Mark 12.29
in Kerygmania
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
When Jesus answers the question in Matthew and Luke, this statement is omitted. As it is generally thought that Matthew and Luke copy Mark, why do we think this is ?
When Jesus answers the question in Matthew and Luke, this statement is omitted. As it is generally thought that Matthew and Luke copy Mark, why do we think this is ?
Comments
DT
SoF admin
Different opinions on the divinity of Jesus and how that was compatible with traditional Jewish monotheism? This was a point of much debate in the early church before Trinitarianism was settled on as the "right" answer. It seems likely that the author of Mark differed from the authors of Matthew and Luke on some subtle theological point in this area.
Thanks.
Fineline, Kergymania Host
Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.
Quite. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, denies the Trinity.
@Telford - please also include the reference, and say which Bible version you are using, as per the guidelines. This makes it easier for people discussing. A link would be useful, as Lamb Chopped says, so people can read the full context.
Fineline, Kerygmania Host
Hmmm. Mark is denying the Trinity by including Jesus quoting the Old Testament? Not only was there no Trinity formulation to deny, surely any Trinity formulation shouldn't be contrary to Old Testament scripture.
Sorry about that. I assumed that these were common knowledge.
You need to go back to post 1
The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
And the Trinitarian formulation is that God is one God in three persons, not three Gods. No contradiction there.
Sorry, I don’t see the quotation of the Shema as a denial of the (as yet undefined) Trinity or of the divinity of Jesus. Whatever the reason for Mark including the Shema while Matthew and Luke don’t, I don’t think it’s that.
Not really. For comparisons sake, you have cut short Mark's gospel.
I’d say rather that in Matthew and Luke, Jesus goes directly to the actions that the first part of the commandment (“Hear O Israel”) requires—the part that, as you say, answers the scribe’s/lawyer’s question.
Of perhaps more interest to me is that question is somewhat different in Matthew and Mark, and quite different in Luke. And in Luke, it’s Jesus who asks the lawyer what is written in the Law, and lawyer answers with “you will love the Lord your God . . . .”
I can readily see how the first reading made traction when the majority culture became trinitarian Christian and the Jewish minority found it appropriate to emphasize their distinctness from the Christian hordes surrounding them. But, for me, the surprise is that LXX really does appear to have rendered the Shema in the first way, which seems downright anachronistic to my ears before the rise of trinitarian Christianity.
Now that we've got the logistics mostly squabbled out,
The usual reason why there are differences between the Gospels is because the Gospel writer shaped his material in the way he thought would best serve his purposes. So Matthew and Luke (or the author of whatever source material they were using, NOT getting into the priority argument here) apparently didn't feel the need to include the Shema and instead went straight for the throat, so to speak. You asked A, I tell you B, done.
My question would be the other way around. Why would Mark of all writers, being the most concise and NOT addressed primarily to the Jews--why would he include the Shema?
Besides the fact that Jesus actually said it, of course. Which is enough. But there might be something more.
Marks appears to have written down what was siad. Mathew and Luke ommited part of what was said.
To say that a Mark wrote down what Jesus said, while Matthew and Mark omitted part of what was said, seems like cherry-picking to me.
It's Matthew and Luke who were cherry picking
You’re also assuming that Mark’s version is “correct,” while Matthew and Luke changed the story. Even given the likelihood that the writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the account of Mark, is it not possible that the story filtered through different communities of early Christians in different versions, and the three synoptic Gospels reflect that?
What do you make of the fact that according to Luke, the question wasn’t about the greatest or first commandment, but rather was about how to inherit eternal life, and Jesus’s response was not to speak of loving God, but rather to ask “What is written in the Law,” so that it’s the scribe who speaks of loving God. And does it make sense in answering a question about inheriting eternal life (rather than about the greatest or first commandment) to go straight to “love God,” skipping “Hear O Israel”?
With a few exceptions I find Mark's gospel to be the most reliable.
That is how my university Hebrew professor understood it, for what that's worth.
Thanks for that. But it still leaves the translation choice of LXX mysterious. Why would they have opted, hundreds of years BC, to translate it as the former? I can't help but suspect that there was something going on in the pre-Christian middle east that made that choice appropriate, but I have no idea what it would have been.
Qumran showed us that sometimes the inexplicable translation choices of the LXX were due to the fact that they had a different Hebrew original than what became the MT.
Very true.
And indeed, if they told exactly the same story in the same words, you'd be getting more than a bit suspicious.
Not really. The synoptics use precisely the same words for vast sections, and it doesn't seem to bother you any more than it does me.
Do you have any comment on my queries above on what Jesus actually did - he went around preaching the message to numerous small villages and larger towns. He more or less repeated himself - or was it more exact than that? Did he use the exact same words each time?
Experts regard it as the earliest account
My comment is that pretending that the Gospels are giving courtroom-style testimony is just idiotic. The Gospels are making theological arguments about the nature of Jesus and His ministry, not providing eye-witness testimony that is assumed to be disinterested. Treating it as such just doesn't make any sense at all.
You are totally wrong in this. That would be impossible as two of the gospels are a lot bigger anyway. I like the fact that the accounts are different and I am only concerned with the issue in post one
NB...They are still the 3 men that I admire the most
and?
You are aware, I hope, that historically the church has regarded Matthew as the first. So there is some wiggle room on this. And speaking as a textual scholar (of extremely minor note), I can tell you I know of nothing that would rule it out.
But leaving that aside, the question I'm getting at is, "reliable for what?" The exact words of Jesus? Because as has been pointed out, it's likely this issue arose on more than one occasion. Teachers repeat themselves, and so do students. And editors gonna edit, as well.
Which is all to say, I'm not sure why you are so disturbed to find the Shema in one place, and not in the others.