1) The possibility that Mt & Lk deliberately "fixed up" some passages in Mk which seemed problematic (not necessarily wrong) to them or their communities isn't limited to the verse in question. A fairly clear example is the treatment of Jesus' baptism. In Mk there's no problem - Jesus is just baptized by John. But why should the Son of God submit to "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"? So in Mt there's a little dialogue between John & Jesus about this while Lk skips over the baptism itself & the Spirit descends on Jesus while he's praying (a favorite Lukan theme). & in the later John there's no mention of Jesus himself being baptized at all.
2) Mt may have added "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" because he connected that with the Transfiguration.
3) I'm aware of the agenda of some non-Christian & marginally Christian scholars but don't think anything is gained by sweeping problems under the rug. In any case the basic problem of many of them is that they don't read the Bible theologically.
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: George Murphy
Cc: Jack Syme ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
Yeah, I don't have a problem with Mark-1st in general. I'm no expert here, but the evidence for that seems plausible.
It's the explanation for the difference here -- having Matthew and Luke change something this important to "cover up" Jesus' "mistake" -- that seems very problematic to me, particularly when the change in the text is ambiguous. If Matthew is later, for example, why add "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"? That seems to muddy the waters even further because here is an explicit reference to some sort of "coming" of Christ. This would be a strange amendation if the later synoptic writers are trying to "fix" a reference in Mark to an early return.
I also don't have a problem in general with Jesus making "mistakes" as a human being, or with Jesus' teaching reflecting common but not "scientifically" accurate assumptions of his day. If in fact Jesus hints in these texts that he thinks he will return to consummate the Kingdom in the lifetime of the twelve, that wouldn't be game over for Jesus as Lord. But it seems to be an unnecessary conclusion that causes lots of unnecessary problems. At the very least, if one wants to reach this conclusion, one needs to be aware of all the issues involved, including, IMHO, the agendas of scholars like Ehrmann who really want to entirely discredit the Gospels, as well as the more subtle Christological and trinitarian questions involved.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
The Mark-1st scenario of course does not depend on this text but is a conclusion drawn (&, I agree, debated by some) from treatment of the synoptic question as a whole. In any case I hardly think the textual differences are "marginal." They (& by that I mean the whole pericope & not just 1 verse) are similar enough to indicate dependence, & that immediately raises the question of why they differ at all. In some cases such differences can be matters of differing literary style but that doesn't look like an adequate explanation here.
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: George Murphy
Cc: Jack Syme ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
The Mark-first scenario doesn't seem that convincing to me here. The differences in the texts seem marginal, and it seems to me we should hesitate to attribute a major "mistake" to Jesus based on them. Altogether, the teaching seems to be that the Kingdom will come in the disciples lifetime, which it did, though the disciples apparently misunderstood to some extent what Jesus meant by Kingdom -- the already-not-yet aspect awaited further development.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Attributing the Mt text to Lk would be sloppy, if not worse, even if there were no significant difference - but there is. Concentrating on the final sentence which is most relevant to the present discussion we have:
Mt: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Lk: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
Lk refers only to seeing "the kingdom," not an advent of the Son in that kingdom. Thus one could argue that any clear manifestation of the kingdom could fulfill the Lukan promise while that would not be the case with Mt. (This does not mean that the Lukan text is ignorant of the Son's advent, which is mentioned in the preceding verse.)
Mk, OTOH, differs from both. Still with the NIV:
Mk.9:1: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
But NIV here is misleading, or at least ambiguous. The Greek that it renders "come" is actually a perfect - eleluthuian. NRSV translates better, "until they see that the kingdom of God has come with [margin, "or in"] power." While like Lk there's no explicit mention of the Son's advent (though again it's in the preceding verse), it is even stronger than Mt in having a note of completion.
These differences are consistent with (I do not say "are proof of") the following scenario. Mk, as the earliest gospel written before the destruction of Jerusalem, has a more or less straightforward statement that the kingdom of God will have arrived before some of Jesus' disciples have died. Mt & Lk, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem when it seems clear that that event didn't usher in the kingdom in its fullness, & making use of Mk, have toned down that statement in different ways. Mt, in particular, seems to see the Transfiguration, which immediately follows, as a fulfillment of Jesus statement in the earlier verse. (Mt likes the literary device of chiasmus, kind of bookending a passage with some significant word or phrase. In the present case that's done with "Son of Man" in 16:28 & 17:9, which thus form a unit.) Mt, in other words, sees the "coming" of the Son of Man in his kingdom as a process, of which the Transfiguration is a stage.
That all has to do just with what the texts says & not with the questions that have been debated here. About those I'll only say the following.
Was Jesus mistaken in this matter? If the Mk text represents his actual words, it seems so. But it should be noted that that text doesn't say any of the disciples will see the Son of Man having come into his kingdom in a full sense.
What about preterism? I will not get into a debate with anyone who accepts full preterism because that seems to me like trying to debate a convinced solipsist. But I think that a theology of prolepsis, in which the resurrection of Christ is a genuine manifestation of God's ultimate future for creation, puts a whole different light on this question. For prolepsis see the recent book that I've referred to here before, Ted Peters Anticipating Omega (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). My review was in the June 2008 PSCF.
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Syme
To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
Ok Ill bite, I want some details George.
Matthew 16:24-28
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Luke 9:23-27
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
NIV
Obviously, two different accounts of the same event. Yes they differ. But do they differ in any significant way that would make the clear time statement at the end anything other than what it means?
Just saying something is "sloppy" is not an argument worthy of you.
Jack Syme
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
This is terribly sloppy. The texts from Matthew and Luke are not the same - they differ in significant ways. & both differ from Mark, again in a significant way. Details upon request.
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Syme
To: Schwarzwald ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
.....................
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father
with His angels, and then he will reward each according
to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some
standing here, who shall not taste death till they see
the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:27-28,
Luke. 9:26-27).
..........................
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 19 19:32:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 19 2008 - 19:32:10 EDT