Nothing dramatic but just had a question to toss out.
The question is then, why would the author of Matthew (23-24) remove a beautiful story like the widow's mite (Mark 12-13)?
edited
In Temple?
by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
peacefulpete
As I posted the opening question I found I had made errors as usual but the question remains, why no widow's mite story in Matthew, especially since he rather slavishly follows Mark before and after the story?
Was the story not in Matt's version of Mark but in Luke's? -
Leolaia
The widow's mite story (Mark 12:41-44) does not establish as the setting as the temple, for this was already set in Mark 11:27 ("as he was walking in the temple") and reasserted in 12:35 ("as Jesus taught in the temple"). The author of Matthew has incorporated this narrative frame and thus the proper antedecent of the departure from the Temple in Matthew 24:1 is the statement in Matthew 21:23 ("when he entered the temple" = Mark 11:27). Then follows a series of parables and discourses -- much of them derived from Mark but with non-Markan material added such as 22:1-14, 23:1-39 -- without any indication of a change in setting (tho the story of 22:15-22 and the statement in 23:35 has particular resonance with the Temple setting). The long discourse on the Pharisees in ch. 23 clearly builds on the briefer statement in Mark 12:38-40 which is placed "in the temple" (v. 35). So adding or removing the widow's mite story does not seem to change the locale as far as I can see...Matthew 24:1 looks backward to 12:23. I would guess the widow's mite story was omitted so that Jesus' teaching in the temple ended with such a dramatic flourish in Matthew 23:37-39.
-
Leolaia
You have a PM.
It is possible that the story was not in the version of Mark that Matthew used. We already know from other clues that the version of Mark used by Matthew or by both Matthew + Luke was not identical to our present canonical Mark. But since the author of Matthew expanded Mark 12:38-40 into the long discourse in ch. 23 (with material likely drawn elsewhere), it seems more likely that the short pericope that intervenes between Mark 12:40 and 13:1 was lost in the process.
-
peacefulpete
Well obviously you read the post before I edited it. Yes I caught that Matt also much earlier introduces the section with a Temple setting. The question still exists why omit such a moving and meaningful story? I don't really expect a definative answer just wondered if you had run across some theory.
-
cognizant dissident
Leoleia: Have you considered donating your brain to science?
Cog
-
wozadummy
Surely Leoliai qualifies to be one of the Celebrated Watchtower Scholars!
-
Narkissos
It seems that for some reason Matthew really didn't like widows, since he even managed to omit them from the long discourse he substituted to Mark 12:40 (cf. Matthew 23:14 in the Textus receptus and Luke 20:47).
-
peacefulpete
thanks for indulging my brain fart.