Posts by Bobcat

43

Markan priority and the synoptic gospels

by 88JM in

this might be a question for leolaia, but i noticed in researching the gospel of mark this week that the dates the wtbts gives for the writing of the other synoptic gospels does not seem to agree with most new testament scholars.. the all scripture book gives the following dates:.

matthew: writing completed: c. 41 c.e.mark: writing completed: c. 6065 c.e.luke: writing completed: c. 5658 c.e.this would put mark as the last of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and therefore the wtbts does not adhere to the markan priority hypothesis.. wikipedia states that: "the theory of markan priority is today accepted by the majority of new testament scholars".. .

is there a good reason why the wtbts dates the synoptic gospels in that order?how can they date matthew and luke so early?is it merely because the wtbts rejects the possibility of a "q" source, and possibly even the idea of collusion between the writers altogether?or is it because many scholars put the writings of luke and matthew after the destruction of jerusalem, meaning the "prophecies" of destruction became historical accounts of past events by the time they were written?

Bobcat

Priority: Mark or Matthew

I promised I would get back to this thread concerning whether Matthew or Mark were written first.

At first I was going to reference R. T. France in his NICNT-Matthew commentary. This is a c.1200 page reference on Matthew with a big introductory section. As it turns out, though, France wrote extensively about this isssue in another book that he authors (Matthew: Evangelist, pp.24-46), one which I don't have in my library, and he only gives some basic information about the subject in the NICNT book.

Nevertheless, what he does say agrees in substance with the NAC-Matthew commentary and the Bible Knowledge Commentary. So what I will share below is three paragraphs from the Bible Knowledge Commentary (Vol II, NT, p.96-97, which lays out the general pros and cons to the subject of which (Matthew or Mark) was likely written first.

[Start of quote.]

Many scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used it as a primary source document along with material from other sources. Luke, in fact, stated that he used other documents (Luke 1:1-4) Several arguments support the priority of Mark:

(1) Matthew incorporates about 90 percent of Mark, and Luke over 40 percent - over 600 of Mark's 661 verses are found in Matthew and Luke combined.

(2) Matthew and Luke usually follows Mark's order of events in Jesus' life, and where either of them differs for topical reasons the other always holds to Mark's order.

(3) Matthew and Luke hardly ever agree against the content of Mark in passages where they all deal with the same subject.

(4) Matthew and Luke often repeat Mark's exact words but where they differ in wording, the language of one or the other is simply grammatically or stylistically smoother than Mark's (cf., e.g., Mark 2:7 with Luke 5:21).

(5) Matthew and Luke seem to alter Mark's wording in some instances to clarify his meaning (cf. Mark 2:15 with Luke 5:29) or to "tone down" some of his strong statements (cf., e.g., Mark 4:38b with Matt. 8:25; Luke 8:24).

(6) Matthew and Luke sometimes omit words and phrases from Mark's "full" descriptions to make room for additional material (cf., e.g., Mark 1:29 with matt. 8:14; Luke 4:38).

Five major objections have been raised against the theory of Marcan priority:

(1) Matthew and Luke agree with each other against the content of Mark in some passages dealing with the same subject.

(2) Luke omits all reference to the material in Mark 6:45-8:26 which is unusual if he used Mark.

(3) Mark occasionally has bits of information not found in the same incident reported in Matthew and Luke (cf. Mark 14:72).

(4) The early chuch fathers apparently believed in the priority of Matthew instead of Mark.

(5) Marcan priority practically requires the view that Matthew and/or Luke were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

In response to the first objection, the agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark involve a very small number of passages (ca. 6%) and are probably due to common sources (i.e, oral tradition) which they used in addition to Mark.

The second objection falters on the commonly acknowledged fact that the Gospel writers selected material from their sources in line with their purposes. Luke may have omitted reference material in Mark 6:45-8:26 in order not to interrupt the development of his own journey-to-Jerusalem theme (cf. Luke 9:51).

This also answers the third objection in addition to the fact that mark had Peter as an eyewitness source.

The fourth objection stems from the arrangement of the Gospels in the New Testament canon. To infer from this that the early fathers believed Matthew was written first is not valid. They were concerned about the apostolic authority and apologetic value of the Synoptic Gospels, not their historical interrelationships. Thus Matthew, written by an apostle and beginning with a genealogythat linked it nicely to the Old Testament, was given first place. Furthermore, if Matthew were the first Gospel written and it were used by Mark and Luke, one would expect to find places were Luke follows Matthew's order of events and Mark does not - but this does not occur. It is also more difficult to explain why Mark would shift from Matthew's order than vice versa. displacement of order favors Marcan priority.

In response to the fifth objection, Marcan priority does not necessitate dating Matthew and/or Luke after A.D. 70 (cf. comments on "Date").

[End of quote. Note that paragraphs were broken up to highlight the major pro/con arguments. The material was originally in three paragraphs. Italics is preserved from the reference.]

Personally, the arguments presented here are very compelling, and even-handed, to me. When compared with the WT All Scripture publication, the arguments there are very simplistic or surface level. As if the writers did not expect the reader to be able to comprehend much beyond a surface explanation.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

On the issue of Jesus and whether the "Jerusalem above" would also be his mother:

The account in Rev 12 could possibly be a key. I guess it depends on who the "woman" and the "male, child" are.

I'm trying to look at it from a perspective that is not so tied to the WT view. Not so easy after many years of having WT explanations wrapped around it. At the same time, I don't want to reject any possible ideas just because the WT also holds to them.

At any rate . . .

The whole picture presented in Rev 12 (esp the first six verses) seems to be a sweeping view of Bible history:

You have the two main 'characters,' as it were, right from Genesis 3:15, the "woman" and the serpant. (vss. 1-3)

You have what appears to be events from pre-flood days with a major angelic deflection hinted at. (vs. 4a)

Satan is standing ready to devour the woman's child when born. (vs. 4b)

This would seem to tie in with Gen 3:15 foretelling enmity of the serpant towards woman/seed.

So at this point, the WT identifies the child as 'the kingdom born in 1914.' They also identify the woman as the Jerusalem above from Galatians. They also identify the woman as God's organization of spirit sons, which is different from how Paul described the 'Jerusalem above' in Galatians. Also skewing the WT view is the fact that they believe only 144,000 among Christians are included. In contrast, Paul describes her 'sons' (in Galatians) as those who have faith in Christ.

The idea that the "male, child" is 'the kingdom born in 1914' seems ludicrous to me. The issue of '1914' aside, why would a kingdom, instituted in heaven where God already is, with an immortal king (Jesus, presumably far more powerful than Satan), need to be 'caught away to God' for protection from Satan. (vs. 5) This seems to be WT writing at its fanciful best. How would a kingdom that is portrayed as such a pansy of govt. to start with, be expected to later dispose of Satan.

On the other hand, if the child is referring to Jesus, as the 'seed of the woman' from Gen 3:15, and the serpant's efforts to 'devour' the child represent Satan's efforts to ruin Jesus while on earth, and the being 'caught away to God represents Jesus' death of integrity and consequent ressurrection to heaven, then . . .

The point I'm getting at is that IF the 'woman' is the same as in Galatians and the 'child' is Jesus, that would pretty much seal the deal about whether the 'Jerusalem above' was also the 'mother' of Jesus.

Thoughts?

By the way, I included the research about the great crowd in some posts above because Londo has had some extensive discussions about the great crowd in other threads and seeing his name on this thread brought up the idea of tying the great crowd into the 'Jerusalem above' discussion. It must be the 'spikey hair' that is influencing me! :)

And as an aside concerning the great crowd and Rev 12:

Verse 17 speaks of "the remaining ones of her (the woman's) seed." The Society always speaks of the "remaining" ones as the few leftovers of the 144,000. I posted on this thread (post #7) that the Society's explanation of the word "remaining" is erroneous.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

QC:

Thanks, I'll try playing with tables some.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

Just as a side note/question:

I had the list of comparisons concerning Hagar & Sarah lined up in columns vis the tab button on my keyboard. They looked all neat and seperated in the forum editor. But after posting it appears the tab spacing was disregarded and the two columns now appear as one scrunched together.

So how do I make columns of material that will survive posting? I use Chrome (if that might be the issue).

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

UCantNoMe:

I'm still pondering the question about Jesus and "the Jerusalem above." I appreciate your comment as something worth considering.

Take Care

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

In connection with what "the Jerusalem above" refers to (according to Paul):

(Galatians 4:21-26) . . .Tell me, YOU who want to be under law, Do YOU not hear the Law? 22 For example, it is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman; 23 but the one by the servant girl was actually born in the manner of flesh, the other by the free woman through a promise. 24 These things stand as a symbolic drama; for these [women] mean two covenants, the one from Mount Si′nai, which brings forth children for slavery, and which is Ha′gar. 25 Now this Ha′gar means Si′nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Extracted:

"These [Hagar and Sarah] mean two covenants."

"The one from Mount Si′nai, [Mosaic or Law Covenant] which brings forth children for slavery, and which is Ha′gar. 25 Now this Ha′gar means Si′nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today. . ."

26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Paul's logic up to this statement would require that "the Jerusalem above" equates with Sarah and the New Covenant, as the counterpart to the Law Covenant. The description of it as "the Jerusalem above" is the counterpart to "the Jerusalem today," the one existing on earth in Paul's day. The larger context of Galatians chapters 3 and 4 place these covenants within the question of who are the seed of Abraham and who inhereit the promises made to him.

"Paul mingled temporal and spatial imagery in contrasting the "present city of Jerusalem" with the "Jerusalem that is above." The concept of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the New Jerusalem, is deeply rooted in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition that forms the background of Paul's entire theological outlook. . . . By contrasting the present Jerusalem with the one that is above, Paul here indicated that Christians have entered the last days. . . . The "Jerusalem that is above" is "our mother," Paul said, drawing perhaps on the statement of 4 Ezra 10:7, where Zion is called "the mother of us all." " (NAC-Galatians, p.342-343)

Here are the parallels:

HagarSarah

Ishmael, the son of slaveryIsaac, the son of freedom

Birth, "according to the flesh" Birth, "according to the promise"

Old CovenantNew Covenant

Mount Sinai [Mount Zion, see below]

Present JerusalemHeavenly Jerusalem

"This lineup would have been very disturbing to any patriotic Jew just as it must have been to the Judaizers of Galatia. Everyone knew that the Jews were the sons of Isaac and the Gentiles were the descendants of Ishmael. Paul, however, had correlated the covenant of Sinai and the present religious system centered in Jerusalem with the offspring of the slave woman. They were those who sought to be justified before God "according to the flesh," that is, by observing the works of the Law. Conversely, the children of the free woman were those who had embraced the promise of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone." (NAC-Galatians, p. 342

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

Other scriptures related to the Abrahamic promise (and thus, "the Jerusalem above") and the "great crowd which no man was able to number":

Gen 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 22:17; 26:4; 32:12; Hos 1:10; Heb 11:12

Commentaries that also recognize this link:

D'Aragon 1968:478; Mounce 1977:171; Sweet 1979:150; Hughes 1990:95; Bauckham 1993a:223; Ulfgard 1989:94

(nnnn:nn indicates year of publication and page number)

The Commentary on the NT Use of the OT says (G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, p.1108):

"As throughout Revelation, this promise to Israel is applied to the church from all nations."

They "wear white robes":

"White robes" signify the purification of the end-time tribulation in Dan 11-12, where the saints ["holy ones" NWT] are "made white" through the fire of persecution; a similar meaning fits well here. Compare Rev 6:11; 7:14 with Dan 11:35; 12:1, 10 (note the Heb. laban ["make white"] in Dan 11:35; 12:10])" (Beale & Carson, p.1096.)

They hold "palm branches in their hands":

"The reference to palm branches is an allusion to the Festival of Tabernacles (cf., e.g. Lev 23:40, 43; Neh 8:15; see Ulfgard 1989:89-92, 95). In the OT this was an annual occasion for the nation to rejoice and to thank God for the fruitfulness of their crops. The feast was also to commemorate Israel's dwelling in tents under divine protection during their pilgrimage in the wilderness after the redemption from Egypt" (Beale & Carson, p.1108)

Thus, the 'holding of palm branches' by the "great crowd" is definately 'covenant' language.

73

Ok I need some advice on how to decline an elder's appointment....

by suavojr in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val=" " /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><![endif].

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif].

in the last 4 months my eyes have been opened to ttatt, my biggest issue is that the elders have been grooming me to appoint me as an elder.

Bobcat

SuvaoJr:

Get off the school. Unless I missed something, you will never be appointed for anything if you are not on the school. Even if the elders wanted to, the CO will not let them.

You don't have to give a reason. Nor do you need to ask the School servant. Just tell him you are getting off the school until further notice. Better yet, write it on a peice of paper that 'starting on such and such a date you will no longer be on the school until further notice.'

They're going to ask why or suggest just putting you on hold but still on the school. Just look at them and say, 'On such-and such a date I'm off the school, brothers, until further notice.'

Incidentally, once you are off, you will begin to notice that many of the other friends wish they weren't bothered by the school either, but don't have the guts to get off it. So they have to suffer the School Servant giving them short notice talks on subjects they couldn't care less about, with housholders (in the case of sisters) who also wish they weren't bothered. And you will finally enjoy it when you hear the School Servant 'bragging' about how this is a school you never graduate from.

24

This week's Oral Review

by Quarterback in

jw
friends

gasp....i hate this part on the meeting, and i don't feel like studying for it.. has anyone done it already, and want to share it with me?

i feel like cheating this week..

Bobcat

Quarterback:

Atlantis actually provided that PDF. I just passed on the link. But I hope it's useful. Don't let the School Overseer or PO see you with it. They will be demanding to know where you got it.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Bobcat

Incidentally, in connection with the "Jerusalem above," the seed of Abraham, and the New Covenant:

The Society's position is that Jesus and the 144,000 are "Abraham's Seed" and that the nations bless themselves by means of that seed. That is, the nations do not become part of that seed, nor are they included in the New Covenant (and thus, the "Jerusalem above" is not their "mother"), rather, they get blessings by associating with that seed of Abraham.

Paul saw things a bit differently. According to him, Jesus is the 'seed of Abraham.' Galatians 3:16 (NWT) says: "...Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ."

From there, Paul reasoned:

". . .YOU [the Gentile Galatian Christians] are all, in fact, sons of God [as part of being in the New Covenant] through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise. (Galatians 3:26-29 NWT)

Thus, Paul's reasoning was that 'the nations bless themselves' by putting faith in Jesus, as the seed of Abraham. And then they become part of Abraham's seed thru their faith in Christ.

From here, there are some very interesting links with Paul's argument and what Revelation chapter 7 says about the great crowd:

First, the "great crowd" is described numerically and by origin, ". . . which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues. . ." (Revelation 7:9)

This description provides two links to the promises made to Abraham. Genesis 13:16 and 15:5 both promise that Abraham's seed would become an innumerable multitude. And the multinational character of the great crowd fits the description of the promise in Genesis 22:18 of 'all nations blessing themselves.'

Secondly, the great crowd's 'washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb' fits Paul's description of becoming part of Abraham's seed thru faith in Christ.

Thirdly, the description in Revelation 7:16 that the great crowd "will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat . . ." is drawn from Isaiah 49:10. In the immediate context of that verse (Isa 49:8-10) God's Servant is said to be given as "a covenant for the people." The people are then described as "repossessing . . . the desolated hereditary possessions," and 'not suffering from hunger, thirst, etc, as is quoted in Revelation 7:16. All this speaks of a "people" who are part of a covenant, "repossessing," not merely bystanders hoping to benefit by hanging around others in the covenant.

These things clearly indicate that the "great crowd" are part of Abraham's seed, and part of the New Covenant, and that their "mother" is NOT some earthly organization, but the "Jerusalem above," just as described by Paul in Galatians.

And this connects the great crowd with what Paul said in Galatians 3:14 (NWT): ". . .The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith." Thus, the great crowd are also included among 'spirit anointed' Christians and would be expected partakers at the Lord's Evening Meal celebration.