Rossweisse
RIP Rossweisse, HellHost and long-time Shipmate.
Please see the thread in All Saints remembering her.

Mark 12.29

“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 ?
«1

Comments

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    It's either too difficult or everyone has me on ignore
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Or maybe the people who might be more inclined or better equipped to answer haven’t looked at it because it’s in Ecclesiantics rather than Kerygmania.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Maybe try moving to Kerygmania?
  • Okay, hang on a second while I kick it across.

    DT
    SoF admin
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Alternatively, Matthew and Luke drew on a different source, or perhaps, considering that the opening words are not a commandment as such, decided to omit them.
  • You know, it would be extraordinarily helpful if you provided links to the text, especially when you're asking people to compare a passage across three different Gospels. I'd look them up, but frankly, it's dinner time at the mo and I can't be arsed. Maybe later.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited March 30
    fineline wrote: »
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host

    Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited March 30
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.

    Quite. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, denies the Trinity.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host

    Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.

    @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
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 30
    Telford wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host

    Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.
    You said “When Jesus answered the question in Matthew and Luke . . . .” What question? You can quote that, and you can quote how he answered, or at least give chapter and verse, so that the different passages can be compared without others having to go searching.

  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.

    Quite. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, denies the Trinity.

    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.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host

    Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.
    You said “When Jesus answered the question in Matthew and Luke . . . .” What question? You can quote that, and you can quote how he answered, or at least give chapter and verse, so that the different passages can be compared without others having to go searching.

    Sorry about that. I assumed that these were common knowledge.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited March 31
    W Hyatt wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.

    Quite. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, denies the Trinity.

    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.

    You need to go back to post 1
    The Lord our God, the Lord is one.


  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Yes, now this thread is in Kerygmania, which is the board for discussing Bible passages, @Telford, do have a look at the Kerygmania guidelines, particularly number 3:
    If you're starting a new thread, please don't quote only the Bible reference (e.g. "John 3:16. Discuss."). If you're discussing just a few verses, please include the full text in your post, and say which Bible version you're using. For longer passages, please either post a link to an online version (see above), or paraphrase the passage yourself.

    Thanks.
    Fineline, Kergymania Host

    Thanks. I posted the verse in full. I couldn't quote from Matthew and Luke because it's not there.
    You said “When Jesus answered the question in Matthew and Luke . . . .” What question? You can quote that, and you can quote how he answered, or at least give chapter and verse, so that the different passages can be compared without others having to go searching.

    Sorry about that. I assumed that these were common knowledge.
    They are generally, yes. But when being asked to discuss or compare passages, one wants the exact language. Hence the guidelines for Kerygmania.

    Telford wrote: »
    W Hyatt wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.

    Quite. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, denies the Trinity.

    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.

    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.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Missed the edit window, but fwiw, as I understand it, the Hebrew word translated as “one” in the Shemaechad—is the same word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe Adam and Eve as “one flesh.”

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Here are all three passages on one page.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Here are all three passages on one page.

    Not really. For comparisons sake, you have cut short Mark's gospel.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'm not convinced the difference is significant. If you look at the context, the Mark passage goes on to include the actual 'commandment' part. All the other two are doing is omitting the introductory statement and starting directly with the commandment. That's the part that actually answers the scribe/lawyer's question.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm not convinced the difference is significant. If you look at the context, the Mark passage goes on to include the actual 'commandment' part. All the other two are doing is omitting the introductory statement and starting directly with the commandment. That's the part that actually answers the scribe/lawyer's question.
    I’m not sure I’d put it quite that way. From the Jewish perspective, the first part—“Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One”—is a commandment, or part of the commandment. It’s considered a whole, not an introductory statement and then a commandment. The “Hear O Israel” is not understood as an attention getter, but more like “Pay attention and obey!”

    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 . . . .”

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    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.
    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.
  • Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
    It’s not that simple, though. Matthew, Mark and Luke report different questions—in one case a very different question. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus answers the question. In Luke, Jesus turns it back to the scribe, and the scribe answers the question. The absence of “Hear O Israel” is just one of a number of differences in the way the three evangelists relate the story.

    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.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
    It’s not that simple, though. Matthew, Mark and Luke report different questions—in one case a very different question. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus answers the question. In Luke, Jesus turns it back to the scribe, and the scribe answers the question. The absence of “Hear O Israel” is just one of a number of differences in the way the three evangelists relate the story.

    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
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    All four gospels omit most of what Jesus said and include only a tiny fraction of it.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
    It’s not that simple, though. Matthew, Mark and Luke report different questions—in one case a very different question. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus answers the question. In Luke, Jesus turns it back to the scribe, and the scribe answers the question. The absence of “Hear O Israel” is just one of a number of differences in the way the three evangelists relate the story.

    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
    No, you are, at least to a point. You’re focusing on one particular difference—and then trying to make that difference evidence of a statement on the Trinity by Mark—and ignoring the other differences in how the three gospels present the story. It seems to me that if you want to understand what any of the gospel writers are getting at, you have to look at the way they tell the story as a whole, not just at one difference.

    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”?

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    “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 ?

    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.
    It’s not that simple, though. Matthew, Mark and Luke report different questions—in one case a very different question. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus answers the question. In Luke, Jesus turns it back to the scribe, and the scribe answers the question. The absence of “Hear O Israel” is just one of a number of differences in the way the three evangelists relate the story.

    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
    No, you are, at least to a point. You’re focusing on one particular difference—and then trying to make that difference evidence of a statement on the Trinity by Mark—and ignoring the other differences in how the three gospels present the story. It seems to me that if you want to understand what any of the gospel writers are getting at, you have to look at the way they tell the story as a whole, not just at one difference.

    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.
  • And how in the world would you determine that?
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    And reliable in regards to what?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    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

    That is how my university Hebrew professor understood it, for what that's worth.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    If the gospels actually record things that happened, differences between them might be explained by the fact that something very very similar happened more than once. We see two similar passages and say Aha! Mark records this, and Matthew records that, which one is wrong? Where in fact they might both be right, but reporting two different instances. Just as two people going to see a standup comedian on different nights may have heard slightly different versions of the same monologue, if the comedian were interacting with the audience to any extent. And here with this question about the gospels we are precisely talking about interacting with other people, not a monologue.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And to build on that, when Jesus was travelling around Galilee teaching his message, did He use the exact same words in each village? He'd scarcely have given different parts of the message to different groups.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    If the gospels actually record things that happened, differences between them might be explained by the fact that something very very similar happened more than once.
    It can also be explained by the fact that the gospels weren’t actually written down until decades after the events they record. Any trial lawyer can tell you it’s common for two or more witnesses to remember the same event slightly differently, even hours or days afterward. And a person’s memory of an event, even if not quite accurate, is reinforced by retelling.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    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

    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.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    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.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    If the gospels actually record things that happened, differences between them might be explained by the fact that something very very similar happened more than once.
    It can also be explained by the fact that the gospels weren’t actually written down until decades after the events they record. Any trial lawyer can tell you it’s common for two or more witnesses to remember the same event slightly differently, even hours or days afterward. And a person’s memory of an event, even if not quite accurate, is reinforced by retelling.

    Very true.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It can also be explained by the fact that the gospels weren’t actually written down until decades after the events they record. Any trial lawyer can tell you it’s common for two or more witnesses to remember the same event slightly differently, even hours or days afterward. And a person’s memory of an event, even if not quite accurate, is reinforced by retelling.

    And indeed, if they told exactly the same story in the same words, you'd be getting more than a bit suspicious.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It can also be explained by the fact that the gospels weren’t actually written down until decades after the events they record. Any trial lawyer can tell you it’s common for two or more witnesses to remember the same event slightly differently, even hours or days afterward. And a person’s memory of an event, even if not quite accurate, is reinforced by retelling.

    And indeed, if they told exactly the same story in the same words, you'd be getting more than a bit suspicious.
    Absolutely.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    It makes for a pretty easy cross-examination, spiked with numerous objections from your opponent who knows exactly what is going on.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It can also be explained by the fact that the gospels weren’t actually written down until decades after the events they record. Any trial lawyer can tell you it’s common for two or more witnesses to remember the same event slightly differently, even hours or days afterward. And a person’s memory of an event, even if not quite accurate, is reinforced by retelling.

    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.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    In a courtroom setting (which is what Nick Tamen and I were referring to), yes, you would be getting very suspicious. It strongly suggests collaboration. Much the same in other settings as well.

    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?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    And how in the world would you determine that?

    Experts regard it as the earliest account
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    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?

    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.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I was not thinking along those lines at all. The OP seems to expect exact identity between the 3 Gospels and I'm suggesting problems with that approach.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    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?

    My comment is that pretending that the Gospels are giving courtroom-style testimony is just idiotic.
    You’ve totally misread what Gee D and I were saying. Neither of us were saying that; at least I wasn’t and I don’t think Gee D was either. I would agree the gospels aren’t courtroom style testimony.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I was not thinking along those lines at all. The OP seems to expect exact identity between the 3 Gospels and I'm suggesting problems with that approach.

    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
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Yes, I was not thinking straight at all when I posted that. What I was meaning to say is that just as courtroom evidence of things said out of court normally differs, you'd expect the same between the Gospels. Same meaning but some slightly different words, or some added/omitted.
  • Telford wrote: »
    And how in the world would you determine that?

    Experts regard it as the earliest account

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.