Snow Posted January 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 I don't believe I indicated otherwise. I'm for Marcan priority. It's still probably anachronistic to say that Matthew was correcting Mark, as if his goal was to fix Mark’s mistakes. Matthew is simply retelling the story. Here's a better run down of one such corrective instance:In Mark 1:2-3 the author says:As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"The problem is that Mark is writing from some already composed source instead of writing with the OT in front of him and is unaware that much of what he claims if from Isaiah is instead a merging of the first 9 words of the Septuagint version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphase of Malachi 3:1, and then joined with the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40.3.Matthew sees the problem and corrects the quote and attribution in his chapter 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 That would be wrong.Matthew:In = epi = upon, on, at, by, beforeroad = hodos = a way, a travelled way, a roadMark:[afar] off = makrothen = from afar, farFrom the New Testament Greek Lexicon:"The New Testament Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.""And it should now be painfuly obvious that just because Mark says makrothen doesn't mean that it wasn't also epi hodos.Do you see my point? Just because something is at a distance from you (and again i ask how far is makrothen) doesn't mean that it can't be by the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 Mark 11: 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.The account from thE author of Mark has Jesus seeing a fig tree off in the distance. Being apparently hungry, Jesus walks into the distance looking for something to eat. Upon arriving Jesus finds that there is not fruit - it is not the proper season and so Jesus reacts and curses the tree. The tree dies the next day.Matthew 21: 18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.The author of Matthew has Mark as one of his primary sources yet takes liberties with the account in Mark and revises the story to fit his own theology.No longer is the fig tree in the distance. For the author of Matthew it doesn’t make sense that Christ would walk all that distance looking for food, not knowing, as God would know, that the fruit was not in season. Instead, the fig tree is merely by the road so that Jesus doesn’t have to expend any unnecessary energy - he just happens upon the tree. In Mark, the tree takes a day to die, but Matthew, who is more concerned with the deity of Jesus, makes Jesus more powerful and the tree dies right away. Mark’s version of Jesus is more human - hungry, forgetful or unknowledgeable and then exasperated when he doesn’t get the expected meal.This is merely one of many instances where Matthew takes it upon himself to correct Mark. Since Mark is older, it is viewed as being more accurate and less revised. Matthew appears to be more interested in his version of theology and less interested in historical accuracy.I highly doubt it was a correction Snow but more of an observation of what is being seen by Matthew and what was told to Mark. Wasn't Matthew part of the twelve and part of the group that walked with Christ? This would make it a first-hand account versus Marks who I believe is a second-hand account. How many times different writers while writing at a sermon given by Joseph Smith have altered accounts of what was told? Assumption is made that Mark writings is older than Matthew. We simply don’t know the surety of such since known of us were there to account who wrote it first and was it written for the purpose to compare each other work to ensure the record was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 I agree with Ram but here something I wrote in my journal concerning the cursed Fig Tree - [skip...] 0640 - Some Fig background: historically, the fig is one of the oldest domesticated fruits on record with references dating back literally thousands of years. The tree itself is a robust, self-sufficient organism — often living for more than 100 years (more than three times the average life of other fruit bearing trees). Figs grow all over the world and come in an astonishing range of varieties and characteristics. But the one thing all figs share is their sweetness — at full ripeness they can concentrate more sugars than any tree fruit. Figs are also one of only a few tree fruits that have two distinct parts to their harvest season. The first harvest (or “Breba” fruit) comes from the branches the tree produced the previous year. In the U.S. this Breba fruit is generally available in late May through mid-June. The second harvest and main crop on the tree’s new branches grows all summer and generally is ready to harvest at the end of August through October. For those of us in the produce trade, the Breba fruit is a tantalizing (sometimes maddening) preview of the main season yet to come. Strange how when we listen to the Spirit, it will again later, gives us further clarity of on single thought (revelation) that what was given was indeed was truth and instruction from the Godhead. As I still stand behind that it was the Fig Tree that transformed the blood of Eve and allow the veil to be dropped before her eyes concerning who Lucifer was. [skip...]0715 – Elder McConkie in his teaching (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1)about cursed Fig Tree stated the following - Why did Jesus curse the fruitless fig tree? Unique among our Lord's miracles, this manifestation of divine power teaches a number of great truths:(1) By exercising his power over nature, Jesus was testifying in language written in the earth itself that be was Lord of all. As the Lord Jehovah he had in times past created all things in heaven and on earth; now, though tabernacled in mortal clay, he possessed the same eternal powers over life, death, and the forces of nature. By using these powers—as he had before done in calming the tempest, multiplying loaves and fishes, walking on the water, healing multitudes, and raising the dead—he was leaving a visible and tangible witness of his own divine Sonship.(2) Though Jesus had come to bless and save, yet he had the power to smite, destroy, and curse. "It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" (2 Ne. 2:11); if blessings are born of righteousness, their opposite, curses, must come from wickedness. True gospel ministers seek always to bless, yet curses attend rejection of their message. "Whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord." (D. & C. 132:47.) It is fitting that Jesus should leave a manifestation of his power to curse, and the fact that he chose, not a person, but a tree, is an evident act of mercy.(3) Withering and dying at Jesus' command, the fruitless fig tree stands as a type and a shadow of what shall befall hypocrites. On fig trees the fruit grows first and then the leaves. But here was a precocious tree, holding itself out as bearing fruit because its leaves were now grown, but in fact being deceptively barren. "Were it reasonable to regard the tree as possessed of moral agency, we would have to pronounce it a hypocrite; its utter barrenness coupled with its abundance of foliage made of it a type of human hypocrisy. " (Talmage, p. 527.)(4) Also: "The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom." (Talmage, p. 527.)I simply don’t believe it was the case but the tree was denying to keep the commandments or laws that governed its own realm and the Lord witnessed this. The tree was capable in bringing forth fruit but refused. At this point, it was not point for the tree to exist. As I can understand there is a teaching moment here but it was clearly not the case since the Savior said nothing but what the tree failed to do. Here is what Matthew recorded (chapter 21)- 17 ¶ And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. 18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. This is where I disagree with both McConkie and Talmage, or anyone else in adding words to the Savior original thoughts with no merit of what was being taught. The Savior was hungered in being fatigued from the previous day, saw a Fig tree while returning to the city wanted to fill this hunger. What was found was a living tree that was barren of fruit in season. Remember, the fruits grows before the leaves as stated before. Having the FATHER’s priesthood power or GOD’s Honor, He knew this tree refused to put forth fruit in season and noted its lack of sustaining the laws given it. It is a living identity or intelligence. He cursed the living tree when it violated the laws pertaining to it and began to wither on the spot. This cursing as you note, may stop the further progression of this intelligence or living identity. It is the same of cursing a perdition member of the kingdom. They will return back to chaos or matter unorganized, as inert matter. Being of no good but will be reused later for other progressing intelligences. The key here is verse 21 and 22 where the Savior stated to have faith in themselves in doing what the Savior did in cursing the tree or moving a mountain. What is not stated, it stills require the priesthood (the authority to act in) and the honor of GOD (the power to make it so). I hope you now understand such a fundamental keys are given here in doing what the Savior did in righteous. I will stop here on the matter of the Fig tree…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 · Hidden Hidden I agree with Ram but here something I wrote in my journal concerning the cursed Fig Tree - [skip...] 0640 - Some Fig background: historically, the fig is one of the oldest domesticated fruits on record with references dating back literally thousands of years. The tree itself is a robust, self-sufficient organism — often living for more than 100 years (more than three times the average life of other fruit bearing trees). Figs grow all over the world and come in an astonishing range of varieties and characteristics. But the one thing all figs share is their sweetness — at full ripeness they can concentrate more sugars than any tree fruit. Figs are also one of only a few tree fruits that have two distinct parts to their harvest season. The first harvest (or “Breba” fruit) comes from the branches the tree produced the previous year. In the U.S. this Breba fruit is generally available in late May through mid-June. The second harvest and main crop on the tree’s new branches grows all summer and generally is ready to harvest at the end of August through October. For those of us in the produce trade, the Breba fruit is a tantalizing (sometimes maddening) preview of the main season yet to come. Strange how when we listen to the Spirit, it will again later, gives us further clarity of on single thought (revelation) that what was given was indeed was truth and instruction from the Godhead. As I still stand behind that it was the Fig Tree that transformed the blood of Eve and allow the veil to be dropped before her eyes concerning who Lucifer was. [skip...]0715 – Elder McConkie in his teaching (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1)about cursed Fig Tree stated the following - Why did Jesus curse the fruitless fig tree? Unique among our Lord's miracles, this manifestation of divine power teaches a number of great truths:(1) By exercising his power over nature, Jesus was testifying in language written in the earth itself that be was Lord of all. As the Lord Jehovah he had in times past created all things in heaven and on earth; now, though tabernacled in mortal clay, he possessed the same eternal powers over life, death, and the forces of nature. By using these powers—as he had before done in calming the tempest, multiplying loaves and fishes, walking on the water, healing multitudes, and raising the dead—he was leaving a visible and tangible witness of his own divine Sonship.(2) Though Jesus had come to bless and save, yet he had the power to smite, destroy, and curse. "It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" (2 Ne. 2:11); if blessings are born of righteousness, their opposite, curses, must come from wickedness. True gospel ministers seek always to bless, yet curses attend rejection of their message. "Whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord." (D. & C. 132:47.) It is fitting that Jesus should leave a manifestation of his power to curse, and the fact that he chose, not a person, but a tree, is an evident act of mercy.(3) Withering and dying at Jesus' command, the fruitless fig tree stands as a type and a shadow of what shall befall hypocrites. On fig trees the fruit grows first and then the leaves. But here was a precocious tree, holding itself out as bearing fruit because its leaves were now grown, but in fact being deceptively barren. "Were it reasonable to regard the tree as possessed of moral agency, we would have to pronounce it a hypocrite; its utter barrenness coupled with its abundance of foliage made of it a type of human hypocrisy. " (Talmage, p. 527.)(4) Also: "The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom." (Talmage, p. 527.)I simply don’t believe it was the case but the tree was denying to keep the commandments or laws that governed its own realm and the Lord witnessed this. The tree was capable in bringing forth fruit but refused. At this point, it was not point for the tree to exist. As I can understand there is a teaching moment here but it was clearly not the case since the Savior said nothing but what the tree failed to do. Here is what Matthew recorded (chapter 21)- 17 ¶ And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. 18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. This is where I disagree with both McConkie and Talmage, or anyone else in adding words to the Savior original thoughts with no merit of what was being taught. The Savior was hungered in being fatigued from the previous day, saw a Fig tree while returning to the city wanted to fill this hunger. What was found was a living tree that was barren of fruit in season. Remember, the fruits grows before the leaves as stated before. Having the FATHER’s priesthood power or GOD’s Honor, He knew this tree refused to put forth fruit in season and noted its lack of sustaining the laws given it. It is a living identity or intelligence. He cursed the living tree when it violated the laws pertaining to it and began to wither on the spot. This cursing as you note, may stop the further progression of this intelligence or living identity. It is the same of cursing a perdition member of the kingdom. They will return back to chaos or matter unorganized, as inert matter. Being of no good but will be reused later for other progressing intelligences. The key here is verse 21 and 22 where the Savior stated to have faith in themselves in doing what the Savior did in cursing the tree or moving a mountain. What is not stated, it stills require the priesthood (the authority to act in) and the honor of GOD (the power to make it so). I hope you now understand such a fundamental keys are given here in doing what the Savior did in righteous. I will stop here on the matter of the Fig tree…. Link to comment
Yekcidmij Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Obviously the author of Matthew did not believe that the Mark account was inspired, at least not enough that he couldn't put his own spin on it - changing two details in the process.Saying it's obvious doesn't make it "obvious". And again, you are being anachronistic. We are talking about the oral culture of first century Jews in a Greco-Roman context. In that setting, Matthew is under no obligation to simply copy Mark. And Matthew's liberty to retell the story doesn't mean Matthew thought Mark wasn't inspired. In fact, in an oral culture, authors were expected to to retell it with some liberty. I would say what's obvious is that Matthew DID think Mark was inspired, otherwise he wouldn't have used Mark as an authoritative tradition and source. But we are sort-of beginning to change the subject of the OP at this point.As to whether or not Matthew was fixing Mark... he does so time after time.I was talking about a specific instance in your OP. If you want to move on to talk about other instances, that's fine. Thus far you have ignored my comments on Mark 11. Why would I go talking about other instances?Other Sources to add onto my previous list:"The Incident ofthe Withered Fig Tree in Mark 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation". Esler, Philip. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Sep05."Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?". Brown, Scott G. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Jan02."The Cursing of the Temple and the Tearing of the Veil in the Gospel of Mark". Chance, Brad J. Biblical Interpretation, Vol 15 p 268. Edited January 5, 2010 by JimmieD1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 I think that we also view "history" differently than it was viewed/written anciently. We tend to write history based upon nouns and facts, while ancients wrote according to how an event tied into their view of Deity. They focused upon the action/verb.Jim Faulconer explains it nicely here:Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult Feast upon the Word BlogIt is very likely that Mark and Matthew, each with a different audience and each with a different specific point to make, adapted "history" to match their personal story. Remember, Mark was writing to the Romans, who knew little about Judaism, but recognized the importance of miracles; while Matthew wrote to the Jews, who would understand Jewish nuances of law, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 Good point Ram...we write to an audience that they can comprehand the meaning within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relentless Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 Why bother apologizing for the differences. The author of Mark made a point to say that the tree was in the distance requiring time and effort to get there. The author of Matthew made a point of saying that the tree was merely at the side of the road, making it convenient for the passerby. No one needs you to put a spin on what the author might have said but choose not to. Uh - no. That is one of two differences, the first being the location of the tree. Read the text. As for the withering, one author depicted the withering as a non-immediate event, while the second author said it was immediate. You do not need to apologize for the difference.Oh brother. The Matthew author was even more removed from being an eyewitness than was the author of Mark, who was already at a 3rd or 4th remove from Jesus. “Matthews” source for the story was Mark.Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details.So how long is a road? Can a tree grow next to a road, yet still be far away enough to be referred to as off in the distance? I might not be up on my Jewish settlement building in Roman areas, but it seems like a road would be long enough to connect different cities, thereby making it feasible that the fig tree was both BY the road and FAR OFF.So did the author of Matthew say it was by the road and at a conveinent distance? As for the timing of the event, in one story we have the disciples discussing it right away with Jesus, in the other it is not discussed until the next day. This hardly seems to show that the withering of the tree was immedeate or not, because Mark only states that the next day the apostles saw it. No where in Mark does it say it took a whole night (or as you inferred, a day).As for the author of Mark, how do you know that he was 3 or 4 times removed from Jesus? I know you say that it is accepted scholarly teachings, but that seems like saying "I don't know, but I am using this hypothesis as a fact"As for your statement "Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details", I hardly know where to begin. I guess that I will start with your supposition that the Author of Matthew is even further removed from Jesus than the Author of Mark (according to current scholarly HYPOTHESES). Why then would Matthew be reading Mark and retelling a story that he was there to witness? Or did you mean the Author of Matthew was retelling a story that he learned from reading Mark? If that is the case, why did you not state it as such?Of course your origional statement is also a mere theory, not an actual fact (not that this has ever stopped you from presenting theories as fact). We can not know if the Author of Matthew was simply re-telling and changing what he read in Mark, as we weren't there. But go ahead and try to prove that it is not a theory, and is indeed fact. I predict you can't and won't.Matthew's source for the fig story is Mark.Do I need to address this again? How do you know? There is no proof, and that is what is required to make a definative statement such as this.What we do know is that Mark represented the tree's withering as a non-immediate event while the author of Matthew took Mark's story (Matthew's source) and altered it to make it an immediate event.You don't have to read into it. You can just accept the accounts as described as being the way the authors wanted them to be.You are reading into it. By saying that it was not an immediate event in Mark, you are speaking for Mark. In Mark, Jesus curses the tree, and 7 verses later the following morning the disciples see it has withered. There is no mention of how long it took.Does it make you dizzy - applying the apologetic spin?"Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf...""Seeing a lone fig tree by the road..."(from the NASB)Only someone trying to argue a pre-decided point would try to argue that "by the road" and "at a distance" convey the same meaning. Those of us who can read English, however, understand instantly what the difference is.Matthew could have chosen to quote Mark. He didn't. He chose to convey something different. You can wish it differently all you like but it's in black and white.So what are you arguing? You have taken your interpretation and are saying it is the correct one. Did I miss something? Has your opinion suddenly become more correct than anyone else's opinion? Or do you suppose your opinion is fact? As for those of us who read english, well, I admit there is a difference, but not a contradiction. So does that mean I can only halfway read english?Also, read down a little bit more, do you think that the disciples could actually LITERALLY move a mountain into the sea by commanding it to do so? If so, then doesn't that lend some sort of credability to the whole world flooding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 It is very likely that Mark and Matthew, each with a different audience and each with a different specific point to make, adapted "history" to match their personal story. Remember, Mark was writing to the Romans, who knew little about Judaism, but recognized the importance of miracles; while Matthew wrote to the Jews, who would understand Jewish nuances of law, etc.That's a nice thought - so why did the Jewish audience need/want/understand a tree that was off in the distance and withered immediately but the "Roman" audience was better suited to a tree that was closer by and took longer to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 So how long is a road? Can a tree grow next to a road, yet still be far away enough to be referred to as off in the distance? I might not be up on my Jewish settlement building in Roman areas, but it seems like a road would be long enough to connect different cities, thereby making it feasible that the fig tree was both BY the road and FAR OFF.So did the author of Matthew say it was by the road and at a conveinent distance? As for the timing of the event, in one story we have the disciples discussing it right away with Jesus, in the other it is not discussed until the next day. This hardly seems to show that the withering of the tree was immedeate or not, because Mark only states that the next day the apostles saw it. No where in Mark does it say it took a whole night (or as you inferred, a day).Spin, spin, spin spin, spin... all to tell us why the NT doesn't mean what it says.As for the author of Mark, how do you know that he was 3 or 4 times removed from Jesus? I know you say that it is accepted scholarly teachings, but that seems like saying "I don't know, but I am using this hypothesis as a fact"I already referred posters to a post a made on the topic. If you want to know who scholars come to understand such things, perhaps you ought to try reading them.As for your statement "Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details", I hardly know where to begin. I guess that I will start with your supposition that the Author of Matthew is even further removed from Jesus than the Author of Mark (according to current scholarly HYPOTHESES). Why then would Matthew be reading Mark and retelling a story that he was there to witness?Newsflash - Matthew was not an eyewitness.Or did you mean the Author of Matthew was retelling a story that he learned from reading Mark? If that is the case, why did you not state it as such?Read the post. That is exactly what I said: " The Matthew author was even more removed from being an eyewitness than was the author of Mark, who was already at a 3rd or 4th remove from Jesus. “Matthews” source for the story was Mark. Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details."Of course your origional statement is also a mere theory, not an actual fact (not that this has ever stopped you from presenting theories as fact). We can not know if the Author of Matthew was simply re-telling and changing what he read in Mark, as we weren't there. But go ahead and try to prove that it is not a theory, and is indeed fact. I predict you can't and won't.It's a theory... in the same way that the age of the earth and evolution, and the inaccuracy of the flood as described in the Bible, and the distance of the sun from the earth, and that the USA is south of Canada are all theories. Perhaps they all can't be proven in an absolute sense but they are the best theories that are available and educated people not driven by placing a priority on superstition accept them as the best way currently known to understand the situations they describe.If you don't like scholarship and history, believe whatever medieval dogma makes you feel good. On the other hand, the Enlightenment set people free to accept beliefs that best described reality over dogma that made little sense in the face of the facts.Do I need to address this again? How do you know? There is no proof, and that is what is required to make a definative statement such as this.You're redundant. I don't know. I just understand the scholarly consensus. If you want to know what it is and why, study.You are reading into it. By saying that it was not an immediate event in Mark, you are speaking for Mark. In Mark, Jesus curses the tree, and 7 verses later the following morning the disciples see it has withered. There is no mention of how long it took.Do you even read the posts you are responding to? I said: "What we do know is that Mark represented the tree's withering as a non-immediate event while the author of Matthew took Mark's story (Matthew's source) and altered it to make it an immediate event."If you can find a factual error in what I said, post it. Matthew's version is immediate, Mark's version is not immediate. At best it is a mystery but it is not depicted as immediate. Seriously - read.So what are you arguing? You have taken your interpretation and are saying it is the correct one. Did I miss something? Has your opinion suddenly become more correct than anyone else's opinion? Or do you suppose your opinion is fact? As for those of us who read english, well, I admit there is a difference, but not a contradiction. So does that mean I can only halfway read english?It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Matthew says in the distance and Mark says by the side of the road. Had Matthew wanted to say the same thing as his source, he would have. he choose to say something different. It may not be a contradiction - you apologist can find a million ways to spin what is plainly said but it is clearly a difference. Perhaps you could argue that Matthew changed it from 'by the road' to 'off in the distance' not because he wanted to add a nuance but because he was not paying attention and accuracy didn't matter. Also, read down a little bit more, do you think that the disciples could actually LITERALLY move a mountain into the sea by commanding it to do so? If so, then doesn't that lend some sort of credability to the whole world flooding?Of course not - except in only the most theoretical of paradigms. Ever notice how no such miracles have never been verified? Ever wonder why such miracles only happen when time and location and education level of the people make it impossible to check?If someone got up in Fast and Testimony meeting and testified that while camping with the scouts, they got lost and then trapped in a box canyon and were too tired to get back out about and so they commanded the mountains to move into the sea and the mountains did and they escaped to testify in Sacrament Meeting... imagine if you brought your neighbors who were investigating the Church to the meeting. Would you feel pleased and filled with faith or embarrassed and wished you had picked another week for them to attend when the crazies weren't in attendance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Saying it's obvious doesn't make it "obvious". And again, you are being anachronistic. We are talking about the oral culture of first century Jews in a Greco-Roman context. In that setting, Matthew is under no obligation to simply copy Mark. And Matthew's liberty to retell the story doesn't mean Matthew thought Mark wasn't inspired. In fact, in an oral culture, authors were expected to to retell it with some liberty. I would say what's obvious is that Matthew DID think Mark was inspired, otherwise he wouldn't have used Mark as an authoritative tradition and source. But we are sort-of beginning to change the subject of the OP at this point.I for one would love to see some evidence that Jews in the first century CE felt at liberty to alter inspired scripture.Do you have any?I was talking about a specific instance in your OP. If you want to move on to talk about other instances, that's fine. Thus far you have ignored my comments on Mark 11. Why would I go talking about other instances?What comment do you want? That you sound smart when you say inclusivo instead of chiasmus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 I highly doubt it was a correction Snow but more of an observation of what is being seen by Matthew and what was told to Mark. Wasn't Matthew part of the twelve and part of the group that walked with Christ? This would make it a first-hand account versus Marks who I believe is a second-hand account.The author of Matthew is unknown. The attribution to Matthew was a 2nd century guess. The old theory was that Mark came after Matthew as a condensed version but that has now been abandoned by all responsible scholars except the fundamentalists. The consensus critical scholarly opinion is that Matthew used Mark as one of his key sources. The dating on Mark is 70-75 CE and the dating on Matthew is 80-90 CE (I'm taking these dates from L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity.How many times different writers while writing at a sermon given by Joseph Smith have altered accounts of what was told?Do you have some evidence that these verses in question were changed or is that just a shot in the dark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 I for one would love to see some evidence that Jews in the first century CE felt at liberty to alter inspired scripture.Do you have any?You must not have read any aggadic or midrashic material, not to mention things like Jubilees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Or targum, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yekcidmij Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) I for one would love to see some evidence that Jews in the first century CE felt at liberty to alter inspired scripture.I would suggest reading on oral cultures, ancient near east, or the 1st century Greco-Roman world. Rohrbaugh, Malina, DeSilva, Van Der Toorn, Witherington, Wright, and Dunn jump off the top of my head. Dunn's, "Jesus Remembered" vol 1 pp 173-254 is good and give good additional sources. Any of the guys listed as references in my first list are good for this. I think Ben Witherington has a free blog somewhere; I imagine he talks about it some there.What comment do you want? That you sound smart when you say inclusivo instead of chiasmus?I was hoping that you would come to terms with the literary evidence in Mark 11. I'm not going to play "I'm better than you" games. And an inclusio isn't the same thing as a chiasmus since they don't always have the same structure. That's why I used the word "inlusio" and "sandwich". Funny how you would accuse me of trying to play smarty pants when I've been using the word "sandwich" for a literary technique. Edited January 6, 2010 by JimmieD1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relentless Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 It's a theory... in the same way that the age of the earth and evolution, and the inaccuracy of the flood as described in the Bible, and the distance of the sun from the earth, and that the USA is south of Canada are all theories. Perhaps they all can't be proven in an absolute sense but they are the best theories that are available and educated people not driven by placing a priority on superstition accept them as the best way currently known to understand the situations they describe.If you don't like scholarship and history, believe whatever medieval dogma makes you feel good. On the other hand, the Enlightenment set people free to accept beliefs that best described reality over dogma that made little sense in the face of the facts.It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Matthew says in the distance and Mark says by the side of the road. Had Matthew wanted to say the same thing as his source, he would have. he choose to say something different. It may not be a contradiction - you apologist can find a million ways to spin what is plainly said but it is clearly a difference. Perhaps you could argue that Matthew changed it from 'by the road' to 'off in the distance' not because he wanted to add a nuance but because he was not paying attention and accuracy didn't matter. Of course not - except in only the most theoretical of paradigms. Ever notice how no such miracles have never been verified? Ever wonder why such miracles only happen when time and location and education level of the people make it impossible to check?If someone got up in Fast and Testimony meeting and testified that while camping with the scouts, they got lost and then trapped in a box canyon and were too tired to get back out about and so they commanded the mountains to move into the sea and the mountains did and they escaped to testify in Sacrament Meeting... imagine if you brought your neighbors who were investigating the Church to the meeting. Would you feel pleased and filled with faith or embarrassed and wished you had picked another week for them to attend when the crazies weren't in attendance?No miracles? Well please explain in a "scholarly way" this. A mother dies (ie is pulseless for 4 minutes) and they remove her baby via cesarian, who is also limp and lifeless. Then both suddenly come back to life. How did this happen? Her doctors don't know, medical experts are stumped, yet it happened.Also, it isn't a theory that the US is south of Canada. Even when considering Barrow Point Alaska (71'23'20 N) it is still further south than Alert, Nunavut (82'28 N). I guess the scholars didn't address that in their last few meetings...So you are saying that Jesus' promise to his disciples was a theoretical paradigm? Interesting. So when Jesus walked on water, and then held Peter's hand and he too walked on water, was it only theoretically happening? Or maybe it was a pattern or model?I guess when Jesus fed thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, the people were actually eating theories. Makes sense, in a scholarly sort of way.Also, if your example of a box canyon moving into a sea happened, I am fairly certain I would hear about it before fast and testimony meeting; it would probably be up on youtube, (of course, you scholars don't have need for youtube, do you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 That's a nice thought - so why did the Jewish audience need/want/understand a tree that was off in the distance and withered immediately but the "Roman" audience was better suited to a tree that was closer by and took longer to die?Romans like drama and suspense? Cliffhanger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 No miracles? Well please explain in a "scholarly way" this. A mother dies (ie is pulseless for 4 minutes) and they remove her baby via cesarian, who is also limp and lifeless. Then both suddenly come back to life. How did this happen? Her doctors don't know, medical experts are stumped, yet it happened.It looks like you are proposing that results of unknown causes are to be understood as miracles... and I assume that you also propose that miracles from the Christian understanding of God.How about this instead: The event is not currently understood.Which, my theory, or your theory, is more credible?Also, it isn't a theory that the US is south of Canada. Even when considering Barrow Point Alaska (71'23'20 N) it is still further south than Alert, Nunavut (82'28 N). I guess the scholars didn't address that in their last few meetings...For your claim to be true, it presuppose that solipsism has been disproven.Has it?So you are saying that Jesus' promise to his disciples was a theoretical paradigm? Interesting. So when Jesus walked on water, and then held Peter's hand and he too walked on water, was it only theoretically happening? Or maybe it was a pattern or model?I guess when Jesus fed thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, the people were actually eating theories. Makes sense, in a scholarly sort of way.Please provide proof that such things happened, and then I'll comment.Do you think I'll have to wait long?Also, if your example of a box canyon moving into a sea happened, I am fairly certain I would hear about it before fast and testimony meeting; it would probably be up on youtube, (of course, you scholars don't have need for youtube, do you).... and the point is, such things do not happen, now that we can check on them. They only happened when they couldn't be checked.Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Romans like drama and suspense? Cliffhanger?It was your claim. I imagined, incorrectly it seems, that you had some basis for saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 You must not have read any aggadic or midrashic material, not to mention things like Jubilees.Point taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 It was your claim. I imagined, incorrectly it seems, that you had some basis for saying it.Theories are just that, theories. Given we are talking about a couple related short stories that have no background to them in Matthew and Mark, all we can do is speculate. As it is, your opening question does exactly that: open the door for theories and speculation.Your question suggested I might be a mind reader for ancient Jews/Romans, so I thought I'd give you a possible answer.As it is, your speculations on this have also been just that. I have yet to see any basis for your claim that Matthew was dissing Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Theories are just that, theories. Given we are talking about a couple related short stories that have no background to them in Matthew and Mark, all we can do is speculate. As it is, your opening question does exactly that: open the door for theories and speculation.Your question suggested I might be a mind reader for ancient Jews/Romans, so I thought I'd give you a possible answer.As it is, your speculations on this have also been just that. I have yet to see any basis for your claim that Matthew was dissing Mark.Well - no.Speculation refers to conjecture without regard to or consideration or without possession of the facts. Your suggestion, and correct me if I am wrong, was just made up, by you, without any basis in fact or evidence.My suggestion, on the other hand, was a fact or at least a fact if the consensus of critical bible scholar is correct - that Matthew had Mark as one of his primary sources. If that is correct, Matthew did IN POINT OF FACT make a conscious decision to retell the story differently than Mark. As to Matthew's reasons for doing so, either he changed what you believe to be holy inspired scripture for no reason at all, or because he had a reason. If he had a reason for changing the two details, what was it? I dunno. I can't read his mind but I offered a reasonable motivation for doing so.... that's very different than just making things up which is what you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 If he had a reason for changing the two details, what was it? I dunno.Another source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Another source?Could be I guess - is your guess based on some evidence - can you give us a critical reference that agrees or did you just dream it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts