by Leolaia 77 Replies latest watchtower bible
just maybe not confident of having anything worthy enough to add.The "research-three" aren't condescending, though, and I like that
Amen LT.
Most do not have the knowledge of these things, but they enjoy and benifit from reading the replies.
I agree this particular threesome is a sigh of relief as opposed to the condemnatory actions other threesomes have displayed. One group are non-believers....and the other group is. Perhaps this is the difference.
Gumby
Gumby:Damn!
I'm sitting here nodding my head agreeing with ya, and neither of us have used the word b*st*rd!!!
LOL
I, for one, really enjoy reading these threads, though by their very nature the form of formatting used doesn't make this easy.
the form of formatting used doesn't make this easy.
Yeah......and the words used are pretty tuff for a poor BASTARD like me!
Gumby
I just wondered WHY nobody comments on these types of threads.
Id like to read it but im 2 lazy.
Leolaia...I was just considering the same as you suggested. Perhaps the miniApocalypse was retouched after 135. It makes a lot of sense. Many of the elements could be reinterpreted in either context. The disgusting thing standing where it ought not from Danny could have bee seen as the Temple to Jupiter that Hadrian built on the exact spot where the Jewish temple had been. According to Eusebius (by inference) it was only then that the Jewish hatred for Xtians began. Perhaps for refusing to support the rebellion. Some consider the using Papius or Clement of Alexandria as support of early composition for Mark a mistake. We have no copies of them and only late quotes or paraphases that may very well be simple apologetic creations.
I like your proposal tho, as it seems to require the least amount of conspiracy. As to your being too conservative, I laughed, your a radical in conservative covering! There are others there that attempt to reel in the more speculative discussions but your dedication to research would make a great contribution. BTW John Abrows has dropped the Martha being the betrayer line. He now proposes there was no betrayer in the scene initially, only later was Peter created to fill the role (to better align with Greek tragedies) , then later still the Proto-Orthoxy created Judas from OT material to clean up Peters image. Who knows, but I liked the Jealous wife idea.
Peacefulpete....The reference to the "desolating sacrilege" occurs in Mark and Matthew and derives from Daniel 9:27, 11:31 which refers to the removal of the altar of continual offering and the "setting up" of the "abomination that makes desolate" in the temple. The phrase shiqqusim meshomem (which evokes the idols and "baals" of the wicked kings of old by punning the Baal epithet shamen "heavenly king"; cf. also 1 Kings 11:7) originally referred to the installation of the altar of Zeus Olympius in the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes IV in the year 168 B.C.:
"Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah." (1 Maccabees 1:54)
"The king sent an old men from Athens to compel the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs and live no long by the laws of God; and to profane the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and that on Mount Gerizim to Zeus, patron of strangers, as the inhabitants had requested. The imposition of this evil was oppresive and altogether intolerable." (2 Maccabees 6:1-3)
Although the reference fits nicely with the sacrilege you refer to after the bar-Kochba revolt, there were earlier sacrileges or threats of sacrilege that the phrase could also apply to: (1) King Herod (37-4 B.C.) "made and set up over the great gate of the Temple a sacred and very precious great golden eagle" (Josephus, Antiq. Jud., 1. XVII, c. vi, 2 ), (2) The attempts during the time of Tiberius Caesar and Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26-36) to set up imperial eagle standards (i.e. the bird of Jupiter) which also bore the Caesar's image at the Tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple; according to Josephus, the Temple priests resisted the sacrilege saying, "Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple" (Ant. Jud., 1. XVIII, c. iii (iv), 1, De bell. Jud., ix (xiv), 2-3), (3) According to Philo (20 BC.-A.D. 42), "Pilate laid up in the Temple by night the imperial emblems, and from that time the Jews were involved in rebellion and mutual troubles" (Philo Jud.; cf. Leg. ad Caium 38), (4) The order by Caligula in A.D. 39 to erect his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem while leading a large army to the city (Ant. Jud., XVIII, 261; Tacitus, Histories 5.9), (5) Following the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, General Titus and his army "brought their [eagle] ensigns to the Temple and set them over against its eastern gate, and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus Emperor" (De Bell. Jud., 6.6.1). The Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b also relates a story about Titus defiling the Holy of Holies with a prostitute and slashing the curtain that seperates the Holy of Holies. With the continued threat of sacrileges at the hands of the Romans (who knew that one of the main things that made the Jews different was that "they allow no images (simulacra) in their cities and temples," Tacitus, Histories 5.4), the expectation of a further fulfillment to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 remained pretty constant through the first century. In fact, the threat by Caligula must have made a deep impression because it appears distinctly in Revelation 13:14-15 as the "statue of the Beast [emperor]" that is set up for worship, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 probably refers to the same thing regarding the Rebel "enthroning himself in God's sanctuary". Although the threat did not materialize because of Caligula's death, Jews believed that his successors would pick up where he left off: "Fear remained that some emperor would command the same thing" (Tacitus, Annals 12.343). Thus when Titus marched to Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and began to take the city, there would have surely been speculation that he would do as threatened by Caligula. The presence of the same theme in Revelation and 2 Thessalonians thus suggests that the events of A.D. 135 need not necessitate the inclusion of the expectation; it was already an expectation of long standing.
Still, when I compare the apocalyptic sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I think it is quite possible that the reference to Daniel may be a later development. This is because the parallel text in Luke refers not to Daniel's "desolating abomination" but to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). As I showed in my Secret Mark and Empty Tomb posts, Matthew and Luke may preserve an older, more original form of the Markan text than canonical Mark. In this case, Matthew agrees with Mark (though differs in the details), while Luke's version actually fits better with the context: fleeing to the mountains while a city is surrounded (cf. the following verse) makes more intuitive sense than fleeing to the mountains when an idol is set up. It may be, then, that the original reference in Mark was to the surrounding of the city by armies -- a clear reference to the siege of A.D. 68-70 -- and canonical Mark and Matthew changed the reference to a still future expectation of the desolating sacrilege (it has also been pointed out that Matthew and Luke do not use the same edition of Mark). Similarly, Luke specifically states that "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles" in v. 24, which is also missing in the parallel accounts. There is one feature of the apocalypse in particular that makes me suspect later redaction (and preservation of the earlier account by Luke) -- the reference to persecution in synagogues. The version in Luke reads:
"But before all this [terrors and great signs of heaven] they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to synagogues and prisons [sunagogas kai phulakas], and you will be brought before kings and governors [basileis kai hegemonas] for my name's sake. This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and a wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict." (Luke 21:12-15)
Now here the followers are said to be "delivered up" to "synagogues and prisons", brought before "kings and governors" (in that order), and most significantly, Jesus is said to give his followers "a mouth and a wisdom" to help defend themselves in their tribunals. The parallel passage in Mark however is worded quite differently:
"But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up; for they will deliver you up to councils [sunedria]; and you will be beaten in synagogues [sunagogas]; and you will stand before governors and kings [hegemonon kai basileon] for my sake, to bear testimony before them. And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour [ekeine te hora], for it is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit [to pneuma to hagion]." (Mark 13:9-11)
In this text, Jesus' followers are said to be delivered to "councils" and beaten in "synagogues", the order between "governors and kings" is reversed, and instead of being given "a mouth and wisdom" to speak in their defense, Jesus says that the "Holy Spirit" would for speaking for them. The first of these changes is interesting because it fits the context better than the Lukan version; Sanhedrins were the places where arrested people were "delivered up" before going to "prison," not synagogues. This has been corrected in the Markan version by referring to synagogues as where Christians would be "beaten". On the basis of this, I have a hypothesis of how the text was altered:
(1) In the original version, no longer extant, the phrase was "deliver[ing] you up to councils and prisons [sunedria kai phulakas]." This makes the best sense because trial at the Sanhedrin comes before imprisonment.
(2) In a later recension, the word sunedria became replaced with sunagoges, probably because of the similarity of the two words and probably because of increasing difficulties of Christians at synagogues. This is the version that Luke knew, and he refers to "delivering you up to synagogues and prisons [sunagogas kai phulakas]." Simply replacing the word doesn't make much sense tho, because there is no legal system for delivering people up to synagoges (as there are with Sanhedrins).
(3) In a separate recension, the original text was amended in a different way: "councils" was retained as the first item of the pair but phulakas was replaced by sunagogas. When you look at the Greek text, the two items are paired after the verb "deliver up" in just the same way as in Luke: "They will deliver you to councils and to synagogues [paradosousin humas eis sundria kai eis sunagogas]," but Mark severs the connection of "synagogues" with the first verb by tacking on the verb daresesthe "you will be beaten" at the end of the phrase. This phrasing, which preserves superficially the original word order, succeeds better than the Lukan version by referring to persecution in synagogues rather than Christians being sent there for judgment. The reference to beatings in synagogues is therefore a later development in the tradition.
But what is really fascinating about this text is inclusion of two new items: a reference to a coming "hour" of judgement and a reference to "the Holy Spirit". Amazingly, these features occur in another text in the Farewell Speeches in the Gospel of John which also makes mention of persecution in the synagogues:
"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues [aposunagogous]; indeed the hour [hora] is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." (John 15:26-16:2) "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit [to pneuma to hagion], whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to rememberance all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)
It seems quite possible that the text of canonical Mark was influenced by John, or at least the Johannine tradition. The main difference is that Mark has the followers "beaten" in synagogues while John refers to them being rejected by the synagogues. Mark is at least closer to John than Luke which conveys the opposite meaning -- of Christians being delivered up to synagogues. Like John, Mark claims that the Holy Spirit will help the disciples know what to say -- a role very reminiscent of the Paraclete in John. Luke only promises that the disciples will have the mouth and wisdom to defend themselves with no mention of the Spirit. Both Mark and John also refer to the "hour" at which the judgment and execution comes. What makes the parallel to John even more striking is the parallel passage in Matthew, which as we have seen tends to follow Mark more than Luke:
"Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matthew 10:17-20)
Interestingly, Matthew places this passage not in the Little Apocalypse but after the appointing of the Twelve. It contains all the features that made Mark divergent from Luke (cf. the order "governors and kings," the mention of "councils" and "synagogues," the mention of "that hour," etc.), but interestingly in the phrase about councils and synagogues, Matthew tinkers with the wording that obscures the original parallelism of Luke (e.g. the preposition eis "to" is used with both in Mark but Matthew changes the second preposition to en "in" before the word sunagogais, adds the definite article tais before sunagogais which does not occur before sunedria, and adds auton "of them" after sunagogais which again is missing in the case of sunedria). What is most striking, however, is that instead of referring to "the Holy Spirit," Matthew makes reference to "the Spirit of your Father" [to pneuma tou patros humon], which exactly recalls John's reference to the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Truth as "proceeding from the Father" and who "the Father will send" (John 14:26; 15:26-27). I then checked to see if Matthew anywhere else made reference to the "Spirit of the Father" or like expressions, and indeed there are none. This is the only instance in the gospel where we find such a reference.
So there does appear to be some interesting evidence of textual changes between different editions of Mark and texts in the other gospels.
Hi Gumby! I?m sorry I misunderstood your post, but I'm relieved now. I thought you were somehow upset about this thread and worried why, since I had noticed you were interested in similar subjects a few months ago. Anyway, I agree that our interests may change a lot with time: at the moment I really enjoy the discussion although my part in it is mostly questioning (which is much easier!); Leolaia?s amazing familiarity with ancient Jewish and Christian literature and Peacefulpete?s challenging "Pagan" insight are really opening my too ?internal? Bible perspective. As you said, I guess it can be useful to anyone comes to this place of interest sooner or later. I personally wish I could have read such things much earlier.
Take care,
Narkissos
Leolaia:
I found your reconstruction of the textual history of Mt 10 // Mk 13 // Lk 21 // Jn 14 quite compelling.
On the relationship of the Pauline letters with the "sayings of the Lord", I will try (perhaps not succeed) to address your objections (following your list):
1) IMO the difference (formal correspondence not referred to the Lord vs. non-formal correspondence referred to the Lord) points to a different kind of tradition transmission (pleonastic, sorry) as far as Paul is concerned. That is, when Paul explicitly refers to "the Lord" he never writes anything similar to the Gospels, even though analogous ideas may be present in another form in the Gospels as we know them. This may mean that the knowledge of "Jesus' teaching" Paul has through the Hellenistic churches is quite independent from the knowledge he has of literary material which was later presented as "Jesus' teaching".
2) The argument that Paul mentions the Lord only when and because he paraphrases sounds weak to me. If authority is at stake, the challenge would be far better matched (especially in a mostly oral context) by quoting formally ? if such a thing could be done. If Paul does not quote the Lord formally (from the standpoint of Gospel tradition), it is because he cannot do it ? or because the Lord?s sayings he refers to are known in a different form in the community he addresses.
3) The author of EpJames would also have made a better point in his own context had he quoted Jesus, if the material he uses was known to him as Jesus? words (my provisional conclusion: he knew the material, but not as Jesus? words).
4) About Rm 13:7 I must correct my hastily classification: actually there is a tenuous but important verbal link to Mt 22:21//, the characteristic use of apodidômi (taxes are something to be given back, which is not a very common and natural thought as far as I can guess).
5) I really wonder if 1 Th 4:15 can be seen as parallel to the ?first and last? sayings in Mt 19:28ff or Lk 14:20 at all. This seems slightly farfetched IMHO. If it is not, this refers to a "saying of the Lord" which is altogether absent from the Gospel tradition. (But this can also mean extatic revelation.)
6) The fact is that the Gospel-like formula in 1 Co 10:27 is not mentioned in the context of mission such as in Luke 10:8. The possibility exists that this is in fact a Pauline expression which Luke brought into a new context (no parallel in Matthew), and that the parallel in (final) GThomas (also in the context of mission) is subsequent to that.
7) There is no doubt that the paraenetic sections of the Pauline letters lean heavily on non-pauline material, especially church tradition. However, the difference between formal analogies not referred to the Lord and non-formal analogies referred to the Lord may indicate that in his sources most of the Gospel material was not yet ascribed to Jesus...
I'll see if I can find something on that (and on the Kingdom of God issue) in my library tomorrow...
Dynamite stuff. I need a dictionary every time I read your posts guys. Leolaia..I think we are agreeing. It becomes necessary to qualify any statement about date of writing of Mark or any other book. Dating nearly needs be done on a verse by verse basis. Simplistic comments that surmise a date for a book because an early writer made reference to it or quoted a passage, are likely to be misleading.
Narkissos....Thanks for the very long and informative post. This is all so interesting isn't it? You may be right on this matter; we don't know how Paul knew this didactic material. But the lack of attribution to the formal parallels does not necessarily constitute positive evidence of this. I would have to go back to the book to refresh my memory on the evidence, but from what I recall from the Apostolic Fathers and Catholic Epistles, there is a real looseness in allusion to Jesus sayings where in most cases the language is just reflected without attribution; 1 Clement's allusion to the Parable of the Sower is a great example of this. The same holds true for allusions to Paul's letters in the Fathers -- in most cases the language is just reflected without Paul cited as the authority. That doesn't mean Paul's epistles weren't known under his name. It is quite possible that Paul had a catechismal source like the Didache that he used. But when Paul specifies "the Lord says" or "the Lord's teaching" he is not quoting a specific text but imho asserting that his own wording (and interpretation) of a particular teaching has its authority in the Lord. The "Lord's teaching" that Paul refers to is certainly not foreign to the gospel tradition and has a lot in common thematically with the formal parallels.
