Well...I tried.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You could be right, but I have my doubts. The impression I am left with from the gospels is that everything was 'accomplished' (in respect of a new covenant and the Old law being abolished (which after all was what Paul was on about) by Jesus dying and Or being resurrected. And for Luke in particular when Jesus very obviously Hadn't returned while some of those supposedly standing there were still alive was thinking in terms of the 'Kingdom of God' not having to wait until Jesus came again. It was within you'. which is to say, belonging to the Church and belief in its' teachings.

That detail being arguable, are we in agreement that the Luke and Mark passage about the Law not passing away was common to both (but not Mark, and therefore not synoptic original text) and that both appear to have amended it? (1). Luke saying that it will be difficult for it to pass away (but not impossible for God ) or that it would never, never ever, pass away. Until Jesus gave the signal?

But it's cobblers anyway as Jesus in the Synoptic original material DID trash the law, and indeed the commandments (particularly Sabbath observance) and the remark about it not passing away (in Q) had to be fiddled in by each adapting it to fit in their own way.

Makes sense?

Except Luke says the law and the prophets were until John. Matthew says until heaven and earth are no more. It makes more sense to me that Matthew is correcting Mark's Pauline theology, and Luke tries to fix the difference with his version.

Matthew only has one instance of Jesus breaking the Sabbath, with the taking of grain. Except he does not, it is the disciples. And taking standing grain may not have been illegal. Matthew is also the only one who hopes the abomination of desolation does not occur on the Sabbath.

I still see Matthew as a Jewish Christian text, not a Pauline one.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So you think he did make it up rather than get the Jesus-quote from the Apostles? Indeed the more I read of Paul, the more I am inclined to believe that he got 'nothing' from the apostles other than this idea that Jesus had been the messiah, his spirit had gone to heaven (and nobody cared much about the body) and it would come again to clean and mop -up, and the dead would resurrect in a new body.

Paul SAYS he received no teachings from men, but he must have known what was being taught for him to persecute Christians (who were at that stage still Jewish). And Paul does not say where Jesus was crucified, only that he was a divine being who took on human form. And this previous knowledge would have had an effect on his vision, so he may have believed he had all this from his vision.

Note also that 1 Peter says Jesus will come, not that he will come again.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Hmmm.... I'm not sure. Matthew has mia keraia and Luke has Kerain. And I have to excuse it as an adaptation in their own terms of a common textual idea. You speak Greek. Do they look to you like a common origin?

Luke has mian kerain. Both mean one stroke of the pen, except one is nominative, the other is accusative. The phrase 'the heaven and the earth' and the same use of other words tells us they have a source in common. For me, it is Matthew 'correcting' Mark, with Luke 'correcting' Matthew.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Luke has mian kerain. Both mean one stroke of the pen, except one is nominative, the other is accusative. The phrase 'the heaven and the earth' and the same use of other words tells us they have a source in common. For me, it is Matthew 'correcting' Mark, with Luke 'correcting' Matthew.

Where is it is Mark? It shouldn't be in Mark at all unless it is synoptic original. If it isn't it's "Q"

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Except Luke says the law and the prophets were until John. Matthew says until heaven and earth are no more. It makes more sense to me that Matthew is correcting Mark's Pauline theology, and Luke tries to fix the difference with his version.

That's how I see it, too. Btw, I think you'll find 'law and prophets in Matthew, too, but in a different position. The evangelists combined the text in various ways to suit themselves.

Matthew only has one instance of Jesus breaking the Sabbath, with the taking of grain. Except he does not, it is the disciples. And taking standing grain may not have been illegal. Matthew is also the only one who hopes the abomination of desolation does not occur on the Sabbath.

Not as many as the others, but he has Matt 16 (healing the withered hand, and this is clearly Sabbath -breaking. And even if the disciples were doing it rather than he was, he had no problem with it. It looks of course trivial to the non -Jew, but that doesn't alter the fact that Jesus excused sabbath -breaking in almost any context using the David and Shewbreead rubbish. Sabbath breaking was the point of the this whole episode.

I still see Matthew as a Jewish Christian text, not a Pauline one.

And I still see Mark as in many ways close to the original Christian story (which shown Paulinist influence and goes a lot further, as i said), though in many ways Luke is also close, especially in not having the 'great omission; material. Which itself debars Mark from BEING the actual original, apart from the confusion over where Bethsaida was, which Luke (who isn't brilliant at Holy Land geography) doesn't make, and Pilate's surprise, which neither of the others have.

I hardly need comment on the idea that Mark (if original and having a resurrection, now lost ) could hardly have been the source for Matthew and Luke, who contradict pretty much all the way.

Incidentally, I have had a couple of debates about whether Luke is based on Matthew. I can tell you that the fellow left in the end but he'd spent most of the debate denying the evidence that Luke couldn't be based on Matthew and pretty much had to wave away monstrous contradictions as though they didn't matter. I agree they all three have a common origin which can be seen pretty clearly, but the all differ. None can itself be the original form. In fact, John is (like Luke) surprisingly close to the original story - once you get rid of the debates and sermons.

Paul SAYS he received no teachings from men, but he must have known what was being taught for him to persecute Christians (who were at that stage still Jewish). And Paul does not say where Jesus was crucified, only that he was a divine being who took on human form. And this previous knowledge would have had an effect on his vision, so he may have believed he had all this from his vision.

Note also that 1 Peter says Jesus will come, not that he will come again.

I would certainly agree that Paul must have been aware of the messianic claim, and probably that the disciples believed the messianic spirit had gone back to heaven and would come again, thought that Might just be Paul's own brainwave. And Paul doesn't need to know, nor care where the crucifixion and burial happened. We know that it couldn't have been North of the Hasmonean wall (where the present sepulchres are) but almost certainly on the Mount of Olives. Indeed, if we take the Gospel accounts as reliable (I don't) it had to be, if the soldier who saw 'these things' (like the temple veil ripping) on the ridge between the Temple and Bethany is where he had to be.

What's the Peter 1 ref? I had a skip and couldn't locate it. In any case, it's supposed to be by Cephas, so even if authentic (I have doubts) so has no bearing on Paulinist doctrine or what was carried over into the Gospels.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Where is it is Mark? It shouldn't be in Mark at all unless it is synoptic original. If it isn't it's "Q"

Mark 7:18 He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 19 because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"

The pericope starts with the disciples not washing their hands before they eat. Mark then says ALL foods are clean, and does not refer afterwards to the washing of hands. Matthew, being on the Jewish side, misses out the making all foods clean reference before reminding the readers the pericope is about washing of hands before eating.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Not as many as the others, but he has Matt 16 (healing the withered hand, and this is clearly Sabbath -breaking. And even if the disciples were doing it rather than he was, he had no problem with it. It looks of course trivial to the non -Jew, but that doesn't alter the fact that Jesus excused sabbath -breaking in almost any context using the David and Shewbreead rubbish. Sabbath breaking was the point of the this whole episode.

It depends. There was more than one form of Judaism, and some things were allowed on the Sabbath, especially in the diaspora. Removal of the dead for instance was important for all, but different Jews had different ideas about collecting stray animals for example. Some said yes, some no, for the Dead Sea scroll community, within a certain distance of the house or temple. Care of the sick would also be allowed.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Incidentally, I have had a couple of debates about whether Luke is based on Matthew. I can tell you that the fellow left in the end but he'd spent most of the debate denying the evidence that Luke couldn't be based on Matthew and pretty much had to wave away monstrous contradictions as though they didn't matter.

The problem here is that sometimes Matthew appears to be copying Luke but in other sections it looks like Luke is copying Matthew. But if you look at Luke, you can see it was written in layers. The nativity is clearly a later addition. I think this shows Matthew is based on an early version of Luke.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

What's the Peter 1 ref? I had a skip and couldn't locate it. In any case, it's supposed to be by Cephas, so even if authentic (I have doubts) so has no bearing on Paulinist doctrine or what was carried over into the Gospels.

My mistake, it is James 5:7 that says Jesus will come. Some Bibles translate this as returns out of bias. As it tells us what pre gospel Christians believed, then I would argue Paul also thought this.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Mark 7:18 He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 19 because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"

The pericope starts with the disciples not washing their hands before they eat. Mark then says ALL foods are clean, and does not refer afterwards to the washing of hands. Matthew, being on the Jewish side, misses out the making all foods clean reference before reminding the readers the pericope is about washing of hands before eating.

Oh yes. The clean foods argument is Pauline and common to all the synoptics. Certainly original, but I thought that we were talking about 'not one item or bit of the law will pass away' (1) which (I claim) is only in Matthew and Luke, making it (in my argument or theory) "Q" material.

It depends. There was more than one form of Judaism, and some things were allowed on the Sabbath, especially in the diaspora. Removal of the dead for instance was important for all, but different Jews had different ideas about collecting stray animals for example. Some said yes, some no, for the Dead Sea scroll community, within a certain distance of the house or temple. Care of the sick would also be allowed.

Phariseeism was less strict than the Sadducees and the rules were not supposed to restrict but leave some practical wiggle room. But what all of them surely agreed on was that the Sabbath mattered. The message of all the Sabbath -breaking events (even if we just limit ourselves to the ones in the three Synoptics) was that Sabbath observance wasn't important. (2)

The problem here is that sometimes Matthew appears to be copying Luke but in other sections it looks like Luke is copying Matthew. But if you look at Luke, you can see it was written in layers. The nativity is clearly a later addition. I think this shows Matthew is based on an early version of Luke.

I suggest that you'll find it works perfectly is you assume a sequence like this:

(a) Original (Jewish messiah) Jesus story

(b) Story adapted with Paulinist Christian overlay. Also containing references to the Jewish war, (retrospectively) and how the Jews brought it on themselves by preferring Zealotry to Jesus. This ended at the open tomb with the angel explaining. No Resurrection appearance, and No nativity. But it did have the event at Bethsaida turned into a transfiguration, a bit similar to the baptism event.
Effectveiy this is the 'early version of Luke' that you have in mind.

(c) version of the Original with the material common to Mark and Matthew added, The Other feeding (of 4,000 - which is why Mark appears to have Bethsaida in the wrong direction), the Syrio-Phoenecian woman and Jesus quoting from psalms on the cross. This I think was a document like "Q" (I call it "M" or sometimes "P" depending on what mood I'm in) added to the Synoptic original.

(d) Mark (probably first) and then Matthew adapted this version with the Decapolis material, Mark adding some stuff of his own (Pilate's surprise, servants helping old Zebedee with the boat) and Matthew, later in view of some urgent needs for the Story to be evolved (Jesus had to be God is person, born in Bethlehem, and risen in the solid body, and not just in the spirit) added what was needed, robbing the OT for screenplay and Prophecy of it. Matthew also added in the material of another scroll with the sermon material (including the bit about the Law not passing away), the actual temptations, John's question, stuff that Mark doesn't have.

(e) Luke after Josephus was published, and he became aware of Paul's letters, summarised and explained everything, which is to say
he adapted the Synoptic original without "M" material and possibly even without a walking on the water! As it is inexplicably absent in Luke. But he (like Matthew) also added in the "Q" material, and also had to deal with the need for God in person, birth in Bethlehem and a solid resurrection (so I suspect that Matthew and Luke were likely contemporaries), and Luke also had to amend the story to fit Paul, so the disciples couldn't go to Galilee to meet Jesus, but stayed in Jerusalem,mainly to rubber -stamp Paul's mission. Which really required Acts to be written. As I say, Luke also uses Josephus as a source - for his nativity, Gamaliel's speech, and possibly the Blood of the Galileans. Of course Luke and Matthew never saw the other's work so their additions totally contradict. And of course while both were based on the 'original synoptic' material with Mark, they both used "Q" in different ways, and Luke didn't use "M" : only one feeding and no syrio -Phoenecian woman.

(f) Some later tidying -up editing, notably with a Potted resurrection collated from the other gospels added to Mark in a shorter, and then Longer version.

It's a bit involved, but it explains the 'layering' you speak of, the similarities and the glaring contradictions of Luke with Matthew, and pretty much every other problem. Try me on it.

My mistake, it is James 5:7 that says Jesus will come. Some Bibles translate this as returns out of bias. As it tells us what pre gospel Christians believed, then I would argue Paul also thought this.

Ok, let's see...Yes, he speaks of the Lord coming, but in 2.1 he refers to Jesus as their Lord. So unless the fellow never actually lived, it must refer to his coming again.

(1)
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Luke has mian kerain. Both mean one stroke of the pen, except one is nominative, the other is accusative. The phrase 'the heaven and the earth' and the same use of other words tells us they have a source in common. For me, it is Matthew 'correcting' Mark, with Luke 'correcting' Matthew.
(Trans) Where is it is Mark? It shouldn't be in Mark at all unless it is synoptic original. If it isn't it's "Q"

(2) we could"Ask a Jew", but I believe that Sabbath - rules could be excused in imperative matters. But inessentials, no matter how worthy, had to wait until after the Sabbath. The withered hand is arguable. Maybe the fellow couldn't be there on Sunday, but there is no discussion of the rules. Doing good matters more than the Sabbath Law. And I suspect that scratching your ass for the Gospel -writers mattered more than observing Sabbath -Law, but 'doing good' as an excuse sounded better.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Oh yes. The clean foods argument is Pauline and common to all the synoptics. Certainly original, but I thought that we were talking about 'not one item or bit of the law will pass away' (1) which (I claim) is only in Matthew and Luke, making it (in my arguemnt or theory) "Q" material.

We was talking about this as part of Matthew's Jewish view of Christianity. Mark says all foods are clean, Matthew revises that passage, missing out the all foods are purified. This is one instance of Matthew being Jewish. The argument that ALL laws remain until the end of times is another, and much stronger clue that Matthew is a Jewish Christian and not a gentile one.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Luke has mian kerain. Both mean one stroke of the pen, except one is nominative, the other is accusative. The phrase 'the heaven and the earth' and the same use of other words tells us they have a source in common. For me, it is Matthew 'correcting' Mark, with Luke 'correcting' Matthew.
(Trans) Where is it is Mark? It shouldn't be in Mark at all unless it is synoptic original. If it isn't it's "Q"

As above, the quote is not found in Mark, but it is Matthew 'correcting' all the gentile Christian arguments at a stroke found in Mark's gospel. Mark 7:18-19 for example.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll post the reponse although it is getting in deep and is so off -topic that another thread might be required.

Take Matthew first

Matthew 15 King James Version (KJV)
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

.... (cut to keep to the point)

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? .. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man (1).

And Mark 7. 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“...(cut to keep to the point)

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”


Mark 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Matthew. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? .. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications....

So the question is whether Matthew deleted the gloss because he was Jewish or that Mark added it to explain and make it quite clear what Jesus was saying - Kosher food isn't important.

Let's see whether Luke shares this text or whether it is Mark.Matthew only.

37 And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.

38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

The context is again changed to the journey to Jerusalem and having dinner with a Pharisee on the way. Totally different context but the same passage. Undeniably. But the passage about giving alms and that somehow makes everything 'clean' is either a Lucan addition, or his taking Mark's parenthesis and adapting it. In which case, you'd have a case that Matthew also had it but deleted it because he was jewish and observed Jewish Law,or at least thought it still counted.

But I read that the Sinai Codex doesn't have the Mark parenthesis. If so, (if the Sinai Codex has Luke's "give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.") then it would look as though Luke's hint (and I recall that this reflects Paul's argument on clean foods) was added later on to Mark's version of the gospel. Which (if so) would suggest the synoptic original said the same and the argument is whether that's Paulinist -Law abrogating or not, entirely, and not just Matthew, being Jewish.

(1) That Matthew has similar material in the temple wrangle (Matth 23.25-6) is a red -herring as neither Mark nor Luke have that in the passages of the debate where it ought to appear; Matthew has simply re -used the material. Matt 15. is what counts.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

We was talking about this as part of Matthew's Jewish view of Christianity. Mark says all foods are clean, Matthew revises that passage, missing out the all foods are purified. This is one instance of Matthew being Jewish. The argument that ALL laws remain until the end of times is another, and much stronger clue that Matthew is a Jewish Christian and not a gentile one.



As above, the quote is not found in Mark, but it is Matthew 'correcting' all the gentile Christian arguments at a stroke found in Mark's gospel. Mark 7:18-19 for example.

You are being a bit saucy here, old son as we are talking about the gospel parallel passages as written and how they might (as you argued) have been edited to fit in with Matthew's possible Jewish views. And by extension whether ALL the gospels reflect Paulinist views (as I suggest) or whether (as you suggest) it was not originally Paulinist but Jewish in view, and Mark added an Paulinist gloss. And we must suppose that Luke certainly did. And the argument is really whether the whole argument validates dropping all Jewish cleanliness Laws, or just the ones on polishing bowls and dishes and washing the hands.

But that aside, to argue that all this si somehow saying that Mark is somehow covering the passage in Matthew and Luke of the jots and tittles of the Law, which is fact isn't there at all in Mark is, as I say, old son, a bit saucy.

And now I'm off to check the Codex Siniaticus. God, you people make work for me...

Well bugga... it's hard to get a reliable translation and still seems to be a work in progress. The wrangle about biased translation (washing should be pouring of water rather than immersion, as the current translation goes) shouldn't matter to whether Luke has the passage about 'give alms and you can do what you like' or not. Unfortunately most of that page has disappeared. Inconveniently.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re my (1) footnote above #147 referencing Matthew repeating the dish -cleaning argument. I wasn't suggesting that you, Harry Dio, was using a 'red herring', as you never even raised it, but that it isn't important in the discussion. It's just Matthew re -using material.