Mark 6.23 & 14.71 and swearing.

[John2]

Regarding Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke, this webpage sums up something that Howard notes in the Hebrew version that is interesting.

• In the canonical New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is a single long message spoken by Jesus, without any narrative interruption. However, in the Shem Tov Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount is interrupted 16 times by the introductory phrase “Again Jesus said to His disciples”, or something similar. These interruptions occur in Matt 5:13, 5:17, 5:20, 5:25, 5:27, 5:31, 5:43, 6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 6:19, 6:24, 7:6, 7:13, 7:15 and 7:24. The location of the interruptions is significant when placed in parallel with Luke’s usage of the same verses. Every time the Hebrew has an interruption, Luke either jumps to a different place in his gospel, or Luke does not have those verses. This curious fact may suggest that a common source or sources for the sayings of Jesus stand behind both Matthew and Luke. In a way, these interruptions could be considered fingerprints of the famous Q source. But if so, it would point to a Hebrew language Q. A similar thing happens in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24-25. The Shem Tov version of Matt 24:27 interrupts Jesus' talk with the narrative “Again Jesus said to His disciples.” This ends a section that appears also in Mark, while the following passage (Matt 24:27) does not appear in Mark. Interruptions also in Matt 24:37 (Luke diff spot, Mark doesn’t have it), 24:42 (Mark has it, diff spot, Luke does not), 25:1 (not in Mark or Luke), 25:14, 25:31 (not in Mark or Luke).

http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Matthew.htm

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

"I wish I shared your confidence that this chapter was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not."

Not to say that I am confident, but I'm curious why you aren't.

Well, first let me alter my statement to read: "I wish I shared your confidence that this sermon was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not." Does that make a difference to you? Most of my investigation so far into the integrity of the Sermon on the Mount has been in chapter 5, not in chapter 6.

[Michael BG]

Regarding Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke, this webpage sums up something that Howard notes in the Hebrew version that is interesting.

• In the canonical New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is a single long message spoken by Jesus, without any narrative interruption. However, in the Shem Tov Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount is interrupted 16 times by the introductory phrase “Again Jesus said to His disciples”, or something similar. These interruptions occur in Matt 5:13, 5:17, 5:20, 5:25, 5:27, 5:31, 5:43, 6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 6:19, 6:24, 7:6, 7:13, 7:15 and 7:24. The location of the interruptions is significant when placed in parallel with Luke’s usage of the same verses. Every time the Hebrew has an interruption, Luke either jumps to a different place in his gospel, or Luke does not have those verses. …

http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Matthew.htm

Luke does not have Matthew’s chapter 5 as a section – Lk 6:12, 6:20-23, 14:34-35, 12:57-59, (16:18 par Mk 10:11-12), 6:29-30, 6:27-28 and 32-36. I therefore find this argument weak.

Ben wrote:

"I wish I shared your confidence that this chapter was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not."

Not to say that I am confident, but I'm curious why you aren't.

Well, first let me alter my statement to read: "I wish I shared your confidence that this sermon was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not." Does that make a difference to you? Most of my investigation so far into the integrity of the Sermon on the Mount has been in chapter 5, not in chapter 6.

I know that many (or is it most) scholars who study Q prefer Luke’s order. I think it is because they prefer his contexts for the different order. I have always wondered if Matthew might have kept the order better because I think he kept Mark’s order better than Luke.

Matthew’s chapters 5 and 6 are what from texts that can be considered Q or M and, with the exception for divorce, there no evidence of them being from Mark. I have argued on this forum that I think Matthew’s divorce section here (5:31-32) is from Q and he follows Mark at 19:9.

It therefore seems very possible that Matthew’s chapter 5 was in all in Q. How would one argue that all of chapter 5 was said by Jesus at the same time when the assumption is that the author (in this case the author of Q) gathered sayings together or inherited them grouped by his community?

I am not sure that five sayings I identified were all said by Jesus at the same time because I would expect a group of three sayings or there to be identical introductory sections for a grouping by Jesus.

[iskander]

Regarding Matthew 5:33-36, Nehemia Gordon notes that this is yet another instance where the Hebrew Matthew makes more sense than the Greek. I'm at work right now so I don't have his book in which he discusses this at hand, but I found this webpage that mentions it.

The Greek translation of Matthew inadvertently dropped the word falsely from the Hebrew Matthew. This erroneously made it appear Jesus said one is never to take an oath ... Jesus' criticisms imply the Pharisaic quibbling with Lev. 19:12 led the Pharisees to sanction false oaths as long as not in God's name. Implied from Jesus' criticisms is that the Pharisees obviously said Lev. 19:12 meant one could falsely swear even if you invoked objects closely associated with God, like the Temple. You supposedly would transgress the command only when God's name is actually used ... Thus, the Pharisees diminished the Law once more. Gordon detected the difference in the Hebrew version of Matthew (i.e., the Shem-Tov) where Jesus corrected them, saying "do not swear falsely at all," whether by the temple or anything else. The Greek translation inadvertently dropped the word falsely. This led us to misapprehend Jesus' meaning.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/215 ... iants.html

The Hebrew verse says :
" Gordon detected the difference in the Hebrew version of Matthew (i.e., the Shem-Tov) where Jesus corrected them, saying `do not swear falsely at all,' whether by the temple or anything else. The Greek translation inadvertently dropped the word falsely. This led us to misapprehend Jesus' meaning."
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/215 ... iants.html

The NT verse in Matthew says :
" But I say to you, Do not swear at all. . . . Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one"
NB The word " falsely " is missing in the Canonical Greek Testament.


The verse in the Greek Testament is a clear and powerful statement .

[JoeWallack]

Matthew 5.33-36 gives us the dominical saying:

33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, do not swear [ὀμόσαι] at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear [ὀμόσῃς] by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black."

Mark uses the verb ὄμνυμι only twice. The first time is in Mark 6.23:

23 And [Herod] swore [ὤμοσεν] to her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom."

The second time is in Mark 14.71:

71 But [Peter] began to curse and swear [ὀμνύναι], "I do not know this man you are talking about!

Both of these are, in context, unwise instances of swearing. Was Mark aware of a saying (dominical or otherwise) against swearing or making oaths, and did he decide to illustrate the principle in stories rather than to simply place it on the lips of Jesus? Or did Matthew take the principle from Marcan storytelling and turn it in to a dominical saying? Or are there other, more likely options? What is the relationship, if any, between these verses?

Ben.

JW:
I think you are a bit off the trail here Ben. I have faith that the intended parallel/contrast of the Herod story keys on "Kingdom", the earthly Kingdom verses the heavenly Kingdom. "Swear"/oath is secondary. The usage of the offending word by Peter is primarily intended to show at the sub-text level that Peter is just as much on trial as Jesus. In perhaps the author's most clever pericope he is simultaneously showing Jesus/Peter on trial. Hence the trial like word "oath"/swear. I now present, for your polemical enjoyment probably my all time favorite post:

The WallGan commission going over the McJuder tape once again:

Mark 14: (KJV)
53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Wallack: Now the "Stone" version at 33 & 1/3:

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest" (Jesus taken by Force)
"And Peter followed him afar off" (Peter taken Voluntarily)

"and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." (Jesus' audience is Authority)
"and he sat with the servants" (Peter's audience is Servants)

"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." (Jesus' witnesses are False)
"they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." (Peter's witnesses are True)

"And Jesus said, I am." (Jesus defends with the Truth)
"But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak." (Peter defends with a Lie)

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Jesus' audience doesn't believe a True defense)
"And when he thought thereon, he wept" (Peter's audience believes a False defense)

Wallack:
Play back Mark 14:66 (KJV)
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace"

Play back Matthew 26:69 (KJV)
"Now Peter sat without in the palace"

Vorkosigan:
"Mark's" use of the historical present in Greek makes it clearer that the Jesus/Peter stories are intended to happen simultaneously. Just like you'd see in a split screen or a Play.

Wallack:
Agreed. Play back Mark 14:72:
"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Note the implication that the accusers believed Peter and left him alone to cry. Play back Matthew 26:75:

"And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly."

The implication is that Peter was not believed so he had to leave before he could cry. This is more believable historically but lessens the contrast of the Jesus/Peter story. So the little changes, "Mark's" simultaneous stories and consistent contrast in the Jesus/Peter stories are more contrived literature and less plausible historically. The consistent contrast between "Mark's" Jesus and Peter is consistent with "Mark's" theme that everyone failed Jesus. Peter's purpose in "Mark" is not to show a disciple who continued the Jesus movement but on the contrary to show that even Jesus' most trusted disciple and his #1 failed him. Note that in "Mark", unlike "Matthew", this is the last we hear of Peter. The implication is that even Peter realized he had failed Jesus. Permanently. This is why the fraudulent addition of "Mark" 16:9-20 is so significant.

Vorkosigan:
Therefore, the evidence indicates that "Mark" shot JFK (Jesus F. Krist) first and Acted alone without "Matthew" (the second Gospelman theory).

Wallack:
Agreed.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

[John2]

Ben,

The variant of "falsely" in the Shem Tov Hebrew Mt. 5:33-37 regarding not swearing not only fits the context of 5:17-19:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It fits the overall context of Matthew being anti-Pharisaic. The addition of "falsely" doesn't merely soften Jesus' statement against swearing, it goes with the context of 5:17-19 and with his other attacks against the Pharisees, including in 5:20, where he says, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." This attack is lost with the absence of "falsely" in the Greek too.

But if, despite the context of 5:17-19, Jesus really did revoke the Torah in 5:33-37, why is he later only accused of breaking the Pharisees' Oral Law in 15:1-9, and why does he then accuse them of breaking the written Torah?

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother' and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

So I think too much is lost with the absence of "falsely" in the Greek, and this does not appear to be the case with the absence of "vainly" in 5:22.