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.
As a textular scholar has it ever occured to you that the line was removed from the two later gospels because it was an embarrassment ?
"Problem" does seem to be an odd term to use when no actual problem has been identified. The closest that I can find by going through this thread is that Telford seems to be laboring under the impression that Mark "denies the Trinity." But that conclusion certainly cannot follow from the inclusion of the Shema, which neither affirms nor denies the Trinity.
I have mentioned before that Biblical Hebrew does not have the copula "is." The Shema basically says something like Hear, oh Israel: the Lord your god the Lord solo. It can readily be (and in modern Jewish texts, variously is) rendered as either "...the Lord is one" or "the Lord is your god, the Lord alone." ISTM that the original intent was pretty clearly the latter -- the Israelites were surrounded by tribes who worshipped many and other gods, and the command was to only worship their god.
"Problem" does seem to be an odd term to use when no actual problem has been identified. The closest that I can find by going through this thread is that Telford seems to be laboring under the impression that Mark "denies the Trinity." But that conclusion certainly cannot follow from the inclusion of the Shema, which neither affirms nor denies the Trinity.
Thanks for the help in a murky sea of ... murk. I'm basically gobsmacked that Telford would think Mark (or any of the Gospel writers) was denying the Trinity in the first place, and further surprised that he would seize on this passage to support such an idea. His reasoning is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; and I fear there is no key.
Nick Tamen's approach is right and gives a complete answer to Telford's concerns.
To my mind, the biggest problem with @Telford's concern is that the doctrine of the trinity was hundreds of years in the making, long after the Gospels were written. Indeed, the worry that Irenaeus voiced about not including the Gospel of John was that the synoptics did not obviously affirm the divinity of Christ at all. So sneaking these concerns into such a slender difference between the synoptics seems to be a stunning flight of fancy with no discernable objective motivation.
Because their pens were running out of ink and they wanted to get down the main part? Who knows. Quite possible that they were reporting on a very similar address given on another occasion when He did not include it.
Nick Tamen's approach is right and gives a complete answer to Telford's concerns.
It failed to answer why Matthew and Luke left it out.
I was trying to answer why Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts differ from Mark’s as well as from each other’s. I was responding to your answer as to why Matthew and Luke do not record the first part of the Shema, which I find wholly unconvincing.
Nick Tamen's approach is right and gives a complete answer to Telford's concerns.
It failed to answer why Matthew and Luke left it out.
And you have yet to articulate any sensible reason why it would matter. And I think the reason you haven't is because it doesn't.
Oh, FFS. Let's go back to basics. I refuse to answer the question as phrased because it has an inherent bias.
As it is generally thought that Matthew and Luke copy Mark, why do we think this is ?
No. Matthew and Luke didn't just "copy" Mark. Mark may possibly, have been first (although that is not absolutely certain). But to jump from there to suggesting that Matt and Luke just "copied" Mark is completely wrong. As phrased, the question assumes that Mark was the gold standard and that anything Matt and Luke did was just adding to or deleting from Mark. That is NOT how is works.
Assuming (without deciding) that Mark was the first of the three, that does not mean that Mark was the absolute first. In fact, he wasn't. By the time Mark got around to writing, the word "gospel" had already become a technical term referring to writings about Jesus' preaching and God's saving power through him. In other words, long before Mark wrote, others had written so as to establish "gospel" as a term referring to Jesus' ministry. Mark starts his recitation by calling it the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. He did not coin the term. He wasn't the first. He was standing on the shoulders of those who wrote before him. We just don't have those writings, or they weren't accepted by the church as reliable sources.
I am not suggesting that Matt and Luke were unfamiliar with Mark. They probably were. They probably considered him as a source, among many other source, in forming their own versions of the "gospel" of Jesus. But they weren't so slaved to Mark that it is at all fair to consider their gospels as just adding to or deleting from Mark. He was just one source among many. That's all.
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?
Now THAT is a far more valid question than the OP. Why did Mark include it? Mark, writing in Greek, was directed to a gentile audience.. So why would he include an exhortation to Israel when his audience couldn't care less about Israel? I would propose that the answer is contained in the selections from Deuteronomy that I linked to earlier. It states that these words are to be impressed upon the children and inscribed on the doorposts. In short, the formulation was urged to be recited by rote. And I think that is what Mark did, He recited by rote from Deuteronomy (and, to repeat--although it has not been disputed--the Shema neither affirms nor denies the Trinity; the Trinity is a complete red herring in this discussion).
But the point about rote recitation brings us to Luke. Because Luke is the interesting variation (not Mark). See @BroJames' link above: Luke does not have Jesus state that you are to love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself. He has the scribe/lawyer say it, and Jesus merely confirms that he has spoken correctly. This is important: Jesus was not doing some sort of divine inspiration in stating the Two Greatest Commandments. By putting those words into the lawyer's mouth, Luke is showing that the learned (those knowledgeable about the Law of Moses) knew that "love God and love your neighbor" were the greatest commands. Jesus did not have to tell them that: they KNEW. This is backed up by Mark 12:32-34. It was commonly known by the learned that loving God with your whole heart and loving your neighbor as yourself was the basic cornerstone of "the Law". Luke, however, adds the bit that did require Jesus' clarification: telling us what constitutes a "neighbor." This leads into the parable of the Good Samaritan. Mark and Matthew missed this point: Jesus was unnecessary for the instruction to love God and love your neighbor--that was already common knowledge among those learned in the Law. Luke is the one who sees the addition that Jesus was needed for: defining "neighbor."
Nick Tamen's approach is right and gives a complete answer to Telford's concerns.
It failed to answer why Matthew and Luke left it out.
And you have yet to articulate any sensible reason why it would matter. And I think the reason you haven't is because it doesn
Oh, FFS. Let's go back to basics. I refuse to answer the question as phrased because it has an inherent bias. etc ...
I was unable to quote your full post as it was too long
A good read and I agree with most of it. However, you ignore the possibility of Matthew and Luke being edited. I don't claim to know anything for certain. It's just something that has confused me for several years
[Oh, FFS. Let's go back to basics. I refuse to answer the question as phrased because it has an inherent bias. etc ...
I was unable to quote your full post as it was too long
A good read and I agree with most of it. However, you ignore the possibility of Matthew and Luke being edited. I don't claim to know anything for certain. It's just something that has confused me for several years [/quote]
There is that possibility, one amongst many. But it's no higher than a possibility.
[Oh, FFS. Let's go back to basics. I refuse to answer the question as phrased because it has an inherent bias. etc ...
I was unable to quote your full post as it was too long
A good read and I agree with most of it. However, you ignore the possibility of Matthew and Luke being edited. I don't claim to know anything for certain. It's just something that has confused me for several years
There is that possibility, one amongst many. But it's no higher than a possibility.
[/quote]
You are right. I don't have a definitive answer. I was merely opening up a discussion.
This side of eternity we will never be able to know why Matthew or Luke omitted the Shema prayer, but I would say that the prayer is not the point of the question that was asked, namely what is the most important commandment of all? Matthew came after Mark and Luke copied Matthew likely. I do know that Luke was written for a Gentile reader, consequently, the Shema would not be that important.
This side of eternity we will never be able to know why Matthew or Luke omitted the Shema prayer, but I would say that the prayer is not the point of the question that was asked, namely what is the most important commandment of all?
From a Jewish perspective, “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one/alone,” is an integral part of the commandment to love God with heart, mind and strength. While not quoting it may be due to Luke’s Gentile audience, from a Jewish perspective, Luke only quoted half of the commandment.
Comments
As a textular scholar has it ever occured to you that the line was removed from the two later gospels because it was an embarrassment ?
You'll be critiquing the Apostles Creed next.
If you can't grasp the problem, I see no point in a lengthy explanation.
You only explain things that are obvious? Saves wear and tear, I suppose.
As previously observed: And: The idea that it should be read as "the Lord alone" gains support when you read the Shema in context in Deuteronomy...where it is followed by an exhortation to the Israelites to stay faithful to the Lord and not chase after other gods.
Thanks for the help in a murky sea of ... murk. I'm basically gobsmacked that Telford would think Mark (or any of the Gospel writers) was denying the Trinity in the first place, and further surprised that he would seize on this passage to support such an idea. His reasoning is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; and I fear there is no key.
I totally agree.
Oh, FFS. Let's go back to basics. I refuse to answer the question as phrased because it has an inherent bias.
No. Matthew and Luke didn't just "copy" Mark. Mark may possibly, have been first (although that is not absolutely certain). But to jump from there to suggesting that Matt and Luke just "copied" Mark is completely wrong. As phrased, the question assumes that Mark was the gold standard and that anything Matt and Luke did was just adding to or deleting from Mark. That is NOT how is works.
Assuming (without deciding) that Mark was the first of the three, that does not mean that Mark was the absolute first. In fact, he wasn't. By the time Mark got around to writing, the word "gospel" had already become a technical term referring to writings about Jesus' preaching and God's saving power through him. In other words, long before Mark wrote, others had written so as to establish "gospel" as a term referring to Jesus' ministry. Mark starts his recitation by calling it the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. He did not coin the term. He wasn't the first. He was standing on the shoulders of those who wrote before him. We just don't have those writings, or they weren't accepted by the church as reliable sources.
I am not suggesting that Matt and Luke were unfamiliar with Mark. They probably were. They probably considered him as a source, among many other source, in forming their own versions of the "gospel" of Jesus. But they weren't so slaved to Mark that it is at all fair to consider their gospels as just adding to or deleting from Mark. He was just one source among many. That's all.
So, let's get back to the Shema.
Now THAT is a far more valid question than the OP. Why did Mark include it? Mark, writing in Greek, was directed to a gentile audience.. So why would he include an exhortation to Israel when his audience couldn't care less about Israel? I would propose that the answer is contained in the selections from Deuteronomy that I linked to earlier. It states that these words are to be impressed upon the children and inscribed on the doorposts. In short, the formulation was urged to be recited by rote. And I think that is what Mark did, He recited by rote from Deuteronomy (and, to repeat--although it has not been disputed--the Shema neither affirms nor denies the Trinity; the Trinity is a complete red herring in this discussion).
But the point about rote recitation brings us to Luke. Because Luke is the interesting variation (not Mark). See @BroJames' link above: Luke does not have Jesus state that you are to love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself. He has the scribe/lawyer say it, and Jesus merely confirms that he has spoken correctly. This is important: Jesus was not doing some sort of divine inspiration in stating the Two Greatest Commandments. By putting those words into the lawyer's mouth, Luke is showing that the learned (those knowledgeable about the Law of Moses) knew that "love God and love your neighbor" were the greatest commands. Jesus did not have to tell them that: they KNEW. This is backed up by Mark 12:32-34. It was commonly known by the learned that loving God with your whole heart and loving your neighbor as yourself was the basic cornerstone of "the Law". Luke, however, adds the bit that did require Jesus' clarification: telling us what constitutes a "neighbor." This leads into the parable of the Good Samaritan. Mark and Matthew missed this point: Jesus was unnecessary for the instruction to love God and love your neighbor--that was already common knowledge among those learned in the Law. Luke is the one who sees the addition that Jesus was needed for: defining "neighbor."
A good read and I agree with most of it. However, you ignore the possibility of Matthew and Luke being edited. I don't claim to know anything for certain. It's just something that has confused me for several years
A good read and I agree with most of it. However, you ignore the possibility of Matthew and Luke being edited. I don't claim to know anything for certain. It's just something that has confused me for several years [/quote]
There is that possibility, one amongst many. But it's no higher than a possibility.
There is that possibility, one amongst many. But it's no higher than a possibility.
[/quote]
You are right. I don't have a definitive answer. I was merely opening up a discussion.