contained in both documents but is, perhaps, better arranged in Matthew's, Matthew would appear to be the editor if one wants to go with the argument of the dependence of the gospel writers upon each other.
At 4:51 PM , Ben said...

Further criticism pertaining to Matthew 4:

Mk 1:13: "and the angels ministered." This is the first we hear of any angels having been around at that time. Hence they should have been referred to simply as "angels”… Thus the writer of Mark betrays that he had the angels of Matthew in mind here, and so called them "the angels."

Response:

In this verse, the Greek article pertaining to “angels” appears in the nominative case. The criticism implies that the article in the nominative case can only be used as a definite article, but such is not the case according to the rules of Greek language. It can also be used in a reflexive sense to indicate someone or something that belongs to, has some relation to, or is a physical part of the subject. The context must be carefully studied in order to determine how the nominative article is being used in each case. In this case, the subject of MK 1:13 is clearly J. Thus, the end of Mark’s verse is essentially saying “and his angels ministered unto him.” Since the Bible does teach that the angels belong to J, Mark was being consistent with what was considered to be true by many about the angels and was not breaking any Greek rules. By the way, the article for wild beasts appears in the genitive case, so Mark is not saying that the wild beasts belonged to J, only the angels.

A question arises from the criticism of this section: how does Mark’s lack of details in his writing support the notion that Mark “too heavily abbreviated a more detailed source?” This would be similar to an author writing a book entitled “The Answers to Mankind’s Deepest Questions,” and then, after a certain reader concludes that the author does not have sufficient answers to such questions, the reader then claims that the author truly had access to a source that contained sufficient answers to mankind’s deepest questions but that the author “too heavily abbreviated the source” or “deliberately withheld the information from that source.” Another reader, however, could simply conclude that the author didn’t have complete answers to such questions, which resulted from his research, in the fist place. In this case, which reader would more likely be correct?

Further criticisms pertaining to Matthew 4:

Mk 1:14: "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came..." Again the account of Mark is so abbreviated that it presumes the reader already knows, from some other writing, that by this time John had indeed been arrested. Knowledge of this then came from Matthew”

“In Matthew (Mt 4:12) the reason Jesus left wherever he had been and withdrew to Galilee was due to his having heard of John's arrest. This was a sign of weakness and fear that the writer of Mark apparently did not wish to attribute to Jesus. If one attempts to turn this argument around, it is practically inconceivable that the writer of Matthew, upon reading Mark's account, would have amplified it for the purpose of implying that Jesus was fearful.”

Response:
Both Matthew 4:12 and Mark 1:14 are time indicators which reveal the time when J departed to Galilee to call disciples to himself. Matthew’s time indicator is more specific, again suggesting access to more details then Mark. The fact that both writers knew of this time indicator does not, in itself, prove that either author necessarily had access to the other gospel writer’s document. It could simply show that both writers had access to some source or sources that let them know of the time that J departed into Galilee. Matthew’s source, whatever it was, specifically knew that J directly heard of such. We cannot definitively conclude whether or not Mark even knew this.

It could be argued that the charge which has been made that Matthew’s passage implies a weakness of J stems from one who read another account found in the TJ and who applied it here, even though the TJ does not make such a statement in its parallel passage of this section. Nevertheless, another explanation also stands which can even pertain to both Matthew and the TJ. In both documents, John the Baptist was the forerunner of J who played the role of a teacher and who had those who were his followers. Once John was put into prison, those followers were now without a teacher yet still needed to be instructed. It could very well have been that J was concerned that these followers should not remain without an instructor for very long. Therefore, J would take upon himself this role. In fact, this would even show boldness instead of fear because J would know very well, in both the TJ and in the Matthew, that the rulers of the people would hate him and desire to kill him for assuming such a role.

All three writers allow such to be seen in this section since they all mention J’s hastiness in gathering followers after John’s removal from the scene. None of the documents suggest a fear in this section.

Further criticism pertaining to Matthew 4:

Mk 1:16: "he saw Simon and Andrew." This is too abruptly specific, as Jesus didn't yet even know their names. However, they were already known to the writer of Mark and to any other readers of Matthew from the gospel parallel of Mt 4:18, where the brothers were introduced in a natural manner. Obviously, the writer of Mark knew how to write it properly if he had been more careful…”

Response:

Once again, if one concludes that Mark didn’t introduce this properly, then it could show Mark’s inexperience and lack of access to something that was written more properly. The other problem in the argument is that it suggests that readers of the day were only familiar with Simon and Andrew as a result of reading Matthew. Simon and Andrew could have already well-established their names as a result of setting up the church and going about from area to area, so they would need no introduction to Mark’s readers. If anything, Mark could have better described Simon as one who was also known as “Peter,” but since Mark and the other writers well-attest that Simon was not known by this name at this time within the narrative, Mark used the only name that others would have used towards Simon at the time that J came to him.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how the conclusion can be made that since Mark didn’t refer to either pair (referring also to MK 1:19) as “brothers” until immediately after he wrote down their names, as opposed to Matthew who referred to both pairs as “brothers” immediately before writing down their names, Mark must have, therefore, been improperly changing the book of Matthew.

Further criticism alleged to pertain to Matthew 7:

MK 1:22,27: “The parallel verses of Mt 7:28b-29 at the end of the Sermon on the Mount are practically identical, so that it is clear that either Mark depends on Matthew here or vice versa. In Matthew the reasons for stating Jesus taught with authority are clear…”

Response:

Unfortunately, one has to be able to see that Mark desired to write his entire account in chronological order and that the sermon at the mountain had not yet occurred at this time within the narrative in order to understand why the sermon does not appear here in Mark.

The first problem with saying that “in Matthew the reasons for stating Jesus taught with authority are clear” is that such an argument is being approached from the perspective of the reader of the document and not the perspective of the characters within the narrative. It doesn’t matter if Mark’s reader is properly introduced to the teachings of J at the time that the people were astonished by the casting out of the demon at the synagogue. This doesn’t take away from the fact that the people at the synagogue were astonished when J taught them and then removed a demon in Mark 1:21-28.

The second problem is that Matthew 7:28-29 doesn’t even apply here because it is not a parallel passage. Matthew 7:28-29 describes a totally different audience that was located at the mountain during a totally different time period then the audience gathered in the synagogue of Mark’s passage. Matthew doesn’t even report Mark’s event that occurred at the synagogue at all. The only other writer who does, Luke, also does not record the specific teachings that were given to the audience in the synagogue but also reported their astonishment at the casting out of the demon. Therefore, J’s specific words that were spoken at the synagogue at that time do not seem to have been known by any of the writers at the time of their writings. This could be because if Mark and/or Luke interviewed witnesses who were at the synagogue, the casting out of the demon may have been the most astonishing part of the whole experience and may have been the only specific thing that the witnesses could recall, apart from also remembering the manner in which J taught, which is also well-known to stick with people more than specific words that have been spoken by a person.

Further criticism pertaining to Matthew 8:

MK 1:44: “it appears the writer of Mark was following Matthew and copying its "them" from Mt 8:4, which (with a lesser stretch) refers back to the crowds of people at the beginning of the leper-healing pericope.”

Response:

Once again, the knowledge of Bible chronology does not permit this argument to be made. The “and behold” allows Matthew to jump to a different time period since it does not necessitate chronological progression. The multitudes at the mountain were not present at the cleansing of the leper. Nevertheless, setting this explanation aside, even if the multitudes coming down from the mountain were present at the time that J healed the leper, they more likely would have been referred to as “these,” which would address their presence, as opposed to “them.” Thus, J using the “them” would not be referring to the multitudes even if they were, indeed, present. The leper was specifically told to go to the priest, revealing that the priest was not present since the leper had to go to him. The priest would have likely been at the synagogue or temple. Thus, the offering that the leper was commanded to give to the priest, which was supposed to stand as a “testimony unto them,” could only do so to those who would be witnessing it, being any who were at the synagogue or temple. Thus, neither Matthew nor Mark clearly explains who the “them” refers to. The “them,” however, would plainly refer in both Mark and Matthew to ones who were not present at the time of the cleansing but ones who could witness the offering as a “testimony.” If any others were present at the time of J’s statement, they would have already received a testimony through the witnessing of the miracle, and they could only be a part of the new group of people, referred to as “them,” if they followed the leper to the priest.
At 6:05 PM , Ben said...

The criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapter 9:

Mk 2:10 Here, in the story of the healing of the paralytic, the writer of Mark, upon making use of Mt 9:6, uses the "Son of man" expression. This openly revealed Jesus' messianic status, since "Son of man" most easily refers to the messianic figure by that title in Daniel.”

Response:
Prior to the New Testament times, the phrase “son of man” was more often than not simply used to denote mankind generally, with special reference to mankind’s weakness and frailty (See: Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.). It was even a phrase that was very frequently used of the prophet Ezekiel, who was certainly not recognized as a messianic figure. It was probably used for Ezekiel to remind him of his human weakness. In the Old Testament, it only appears 2 times in reference to the promised one who was to come (Psalms 80:17 and Daniel 7:13). Thus, at the time that this phrase was being used in the life of J, it would not have drawn any special attention to him. If someone said “I am the son of man,” it would have been very similar to saying “I am a human being.” For this reason, in the gospels, J actually used this expression to conceal his Divine nature and only reveal his human nature, as opposed to using the title “Son of God” openly. It wasn’t until after the reported resurrection of J that this was then more widely recognized to be a title of the risen Lord.

Mk 2:14 “‘he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting...’ Again, Jesus would not yet have known his name.”

Response:
Since this is a statement by the narrator to the reader, it does not matter if Jesus did not know the man’s name at this point, even though such a comment presumes a certain nature of J. Mark is allowed to inform his reader who this one was at this point.

“Here, however, the writer of Mark is likely letting his audience know he is aware that Matthew the disciple did not write the gospel that was labeled ‘according to Matthew.’ What better way than not even have the disciple's name be Matthew at this point?”

Response:
Because Mark, at this point in his narrative, simply identifies this one by another name that he was known as, the conclusion is then made that Mark’s intention behind this was to hide the fact that Matthew was not the author of a gospel that was attributed to him? This argument, as it stands, appears to be full of empty speculation and needs to be better supported before comments can be made concerning it.

The criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapter 12:
Mk 2:27 This verse begins with "And he said to them..." However, prior to this point Jesus was already speaking to the Pharisees, and he continues to do so in the remainder of this verse and in the next. So why did the writer of Mark break Jesus' response to the Pharisees right in the middle with an interruptive clause?...”

Response:
The arguments made in this whole section actually have some good merit to them. Again, however, they are forcing the reliance of the gospel writers upon each other to be a given.

Now the explanation for why Mark uses an interruptive clause here is rather plain. It can be conclusively said that the author of Mark was confident that everything he quoted Jesus as saying in MK 1:25-26 was a continuous statement which did not have any other statements in between. The interruptive clause, then, shows that Mark also knew that other statements were made by Jesus in between the two statements quoted in verses 26 and 27. If Mark did not use this interruptive clause, then he could have led his reader to the false conclusion that everything stated in verses 25-27 was a continuous quote that did not have any other statements in between, which was not the case. Thus, Mark does show that he definitely knew that other statements were made by Jesus at this time; therefore, Mark does not mislead the reader to assume that he was writing a full and continuous quote of Jesus.

In regards to this matter, one could possibly have some basis for saying that Mark knew that more was spoken by Jesus in between as a result of looking at Matthew. It still leaves open some possibilities, however. One possibility is that while Mark knew that more was spoken by Jesus between verses 26 and 27 in reality, Mark may not have had access to what was actually spoken. Another possibility is that Mark could have had access to what was spoken by additional sources apart from Matthew and decided to omit the statements in keeping with his purpose of writing. Evidence that Mark may not have had Matthew at all can be seen by closely comparing the two passages where both authors were intending to quote the same statement made by Jesus:

Mark 2:
25 AND HE SAID unto_them, DID_YE NEVER read what David did, when HE_HAD NEED, AND was_hungry, HE, and they_that_were with him?
26 How he_entered into the house of God WHEN ABIATHAR WAS HIGH PRIEST, and ate the showbread, which IS not lawful to eat save for_the priests, AND GAVE ALSO TO_THEM_THAT WERE with him?

Matthew 12:
3 BUT HE_SAID unto_them, HAVE_YE NOT read what David did, when HE was_hungry, and they_that_were with him;
4 how he_entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which WAS not lawful FOR_HIM to eat, NEITHER FOR THEM_THAT_WERE with him, but ONLY for_the priests?

It is hard to make this easy for those who are not familiar with Greek, but the above passages come from the American Standard Version of the Bible. Nevertheless, every single time a word appears in all capital letters, this means that in the original Greek language, either the corresponding word in the other writer’s gospel differs (even if the translators used the same English word in both gospels) or does not appear at all. Any time a “_” appears to connect words, this means that the original Greek language only contains one word, even though it was translated into English as two or more words. One must also look at the minor restructuring of the sentences as well, which cannot be easily marked.

As one can see, there is quite a variety between the two statements even though the authors were attempting to write the same quote of Jesus. The meaning is essentially the same between the two, but the structure and words used are not exact copies many times. Now, if one author was copying off of the other author, a good argument can be made for why he might omit or add extra details to the other writer’s document. Nevertheless, why wouldn’t the rest of the sentence remain in tact? Why would one change some tenses and sentence structures here and there and other very minor things? This is only one passage where such little variances help to support that neither author was necessarily depending on the author.
At 6:54 PM , Ben said...

The criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapter 12:

Mk 3:1-6 Here Jesus enters the synagogue (in an episode apparently not related to his previous discussion with Pharisees in the grain fields), and heals the man with the withered hand. A nebulous "they" watch this event and hear Jesus speak to them angrily.

Response:

In Mark 2:24, the author writes, “And the Pharisees said unto_him…” In verse 25, the author writes “and he (Jesus) said unto_them.” Since the Pharisees were the only group mentioned in the text at verse 24, the reader should readily assume that the plural “unto_them” of verse 25, being one word in the Greek – autoiV – refers to the Pharisees, which would be correct. Then, in verse 27, after Jesus finishes his first statement, there is another “and he said unto_them,” where the reader should, once again, assume that the plural “unto_them” refers to the Pharisees since no new group has been introduced. If the reader does this, he or she would again be correct. Jesus then finishes his statement and then the text says that he entered into the synagogue. After only a couple short verses later, Mark 3:2 reads, “and they_watched him.” “They_watched” is only one word in the Greek, being “parethroun.” It is in the imperfect tense, so it is better understood as “they were watching.” Since this verb is also in the plural form and no other group has been introduced in Mark’s section since the Pharisees, the Greek reader would more readily connect this verb to the most recently mentioned group, the Pharisees. If the reader does this, he or she would be correct once more. The Greek language allows a writer to be much more concise in his writing than many other languages, and a Greek reader would not be as confused as an English reader of a literal translation of a Greek document.

The argument that this is “an episode apparently not related to his previous discussion with the Pharisees in the grain fields” is not backed by any support. If one only reads Mark’s narrative, the narrative would strongly suggest that the one event flows into and immediately precedes the next since no period of time is mentioned as lapsing from one to the other (Luke’s account reveals that this was not the case, which is why Luke then further describes the group as the Pharisees once again). If the “they_watched” truly should refer to another group of people than the one previously described, then Mark certainly should have distinguished the new group. For example, if the “they_watched” referred to those in the synagogue, then Mark should have properly written “those in the synagogue” or something similar instead of simply writing “they_watched.” Nevertheless, as Mark’s account stands, the reader should conclude that the “they_watched,” which occurs only 3 verses after the “unto_them” of chapter 2 and verse 27, refers to the only plural group that has been described so far, the Pharisees, which is the case. This is true regardless of whether or not the synagogue that Jesus entered into actually belonged to the group in question, the Pharisees, which is simply an extra detail that Matthew includes apart from Mark and Luke. If the assumption was made that the section seems to be unrelated simply because there is a chapter division, one must realize that the chapter divisions were not made until centuries after Mark wrote his gospel.

The criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapters 5 & 10:

Mk 3:13 This verse is a rather close, but isolated, parallel to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1)… So is it more probable that the writer of Mark borrowed it from Matthew, or vice versa? The former makes sense, in that Mark's subsequent six verses, also taken from Matthew, were then his substitution for Matthew's Sermon on the Mount”

“His substitution is awkward in several respects, including the fact that within it the disciples, though called once in Mk 3:13, are appointed a second time in Mk 3:16 (upon following the Greek text), even though in Mk 6:7 they will be called again and given a more detailed mission…. If argued the other way around, it would be supposed that the writer of Matthew noticed that Mark had called the disciples twice.”

Response:

Here is another time when knowledge of Bible chronology comes into play. Chronologically speaking, the verses following Mark 3:13 should be regarded as details of the time period that Matthew omitted since Matthew does not mention the time that the twelve disciples were chosen, which was the time just before the Sermon on the Mount. The fact that both writers include a list of twelve names of the apostles at certain times in their documents does not support that either writer necessarily used the other writer’s document to obtain the list of names since the names of the 12 would have been well-known and could have easily been obtained from multiple sources, including the first hand knowledge of both authors themselves. Each author, then, chose to sort the names in the particular arrangement that fit his purpose of writing.

The argument concerning the word “called” seems to be unaware of what exactly the word “called” means. When it says that Jesus “called” unto him those whom he would in Mark 3:13, it simply means that he told everyone to come to him, which very well may have resulted in more people coming to him than just the 12 men who would later be appointed. This use of the word “call” would be similar to a mother telling her children that supper is ready and she then “calls” her children unto the supper table. It has nothing to do with one’s “calling,” which would refer to one’s mission in life. When it says in Mark 3:14 that he “appointed” twelve, it means that 12 of the people whom he told to come to him were then given new and permanent positions, being a separate issue from the multiple missions that they would be called upon to perform in their lifetimes (I am assuming that the argument intended to cite Mark 3:14 for the “second appointing” instead of Mark 3:16, where Simon’s surname is simply mentioned). At a much later time in Mark’s narrative, these twelve who received the new positions and thus, had already been “appointed” only once and remained in their positions, were told to come to Jesus once more. Once again, I have to assume that the argument: “If argued the other way around, it would be supposed that the writer of Matthew noticed that Mark had called the disciples twice” is referring to the two alleged “callings” or “appointings” in Mark chapter 3. If this is the case, then it has already been sufficiently addressed. If this argument being applied to one “calling” in Mark chapter 3 and a second “calling” in Mark chapter 6, then such an argument would basically be saying that a teacher is not allowed to tell his followers to come to him at different times in his lifetime in order to send them out on important missions after giving them positions of high responsibility. The Plejarens certainly do not follow such a strategy with Meier.

The argument “if the writer of Matthew had utilized Mark, he could scarcely have helped but notice that in Mark all twelve disciples are called into duty, and he would have had no reason to omit such a fact” chooses to ignore all writings which explain the purpose of Matthew’s sorting methods according to a dispensational purpose. Matthew had a very specific reason, which countless writers have identified over the centuries, to delay reporting the full list of names of the 12 disciples until his tenth chapter, which was according to his purpose of first showing the offering of the kingdom to the king’s people by the king alone, keeping full attention on the king, his teachings, and his works while giving almost no attention to the king’s followers, and only then, after all of this, is the kingdom also offered to the king’s people by the king’s followers as a second chance for them to receive it, and the followers names are then put on display.

The criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapter 10:

Mk 3:15 Here Jesus gives the disciples authority to cast out demons but no more authority than that. In the Matthean parallel (Mt 10:1) he gives them authority also to heal diseases and infirmities. One sees here, and in the light of Section 6, that this easily fits into that section's category of the writer of Mark not desiring to portray the disciples at all favorably…. nowhere in the synoptic gospels or the TJ do the disciples perform any healings…. it may be noted that at Mk 6:13, the disciples are said to have healed many that were sick, a verse not associated with parallel Matthean material at Mt 10:14.

Response:

Matthew chapter 10 is not a parallel passage of Mark chapter 3. Matthew chapter 10 parallels Mark chapter 6 verses 6-13, which one can discover for him or herself by reading both passages. According to Bible chronology, MT 10 occurred after Nazareth’s second rejection of Jesus, which was quite some time (some 20 reported events) after the twelve were selected at the time just before the Sermon on the Mount was given, which happened just after the time following Mark 3:13-19. Therefore, Mark was being accurate by not recording that the disciples had received authority to heal at the time of Mark 3:15 because this authority would not be given until a much later time. Chronologically, Mark 6:13 does, indeed, occur after the twelve were sent out into the cities, which is also the time after Matthew and Luke tell us that the disciples also received the authority to heal. Thus, all of the facts concerning the authority to heal and the subsequent healings themselves, as found in the harmony of all of the gospel accounts, remarkably complement each other when one sees the whole story in its reported entirety. Each one must ask him or herself: is this just a coincidence created by “careless” editors?
At 1:26 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In www.tjresearch.info/mksec3.htm I wrote:
Mk 3:1-6 Here Jesus enters the synagogue (in an episode apparently not related to his previous discussion with Pharisees in the grain fields), and heals the man with the withered hand. A nebulous "they" watch this event and hear Jesus speak to them angrily.

Ben’s Response:

In Mark 2:24, the author writes, “And the Pharisees said unto_him…” In verse 25, the author writes “and he (Jesus) said unto_them.” Since the Pharisees were the only group mentioned in the text at verse 24, the reader should readily assume that the plural “unto_them” of verse 25, being one word in the Greek – autoiV – refers to the Pharisees, which would be correct. Then, in verse 27, after Jesus finishes his first statement, there is another “and he said unto_them,” where the reader should, once again, assume that the plural “unto_them” refers to the Pharisees since no new group has been introduced. If the reader does this, he or she would again be correct. Jesus then finishes his statement and then the text says that he entered into the synagogue. After only a couple short verses later, Mark 3:2 reads, “and they_watched him.” “They_watched” is only one word in the Greek, being “parethroun.” It is in the imperfect tense, so it is better understood as “they were watching.” Since this verb is also in the plural form and no other group has been introduced in Mark’s section since the Pharisees, the Greek reader would more readily connect this verb to the most recently mentioned group, the Pharisees.

Deardorff responds:
Mk 3:1 starts out “Again he entered the synagogue.” But there was no Markan mention of a previous entry into a synagogue until 9 pericopes previously – apparently many days or weeks previously. So from Mark one does not know how long after the grainfield event (Mk 2:23-28) that Mk 3:1-6 occurred, since any appropriate previous entry into a synagogue (to tie in with “Again”) was omitted. The withered-hand healing event could have occurred the same day, but not necessarily, judging just from Mark. Instead, one must notice from Matthew, or the TJ, that it occurred the same sabbath day.
Thus, Mark’s “Again” generates a large part of the uncertainty here, as J had apparently not previously been in a synagogue that day.
So what synagogue did the writer of Mark have in mind? Answer: the synagogue. But there was no relevant synagogue mentioned by the writer for the synagogue to refer to. Hence, this lends more substance to the accumulated evidence that the writer composed Mark with (Hebraic) Matthew in hand and in mind. He had the synagogue of Mt 12:9 in mind, where it was their synagogue. In Matthew, their did refer to the synagogue that the Pharisees attended or called their own.

The writer of Mark was too careless an editor to make his revisions of Matthew at this point stand intelligibly on their own. They betray the fact that his gospel was secondary to Matthew.

This discussion is not necessary for those who have noticed all the other internal and external evidence indicating that the writer of Mark utilized Matthew in forming his gospel.

The motivation for his alterations here is all too evident: The writer of Mark’s anti-Jewish feelings (see www.tjresearch.info/mksec6.htm#Mk6.3 ) again came into play: He would have Jesus look in anger upon not only the Pharisees, but also upon all the other people (presumably Jews) within hearing range in the synagogue, all those who had remained silent.

Ben wrote:
The argument that this is “an episode apparently not related to his previous discussion with the Pharisees in the grain fields” is not backed by any support. If one only reads Mark’s narrative, the narrative would strongly suggest that the one event flows into and immediately precedes the next since no period of time is mentioned as lapsing from one to the other,

Deardorff responds:
If it weren’t for the “Again” problem, and also the “the synagogue” problem, then, judging from Mark alone, I would agree with you on this one point.

Re criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapters 5 & 10:

In www.tjresearch.info/mksec3.htm I wrote:
Mk 3:13 This verse is a rather close, but isolated, parallel to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1)… So is it more probable that the writer of Mark borrowed it from Matthew, or vice versa? The former makes sense, in that Mark's subsequent six verses, also taken from Matthew, were then his substitution for Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.”

“His substitution is awkward in several respects, including the fact that within it the disciples, though called once in Mk 3:13, are appointed a second time in Mk 3:16 (upon following the Greek text), even though in Mk 6:7 they will be called again and given a more detailed mission…. If argued the other way around, it would be supposed that the writer of Matthew noticed that Mark had called the disciples twice.”

Ben’s Response:
Here is another time when knowledge of Bible chronology comes into play. Chronologically speaking, the verses following Mark 3:13 should be regarded as details of the time period that Matthew omitted since Matthew does not mention the time that the twelve disciples were chosen, which was the time just before the Sermon on the Mount.

Deardorff responds:
As we’ve discussed before, I could not disagree more. Your chronology is based on repeatedly assuming, against all indications otherwise, that the writers would place truth in editing well below their desire to create gospels that reflected the beliefs of the early church and of their own biases. This holds also for your contention that there were two rejections of Nazareth.

Ben wrote:
The argument “if the writer of Matthew had utilized Mark, he could scarcely have helped but notice that in Mark all twelve disciples are called into duty, and he would have had no reason to omit such a fact” chooses to ignore all writings which explain the purpose of Matthew’s sorting methods according to a dispensational purpose. Matthew had a very specific reason, which countless writers have identified over the centuries, to delay reporting the full list of names of the 12 disciples until his tenth chapter, which was according to his purpose of first showing the offering of the kingdom to the king’s people by the king alone, keeping full attention on the king, his teachings, and his works while giving almost no attention to the king’s followers, and only then, after all of this, is the kingdom also offered to the king’s people by the king’s followers as a second chance for them to receive it, and the followers names are then put on display.

Deardorff responds:
That seems like a specious reason that would be conceived only after the Gospels had been studied and debated for decades or centuries, whereas whichever gospel came first, it should be clear that the others followed within a few years. New Testament scholasticism wouldn't be around yet for centuries to come. So, such thoughts wouldn’t have arisen with the writer of Matthew even if you suppose that Mark had come first. But again, why ignore the external evidence as well as the internal evidence? We have the Talmud of Jmmanuel to go by now. Ignore it and its co-discoverer’s credibility at your own risk.

Re criticisms of Mark which pertain to Matthew chapter 10:

Deardorff wrote:
Mk 3:15 Here Jesus gives the disciples authority to cast out demons but no more authority than that. In the Matthean parallel (Mt 10:1) he gives them authority also to heal diseases and infirmities. One sees here, and in the light of Section 6, that this easily fits into that section's category of the writer of Mark not desiring to portray the disciples at all favorably…. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels or the TJ do the disciples perform any healings…. it may be noted that at Mk 6:13, the disciples are said to have healed many that were sick, a verse not associated with parallel Matthean material at Mt 10:14.

Ben’s Response:
Matthew chapter 10 is not a parallel passage of Mark chapter 3. Matthew chapter 10 parallels Mark chapter 6 verses 6-13, which one can discover for him or herself by reading both passages. …

Deardorff res;ponds:
What I said above still stands. The parallels here are much more complex than what you imply regarding all of Mt 10. For example, the parallels are listed here: www.tjresearch.info/mksec2.htm.
At 6:58 AM , Ben said...

“So from Mark one does not know how long after the grainfield event (Mk 2:23-28) that Mk 3:1-6 occurred, since any appropriate previous entry into a synagogue (to tie in with “Again”) was omitted.”

Response:

I cannot understand how one can say that the “again” ties into an omitted entry into a synagogue. In Mark 1: 21, it reads, “And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.” Thus, the synagogue that Jesus entered was already described as the synagogue which was in Capernaum. When Mark writes that “again” he entered the synagogue, the “again” shows that the synagogue which Jesus entered in Mark 3:1 must have already been specifically mentioned before in Mark’s account. This mentioning, then, was given in Mark 1:21. Two events do not have to occur within the same day for a writer to correctly use the word “again.” The word simply shows a repetition and a connection to something. One could properly write “I traveled to Florida when I was a child and visited Disneyland…. I again traveled to Florida after I got married to visit my in-laws.” The time indicators reveal that much time passed with the “again;” nevertheless, they are not necessary for the account to read properly. “I traveled to Florida and visited Disneyland…. I again traveled to Florida to visit my in-laws.” The “again” in both cases shows that the trip was to the same place, Florida, and is not affected by the passage of time in between.
At 8:01 AM , Ben said...

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?

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.

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. Even so, all Mark would have needed would have been a person from whom he received his parables who also walked with and talked with Jesus for a long time. That person, then, could have simply told Mark that there were so many more parables that he heard from Jesus but, perhaps, he could not recall all of them. Peter would be such a good source, the one whom the majority of early writers attest was indeed the source of much of Mark’s information.

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

Unfortunately, one must study for him or herself all of Matthew and Mark in the original Greek and compare all passages to determine if there is good evidence that one of the authors likely had access to the entire document of the other writer and used it heavily. There is not sufficient space on this blog to begin to show thorough support for either side of that debate. Nevertheless, part of the process includes taking it section by section and not forming a general conclusion on the entire document simply because of a particular conclusion which can be made on certain sections. So let’s say, concerning the parable of the sower, that the explanation that both writers had access to a written source is a good explanation for why so many of the words read word-for-word the same apart from one writer persistently using the singular form and the other using the plural. Why must that written source be the entire document of the other gospel writer? This question is especially important for one to ask him or herself since the subject matter concerns a parable of J.

Parables of J would have, no doubt, been of great interest to the populaces during his ministry. There is good reason to assume, then, that MANY people would have desired to write down the parables of J some time after hearing them and did so, especially those who desired to seek the knowledge that they believed could be gained by deeply pondering the wise sayings of J; the Gospel of Thomas, among many other ancient writings, attests to this desire among the people of that day. Therefore, the similarity of this section between Matthew and Mark could very well be a case which would be similar to a reporter including a quote from an article that he found during his research and including it in his whole report, and then, another reporter uses the same or similar article and includes it in his report.

An example of this using the Meier case would be if I were to include Gary Kinder’s “An Open Letter to the UFO Community” in a book that I was publishing on the Meier Case. One could conclude that because I was able to copy the entire letter, word-for-word, into my report, that I must have had access to MUFON UFO Journal No. 228, April 1987 issue. But this letter also appears in its entirety in Korff’s book, on Michael Horn’s website, and in many other places. I could have retrieved it from any of those sources. Now back to the topic at hand, Matthew and Mark, then, very well could have had access to a similar “article” or written work of some kind that contained this parable and they both chose to include it at certain times within their narratives. In no way should the similarity of a couple of parables alone, however, cause one to conclude that each author must have had access to or heavily depended upon another author’s entire document.

Again, access to certain types of sources that the authors may have used on various sections can be supposed by carefully studying the parallel passages, but other passages should be studied thoroughly to see if the same types of sources apply to the other sections in the entire reports. It is very typical for researchers who are writing reports to use many different resources in their investigations. The writers of the gospels should be allowed to do the same. I am simply making this statement for any who might read this and who desire to look into these things themselves in order to determine what stance they might take on the issue at hand.
At 3:11 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben’s critique here, above, refers to verses that parallel Matthew’s chapter 13. So I’ve responded under my blog section: DISCUSSION OF TJ 15 AND MATTHEW 13.
At 4:56 PM , Ben said...

The Criticisms found under discussion of MT 2:19-20:

This would mean that Jmmanuel/Jesus was born around A.D. 6, not 6 B.C., if the census of Caesar Augustus mentioned in Lk 2:1-2 actually occurred during the known reign of Quirinius, governor of Syria, as Luke (and the TJ) both imply…. Wiseman thus gives two reasons for believing that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod Antipas, not King Herod. Previously there had been only one reason (the known timing of the reign of Quirinius), which was insufficient to overcome the Matthean tradition involving King Herod… One verse contradicting this solution is Lk 1:5 ("In the days of Herod, king of Judea..."). It can be explained as one of the considerable number of errors made by the writer of Luke, in this case occasioned by his starting to follow the text of Matthew in the Infancy narrative before creating his own text for it. This purported error is compensated by the reference in Acts 5:37 to Judas the Galilean initiating his uprising "in the days of the census." This uprising is believed to have occurred in A.D. 6, and so further dates the decree of Caesar Augustus to that year.

Response:

Luke 2:1 tells of a decree from Caesar Augustus to have the whole “world” taxed (where "oikoumene" actually means all of the world under the authority of Rome at that time). From Luke 1:5, it is seen that Luke was saying that this census occurred while King Herod, also known as “Herod the Great” was still alive. In verse 2 of Luke chapter 2, the author is careful to specifically mention that this was the FIRST taxing that was made when Cyrenius (or “Quirinius”) “was governor of Syria” (KJV).

It is important to note that the Lucan text above in the Greek is more properly translated as “while Cyrenius was leading -in charge of- Syria.” Cyrenius or Quirinius is not actually called “legatus,” the official Roman title for the governor of an entire region. Thus, the statement would apply to one who was simply rated as a “procurator,” like Pontius Pilate, and not just one rated as a “legatus.” It is known from secular history that between 12 B.C. and 2 B.C., Cyrenius was a highly placed military figure in the Near East in the closing years of the reign of Herod the Great. Therefore, it could very well be that he would have been one to be put in charge of a census-enrollment by the time of 7 B.C., near the transition period between the close of Saturninus’ administration and the beginning of Varus’ term of service in 7 B.C.

It is true that Josephus does not mention any census during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C. Nevertheless, Josephus mentions a census taken by Cyrenius soon after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D. So if the census in Luke 2:1 is dated at around 8 or 7 B.C. as some scholars have it, before the death of King Herod, and the census of Josephus is dated at around 6 A.D. or 7 A.D., then there must be a discrepancy of about 14 years, right?

It is important to note that Luke’s statement of a “first” enrollment implies another enrollment sometime later. Luke must have, therefore, been well-aware of a second census that was taken by Cyrenius. Therefore, when Luke quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee “in the days of the census taking” (Acts 5:37), he is most likely referring to the second census. Secular history well attests that the Romans tended to conduct a census about every 14 years. Therefore, there would be no discrepancy between a census being taken before the death of Herod the Great in Luke 2:1-2 and another census being taken during the insurrection of Judas of Galilee in Acts 5:37.

But some might ask, why aren’t there any other historians apart from Luke who mention a census before the one of 6 A.D.? First of all, such questions come from those who do not permit the author of Luke to be a competent historian in the first place for various personal reasons. Secondly, the practice of the Romans enumerating the citizens and their property in order to determine their liabilities was not extended to include the entire Roman Empire until 5 B.C., which was after the first census that Luke likely recorded. Therefore, after that time, the census then would have received recognition by other historians.

It is important to note that the major reason why the TJ has J being born during the reign of Herod Antipas, being that the TJ is connected to and fully approved by the Plejarens, is because the Plejarens support the notion that J was born in the year 1 B.C., as calculated by a figure found in the prophecy of Jeremiah as given by the Plejarens. This date of J's birth, however, is not backed by any earthly scholars that I am aware of.
At 8:25 PM , Ben said...

The Criticisms of Mark’s “Interruptive” Clauses:

A very general criticism has been attempted to be made on phrases which appear in Mark’s gospel which have been labeled as “editorial oddities” and “interruptive clauses” that have been inserted by Mark for “no good literary reasons.” Then, a very general conclusion has been made that such clauses “occur where the writer of Mark has apparently made an omission, an addition, and/or some other alteration to Matthew,” where all such clauses have been attempted to be applied to Mark’s use of the book of Matthew in each case. It was then given that such clauses appear in Mk 4:9,13,21,24; 6:10, 7:9,20; 9:1 and 11:24. Let us briefly examine every single case and determine if all such clauses are, indeed, “editorial oddities,” “interruptive,” “alterations of Matthew,” and/or written by Mark for “no good literary reasons.” All quotations of the Bible come from the New King James Version.

Mark 2:26-27 - …and also gave some to those who were with him?” And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

One major point that has been addressed but highly overlooked is the fact that the very phrase which Jesus is quoted as saying in verse 27 is nowhere to be found in Matthew’s or Luke’s gospel. Nevertheless, it is given by Mark as part of a direct quote of Jesus. One could simply say that Mark “made this up” or “added it just to be different;” nevertheless, Mark has left behind evidence that he had access to a source that could not have been Matthew or Luke which he used to include this statement since it is not found in the other two synoptic gospels. If the other source that Mark had in his possession contained this information, then it very well likely contained the rest of Mark’s information for this section as well.

In this case, it can be seen that one of the reasons for Mark’s clause was to show that everything which was said by Jesus was not a continuous statement, so one could conclude that Jesus likely said more in between which was not recorded by Mark just by looking at Mark’s gospel alone, and Mark used the clause partly as a means of alerting the reader to this fact. Since Matthew does contain additional information in between, it could be somewhat argued that Mark could, in this case, show some evidence which might allow one to conclude that he had access to Matthew. Nevertheless, access to Matthew is not sufficient to explain Mark’s additional phrase included as a quote of Jesus that is found in no other gospel, which reveals good evidence for Mark’s access to another source for this section. If anything, Luke could be given the criticism that has been given to Mark in that Luke leaves evidence for possible use of the book of Matthew since Luke contains a similar clause in his parallel account where Mark has it, but Luke has no additional statement of Jesus apart from what can be found in Matthew.

Mark 4:8-9 - … some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

When one observes Matthew’s and Luke’s parallel sections which pertain to this passage, one will notice that Mark’s use of a similar clause cannot necessarily apply to Mark having omitted some statements of Jesus as before since neither Matthew nor Luke report any additional information having been said by Jesus between these verses. So then, is Mark’s clause here “interruptive” or “pointless?” When one observes Luke’s parallel passage, one will notice a similar clause which gives some important information:

Luke 8:8 - … a hundredfold.” When He had said these things He cried, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

Notice that in Luke’s passage, there is, once again, a similar clause as the one used by Mark which comes before the final statement of Jesus. In Luke’s passage, one can see that it was a rather emotional moment for Jesus, who may have paused for a brief moment and then shouted in a louder voice the final statement with passion. Thus, Jesus was stressing this last sentence at the time of actually stating it, which is easily seen in Luke’s account, and Luke also records a clause in order to stress the importance of last phrase as Jesus also desired to stress it.

This creates a problem for the main criticisms of such similar phrases found in Mark because Mark, in using a similar phrase as Luke, also shows that he knew that Jesus stressed this phrase and also set it apart in order to be stressed, though not as clearly as Luke. The reason why this creates a problem with the main criticism is because Mark could not have known this simply by looking at the book of Matthew, which does not seem to show any stress to the last phrase at all. Since many scholars would say that Luke could have had access to Mark but not too many scholars, if any at all, would say that Mark ever had access to Luke when creating his gospel, additional evidence is left behind of an additional source that Mark used for this section in his gospel in order for Mark to know to stress this point since it was stressed by Jesus. Again, if he had a source that alerted him to this, a source which could not have been Matthew, that source very well could have given him the rest of his information for this section.

Mark 4:12-13 - … and their sins be forgiven them.” And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

In order to save space on the blog, I will simply give an explanation that one should definitely look into more fully for him or herself. The argument that one of the reasons for Mark’s clause here is to show that more was said by Jesus in between and Mark was alerting the reader to this can again be made since more is recorded as being stated by Jesus in Matthew in between the quotation of Isaiah and the beginning of Jesus actually explaining the parable (Matthew 13:16-17). Therefore, one could have a loose basis for saying that Mark leaves behind some evidence for possible access to Matthew in this section using this phrase. Nevertheless, the possible evidence largely ends at that.

The two sections of Matthew 13:18-23 and Mark 4:13-20, though they report the same event, are worded very differently from each other. One can determine this easily using a literal English translation and even much better by examining the Greek. Now again, its easy for someone living 2,000 years after these documents were written to either say, “Mark was looking at Matthew and chose to put it into his own and different words” or vice versa. Nevertheless, the role of the copyist is not at all well seen here. Mark’s uniqueness includes Jesus asking two rhetorical questions at the beginning, where Matthew does not. Mark includes actual details of the sower in the explanation, Matthew does not. Mark clearly identifies the wicked one as Satan. Mark includes details of the desires for other things choking the word. Not a single sentence between the two reads exactly the same and yet both authors seem to be attempting to directly quote Jesus.

Once again, one can see good evidence for a source that was not Matthew which was used in this section by Mark and also see Mark’s use of a clause which possibly reveals both a break in statements made by Jesus and also puts a stress on the questions that Jesus asked His disciples.

Mark 4:21- some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket…”

Since this clause appears between the end of one parable and the beginning of a completely new parable, which also could have had some unknown time period in between the two, not much needs to be said for why Mark uses this clause to alert the reader that a brand new section is being entered into. In fact, one could argue that it would be rather awkward for a writer to have all parables flow into each other without having some form of break or notice in between them. Therefore, the clause should not be labeled as being “interruptive” or as being used for “no good literary reason.”

Mark 4:23-24 - … If anyone has ears to here, let him hear.” Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear.”

Again, the explanation of a break in between two actual statements of Jesus and/or Mark’s desire to stress the phrase “Take heed what your hear” applies here.

Unfortunately, this in no way adds to the argument of whether or not Mark altered the book of Matthew, as purported by the main criticism, since this section of Mark is nowhere to be found in Matthew. Thus, Mark must have had access to a source that was not Matthew in writing this section. The section which comes before this clause concerning the lamp being put under a basket or bed only has a parallel in Luke 8:16-18, not in Matthew. Again, many would not say that Mark had access to Luke for this and Mark couldn’t have used Matthew since it appears nowhere in Matthew’s narrative. Even though a somewhat similar use of a lamp within the teaching of the light of the world appears in Matthew 5:15, this simply reveals that Jesus made use of a lamp in his teachings in different ways at different times. One will notice that Mark’s record of the lamp here and Matthew’s record of the lamp in MT 5 are clearly being used in two separate teachings at two separate times if one observes them closely.

Examining the section after the clause with MT 7:2:

MT 7:2 – For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck…

MK 4:24 – Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.

To say that one section derived by an author looking at another author’s section which appeared in a completely different time period and a completely different setting and then throwing it into his section while making it be sufficiently different is interesting, to say the least. Such an argument seems to suppose that a teacher is not allowed to say something similar yet sufficiently different at two different periods of time during His ministry or during His whole life for that matter. Jesus’ use of “measure” in relation to His teaching of judgment is very separate and distinct from his use of “measure” in relation to His teaching of how much one hears. Since the phrase which uses “measure” is very broad, it could very well be applied to a whole host of different teachings. The argument seems to imply that Mark took this phrase from Matthew and then “made up” the different teaching of how much one hears around it.

MK 6:10-

The same that applied to MK 4:21 applies here. Regardless of why Mark chose to switch from narration to quotation, he nevertheless made such a change. As such, Mark’s clause prepares the reader for this change and prepares him or her for the entering into a different type of section. Therefore, it should not rightly be labeled as “interruptive” or as used for “no good literary reason.”

The rest of this response will appear in the section of MT 15 / TJ 17
At 11:22 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben wrote, in the 8:25 PM comment above,:
The Criticisms of Mark’s “Interruptive” Clauses:

A very general criticism has been attempted to be made on phrases which appear in Mark’s gospel which have been labeled as “editorial oddities” and “interruptive clauses” that have been inserted by Mark for “no good literary reasons.” Then, a very general conclusion has been made that such clauses “occur where the writer of Mark has apparently made an omission, an addition, and/or some other alteration to Matthew,” where all such clauses have been attempted to be applied to Mark’s use of the book of Matthew in each case. It was then given that such clauses appear in Mk 4:9,13,21,24; 6:10, 7:9,20; 9:1 and 11:24. Let us briefly examine every single case and determine if all such clauses are, indeed, “editorial oddities,” “interruptive,” “alterations of Matthew,” and/or written by Mark for “no good literary reasons.” All quotations of the Bible come from the New King James Version.

Mark 2:26-27 - …and also gave some to those who were with him?” And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

One major point that has been addressed but highly overlooked is the fact that the very phrase which Jesus is quoted as saying in verse 27 is nowhere to be found in Matthew’s or Luke’s gospel.

Let me, Deardorff, interrupt here to say: It’s of course not in Matthew if the writer of Mark (AMark) inserted it into his gospel while copying from Hebraic Matthew. It’s plausibly not in Luke if ALuke habitually eliminated Mark’s redundancies (which he did).

Nevertheless, it is given by Mark as part of a direct quote of Jesus. One could simply say that Mark “made this up” or “added it just to be different;” nevertheless, Mark has left behind evidence that he had access to a source that could not have been Matthew or Luke which he used to include this statement since it is not found in the other two synoptic gospels. If the other source that Mark had in his possession contained this information, then it very well likely contained the rest of Mark’s information for this section as well.

You do understand that, if the external evidence is correct and Matthew came before Mark, the “Sabbath was made for man” sentence was added by the writer of Mark to what he was copying and editing from Hebraic Matthew. And you do understand that there was no need for the interruption (“And he said to them”), as Jesus was still speaking to the same “them,” and the final "He who has ears to hear..." was already in itself a statement of emphasis needing no extra narrative stress.

When this pattern of interruption repeats over and over, it looks very much like it is a telltale indication of AMark having inserted a piece of text, and/or that the interruption was for the purpose of “change for the sake of change.” The interruption would be inserted just before, or just after, the change made from the Matthean text.

It still makes no sense that AMark would have a secret source, as you propose below, from which he would extract a redundancy to insert in what appears to be Matthean text.

In this case, it can be seen that one of the reasons for Mark’s clause was to show that everything which was said by Jesus was not a continuous statement, so one could conclude that Jesus likely said more in between which was not recorded by Mark just by looking at Mark’s gospel alone, and Mark used the clause partly as a means of alerting the reader to this fact. Since Matthew does contain additional information in between, it could be somewhat argued that Mark could, in this case, show some evidence which might allow one to conclude that he had access to Matthew. Nevertheless, access to Matthew is not sufficient to explain Mark’s additional phrase included as a quote of Jesus that is found in no other gospel, which reveals good evidence for Mark’s access to another source for this section. If anything, Luke could be given the criticism that has been given to Mark in that Luke leaves evidence for possible use of the book of Matthew since Luke contains a similar clause in his parallel account where Mark has it, but Luke has no additional statement of Jesus apart from what can be found in Matthew.

If you compare Luke’s parallels with those of Matthew, and with those of Mark, you find that, in a long section, ALuke followed Mark’s order very closely and text rather closely, too, in preference over Matthew’s. See MAH.htm, where a plausible reason is given. In this instance, ALuke showed this editorial behavior by retaining Amark’s inserted interruption, while improving upon Mark by eliminating Mark’s redundant addition.

Mark 4:8-9 - … some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

When one observes Matthew’s and Luke’s parallel sections which pertain to this passage, one will notice that Mark’s use of a similar clause cannot necessarily apply to Mark having omitted some statements of Jesus as before since neither Matthew nor Luke report any additional information having been said by Jesus between these verses.

In Mk 4:8-9, the unnecessary interruptive clause occurs immediately after the change made by Amark. So this fits Jameson’s pattern well.

So then, is Mark’s clause here “interruptive” or “pointless?”

As noted before, instead of “pointless” it would also serve as change for the sake of change.

When one observes Luke’s parallel passage, one will notice a similar clause which gives some important information:
Luke 8:8 - … a hundredfold.” When He had said these things He cried, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

I’ll be skipping over much of your discussions involving Luke, as I concur with the great majority of scholars, plus the external evidence, that ALuke made use of Mark (as well as of Matthew). But here ALuke was again showing preference for pro-gentile Mark over the anti-gentile Matthew by expanding slightly upon Mark’s interruptive clause, rather than omitting it.

Mark 4:12-13 - … and their sins be forgiven them.” And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

In order to save space on the blog, I will simply give an explanation that one should definitely look into more fully for him or herself. The argument that one of the reasons for Mark’s clause here is to show that more was said by Jesus in between and Mark was alerting the reader to this can again be made since more is recorded as being stated by Jesus in Matthew in between the quotation of Isaiah and the beginning of Jesus actually explaining the parable (Matthew 13:16-17). Therefore, one could have a loose basis for saying that Mark leaves behind some evidence for possible access to Matthew in this section using this phrase. …

Yes, this suggests Amark had access to Matthew, while also well fitting Jameson’s pattern, of Mk 4:13b being a Markan addition to Matthew.

The two sections of Matthew 13:18-23 and Mark 4:13-20, though they report the same event, are worded very differently from each other. … Once again, one can see good evidence for a source that was not Matthew which was used in this section by Mark… .

However, to say it once again, it is not simple for two different persons who independently translate a difficult passage (parable of the sower or its explanation) from the Aramaic into Greek, to end up with closely identical wording. (AMark was one of them, the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek was the other.) However, one expects them to end up with nearly identical order of the individual parts within the parable. If however, the later of the two translators should choose to make heavy use of the former’s Greek text, then nearly identical Greek wording would result. Also, you have not given any reasons why it would be implausible for AMark to have added his own tid-bits to the Matthean parable-explanation.

You certainly don’t need to postulate another source for AMark at this point, especially if you can’t explain why such source was never mentioned in the external literature, or who wrote it, and why it wasn’t considered valuable enough in its own right to receive repeated transcriptions, and so to circulate and survive.

Mark 4:21- some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket…”

Since this clause appears between the end of one parable and the beginning of a completely new parable, which also could have had some unknown time period in between the two, not much needs to be said for why Mark uses this clause to alert the reader that a brand new section is being entered into….

Yes, however two of Mark’s (inserted) verses here are among the 7 or 8 verses in Mark that stem from (or have parallels in) the Sermon on the Mount. It’s more plausible that AMark utilized them from Matthew than that AMatthew built his 111-verse Sermon on the Mount around them.

In fact, one could argue that it would be rather awkward for a writer to have all parables flow into each other without having some form of break or notice in between them. Therefore, the clause should not be labeled as being “interruptive” or as being used for “no good literary reason.”

Yet, the entirety of Mk 4:21-25 is interruptive in the sense of being a Markan insertion into the Matthean text.

Mark 4:23-24 - … If anyone has ears to here, let him hear.” Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear.”

Again, the explanation of a break in between two actual statements of Jesus and/or Mark’s desire to stress the phrase “Take heed what your hear” applies here.

However, it fits Jameson’s pattern and/or “change from Matthew for the sake of change.” And again, it is more unwieldy and needlessly complex to suggest that a hypothetical source of AMark came into play when the verses of Mk 4:21-25 were present in Matthew.

Examining the section after the clause with MT 7:2:

MT 7:2 – For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck…

MK 4:24 – Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.

To say that one section derived by an author looking at another author’s section which appeared in a completely different time period and a completely different setting and then throwing it into his section while making it be sufficiently different is interesting, to say the least. …

You still seem to be arguing from an unjustified viewpoint that Mark and Matthew are independent writings, with AMark having an unknown source at times. I.e., you haven’t refuted the arguments of consensual scholarly analyses that find them to be dependent, due to considerations of pericope order, verbal agreement and redactional motivations. It’s the direction of dependency that’s in question. In scholarship or science one needs to point out what’s wrong with the present understanding along with, or even before, presenting one’s own hypothesis that purports to be an improvement.

This blog is not the place to introduce your own unjustified hypothesis in opposition to those of scholars who use critical, non-evangelical-based thinking.

TJ Comments

Monday, May 19, 2008

16 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts