The temple word.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5727
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:14 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:27 pm
Image
Would you agree with it? (from the so-called internal perspective). Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed. If the agreements are based on a motive rather than words, I've chosen a gray stroke between the verses.
The connections look sound to me, but the categories raise some questions with respect to your description of the graphic overall:
  1. You say, "Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed," but you have a column called "copying," which is an activity which assumes dependence. I might well agree that Acts has probably copied from something like Mark, but the very existence of the category "copying" would seem to break your rule, would it not? If Acts has copied from Mark, then Acts depends on Mark, does it not? (And it does not appear possible to favor the opposite direction, since it is Acts in the "copying" column and not Mark.)
  2. Another category, "reinterpretation," may or may not break this same rule. If it does not, then my only option is to assume that the passage itself speaks of reinterpretation, which John does but Thomas and Paul do not. If the passage is itself a reinterpretation, rather than simply mentioning one, then that implies that something is being interpreted, which in turn, again, implies a direction of dependence, which would seem to break your rule.
  3. What do you mean by "retelling," to round out the three columns? Once again, it looks like the graphic is implying that Peter is retelling something from Mark, but Mark is in that same column, so what is Mark retelling? I mean, his second passage may be retelling his first, but what is his first retelling?
  4. Do Peter and Paul fall outside of the interior horizontal band because they are not really examples of the saying itself? Does Paul fall below it because he is presumed to be early, Peter above it because he is presumed to be late?
Overall, I am not very clear on what your goal is. I think my goal is very easy to grasp: to figure out which sayings are dependent upon which other sayings, and ultimately which one came first; my inquiry is historical, but with at least a partly literary topic, similar to how one might profitably try to get all of Shakespeare's plays in chronological order by date of publication or of first performance: an historical inquiry about a literary topic. But what exactly is your goal?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:01 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:14 pm
The connections look sound to me, but the categories raise some questions with respect to your description of the graphic overall:
  1. You say, "Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed," but you have a column called "copying," which is an activity which assumes dependence. I might well agree that Acts has probably copied from something like Mark, but the very existence of the category "copying" would seem to break your rule, would it not? If Acts has copied from Mark, then Acts depends on Mark, does it not? (And it does not appear possible to favor the opposite direction, since it is Acts in the "copying" column and not Mark.)
  2. Another category, "reinterpretation," may or may not break this same rule. If it does not, then my only option is to assume that the passage itself speaks of reinterpretation, which John does but Thomas and Paul do not. If the passage is itself a reinterpretation, rather than simply mentioning one, then that implies that something is being interpreted, which in turn, again, implies a direction of dependence, which would seem to break your rule.
  3. What do you mean by "retelling," to round out the three columns? Once again, it looks like the graphic is implying that Peter is retelling something from Mark, but Mark is in that same column, so what is Mark retelling? I mean, his second passage may be retelling his first, but what is his first retelling?
Overall, I am not very clear on what your goal is. I think my goal is very easy to grasp: to figure out which sayings are dependent upon which other sayings, and ultimately which one came first; my inquiry is historical, but with at least a partly literary topic, similar to how one might profitably try to get all of Shakespeare's plays in chronological order by date of publication or of first performance: an historical inquiry about a literary topic. But what exactly is your goal?
Your overview of dependencies is the result of your research. My graphic would be the beginning of a research. My goal was to show an internal order between all these passages. This order does nothing explain, but imho all explanations should more or less fit into.

You are right that I should choose more suitable descriptions. With copying I just wanted to say that there are two stories (trial of Jesus in Mark and trial of Stephen in Acts) with some same characteristics that could not have originated independently of each other. With retelling that a characteristic return within the flow of a story (temple destroying in the Passion) as a sequence of events or sayings, even there are two different narratives (GMark, GPeter), with reinterpretation that the characteristics in different stories agree with each other, but also differ significantly (variations of destroying and rebuildung the same or a different temple in Mark 14:57-59, John 2:18-22, Thomas 71, Paul).
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:14 pm
Do Peter and Paul fall outside of the interior horizontal band because they are not really examples of the saying itself?
Yes. Both are not about Jesus destroying or rebuildung the destroyed temple

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:14 pm
Does Paul fall below it because he is presumed to be early, Peter above it because he is presumed to be late?
No. GPeter seems to be the end of the sequence Mark 14:57-59 par -> Mark 15:29-30 par -> GPeter 7:26. The natural place was above. Paul is placed below because John 2:18-22 has the closest relationship to Mark 14:57-59 and Paul has the closest relationship to Mark 14:57-59 (wording) and John 2:18-22 (theme of body/temple), but is not within the interior horizontal band.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:02 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:01 am
My goal was to show an internal order between all these passages. This order does nothing explain, but imho all explanations should more or less fit into.
While I think that nothing speaks against your proposal that a saying like Thomas 71 was at the beginning of the trajectory, it appears less likely that (somewhat like) Peter 7:26 was the next step.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:07 pm
Statement & Interpretation

There was an historical Jesus. He actually said something like, "I am going to destroy this temple," found in its simplest form in a sayings gospel:

Thomas 71: 71 Jesus said, "I shall destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to rebuild it."

This statement was not a prediction; it was a plan. Accordingly, Jesus and some fellow revolutionaries made a move of some kind against the temple. The move itself may have been as impractical and naïve as, for example, those expectations by some of the sign prophets described by Josephus that the Jordan River would part or that the walls of Jerusalem would fall. Whatever the case or the chances of success or failure, this move got Jesus arrested and crucified as a revolutionary, while his comrades in arms were able to escape. Such a scenario would explain a good many of the indicators put forward by Fernando Bermejo-Rubio.

Jesus' fellow revolutionaries, however, were tainted and thus embarrassed by this failed attempt at destroying the temple; also, their lives may have been in some danger were they to continue Jesus' policy:

Peter 7.26: 26 Ἐγὼ δὲ μετὰ τῶν ἑταίρων ἐλυπούμην, καὶ τετρωμένοι κατὰ διάνοιαν ἐκρυβόμεθα· ἐζητούμεθα γὰρ ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὡς κακοῦργοι καὶ ὡς τὸν ναὸν θέλοντες ἐμπρῆσαι. / 26 But I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the temple.

So the revolutionary aspects of Jesus' career had to be reinterpreted.
It seems to me more likely that (somewhat like) Peter 7:26 needed a context of a prior story about Jesus and his disciple Peter so that the theme of temple destroying could jump from Jesus to Peter.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pm
Mark and John are key for me here, as they are in rather many other situations. Both seem to be reacting to the same thing: the assertion that Jesus said something about destroying the temple.
I think you are right that something in relation to Mark 14:57-59 was problematic and that there was something going on. On the other hand, it seems possible that Mark 14:58 itself was the problem and not an original saying behind it. Obviously, Matthew had a problem with Mark 14:58 in the sense of "That's too hot. Someone might think that Jesus actually said that". Therefore he changed the wording in his version from "I will destroy" to "I am able to destroy" (good for Jesus, but bad for the story).

Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Matthew 26:60 ... At last two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”


Canonical Luke outsourced the story from the Gospel to Acts. In Acts it is not only a claim of false witnesses as in Mark, but also an alleged saying by Stephen and not by Jesus.

Acts 6.13-14: 13 And they put forward false witnesses who said, "This man [Stephen] incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us."


It may be possible that even John corrected only Mark and not a saying behind Mark.
Ulan wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:36 am
I would agree that these are basically the same sayings in Mark and John. The differences easily fit the pattern of how gJohn generally "corrects" gMark. John's Jesus does not need any excuses and is not afraid of anything. gMark's excuse is a bit half-baked, as it isn't really developed properly. gJohn's Jesus just ignores the error his accusers make, as all is going according to plan. As usual, gJohn explains everything to the reader.

soberxp
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: china

Re: The temple word.

Post by soberxp » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:03 am

Thomas 71: 71 Jesus said, "I shall destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to rebuild it."

I think it's not rebuild the house, it's rebuild our new body ,Spiritual thing。Eternal life。cuz no one can do it except Jesus.

other ways, new temple is ourself

Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him;
Thomas 71: 71 Jesus said, "I shall destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to rebuild it."
so jesus is god

Matthew
13:34
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."


Matthew 26.60-61: 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'"

Genesis
1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

Matthew 13:1
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake.

13:2
Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.

13:3
Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed.

13:24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.

13:31 He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

(Mat)13:8
Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop--a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.

(Mat)13:23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

(Mak)4:8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times."

(Mak) Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop--thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."

1Ti4:4
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
so point is we are the "seed" not for food,but for good. :cheeky: I have a little jumping mind, hope u can understand it.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:58 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:02 am
I think you are right that something in relation to Mark 14:57-59 was problematic and that there was something going on. On the other hand, it seems possible that Mark 14:58 itself was the problem and not an original saying behind it. Obviously, Matthew had a problem with Mark 14:58 in the sense of "That's too hot. Someone might think that Jesus actually said that". Therefore he changed the wording in his version from "I will destroy" to "I am able to destroy" (good for Jesus, but bad for the story).

Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Matthew 26:60 ... At last two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”

The "problem" would disappear in a reading of Mark where 14:58 is read as the Gospel as a whole may be profitably read: That the author's intention is to portray how people (different "types" of people, not necessarily any literal specific historical actor) would react to an encounter with a godman.

What brings readers like us up short is a sense of "Wait! Didn't Jesus really say that? Why is the narrator-choral character telling us that these are false witnesses?" Because that's what the witnesses make of something Jesus said (in the story world), not what Jesus actually said.

Mark's Jesus might "really" have said any number of things. For example, perhaps the witnesses overheard an occasion when Jesus tells his disciples about what's to come. Maybe he used the figure "this temple" (meaning his body) as opposed to "The Temple." We don't know. Mark doesn't tell us, because that's the point of the literary device.

I don't know whether there is a name for that literary device (disclosing a "missing scene" by depicting a character misrecalling a story point). It is, however, a device available to Mark. A prominent instance occurs in Genesis 3:1-3, when the Woman tells Serpent that death comes from merely touching, rather than eating the fraught fruit.

Many readers fail to react to that detail until it is pointed out to them, even though the Woman goes so far as to "correct" Serpent's accurate report of the commandment. That neglect is the "mirror reaction" to the "coming up short" of the trial scene. What the Woman says is "close enough" to what we've read God telling Adam to pass... but (a) that isn't what God said, and (b) there must be a "missing scene" where Adam told the Woman or the Woman overheard God and Adam, and (c) she or Adam improves upon what God said, either in the missing scene itself, or in the Woman's (mis)recollection of it. "Moses" doesn't tell us, because that's the point of the literary device.

After Mark, Matthew "fixes" what never was broken because he lacks the wit even to plagiarize properly. That's the story of his gospel in a nutshell. As to John, I'm OK with this being yet another occasion where Mark provides a point of departure for John to "improve" upon, in the religious, if not the literary, sense.

soberxp
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: china

Re: The temple word.

Post by soberxp » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:10 am

Matthew

14:60
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

14:61
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

14:62
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."


http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=4109

soberxp
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: china

Re: The temple word.

Post by soberxp » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:15 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:58 am

Many readers fail to react to that detail until it is pointed out to them, even though the Woman goes so far as to "correct" Serpent's accurate report of the commandment. That neglect is the "mirror reaction" to the "coming up short" of the trial scene. What the Woman says is "close enough" to what we've read God telling Adam to pass... but (a) that isn't what God said, and (b) there must be a "missing scene" where Adam told the Woman or the Woman overheard God and Adam, and (c) she or Adam improves upon what God said, either in the missing scene itself, or in the Woman's (mis)recollection of it. "Moses" doesn't tell us, because that's the point of the literary device.
i agree with u

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5727
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:28 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:58 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:02 am
I think you are right that something in relation to Mark 14:57-59 was problematic and that there was something going on. On the other hand, it seems possible that Mark 14:58 itself was the problem and not an original saying behind it. Obviously, Matthew had a problem with Mark 14:58 in the sense of "That's too hot. Someone might think that Jesus actually said that". Therefore he changed the wording in his version from "I will destroy" to "I am able to destroy" (good for Jesus, but bad for the story).

Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Matthew 26:60 ... At last two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”

The "problem" would disappear in a reading of Mark where 14:58 is read as the Gospel as a whole may be profitably read: That the author's intention is to portray how people (different "types" of people, not necessarily any literal specific historical actor) would react to an encounter with a godman.

What brings readers like us up short is a sense of "Wait! Didn't Jesus really say that? Why is the narrator-choral character telling us that these are false witnesses?" Because that's what the witnesses make of something Jesus said (in the story world), not what Jesus actually said.

Mark's Jesus might "really" have said any number of things. For example, perhaps the witnesses overheard an occasion when Jesus tells his disciples about what's to come. Maybe he used the figure "this temple" (meaning his body) as opposed to "The Temple." We don't know. Mark doesn't tell us, because that's the point of the literary device.

I don't know whether there is a name for that literary device (disclosing a "missing scene" by depicting a character misrecalling a story point). It is, however, a device available to Mark. A prominent instance occurs in Genesis 3:1-3, when the Woman tells Serpent that death comes from merely touching, rather than eating the fraught fruit.

Many readers fail to react to that detail until it is pointed out to them, even though the Woman goes so far as to "correct" Serpent's accurate report of the commandment. That neglect is the "mirror reaction" to the "coming up short" of the trial scene. What the Woman says is "close enough" to what we've read God telling Adam to pass... but (a) that isn't what God said, and (b) there must be a "missing scene" where Adam told the Woman or the Woman overheard God and Adam, and (c) she or Adam improves upon what God said, either in the missing scene itself, or in the Woman's (mis)recollection of it. "Moses" doesn't tell us, because that's the point of the literary device.

After Mark, Matthew "fixes" what never was broken because he lacks the wit even to plagiarize properly. That's the story of his gospel in a nutshell. As to John, I'm OK with this being yet another occasion where Mark provides a point of departure for John to "improve" upon, in the religious, if not the literary, sense.
Twice you say that something is "the point" of the literary device, but you never actually spell out what that point is. What, exactly, is the point of the literary device you are identifying, the one which involves leaving out scenes in the story before another scene recalls details from them?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:47 am

soberxp

Thank you!

Ben

Thank you for your reply. In my post, I meant "the point" in the sense of the chief feature that distinguishes this literary device from other literary devices. That is, the audience learns that something relevant to the story happened which they haven't been shown, can infer some part of what might have happened, but aren't told which possible version of events is "true."

Regrets if my choice of words was unclear. Beyond that, I'm unsure what you're asking. Why does any author use any literary device, except that he or she believes that using it will give the audience a better experience than telling the story some other way?

Which is not to say that I think Mark's choice is causal or arbitrary here. It pays off nicely on Jesus' earlier "forward" that his use of figurative language will cause some to hear without understanding, propels the trial scene onward in a convenient but still plausible way, and notches up yet another way that people might well have reacted to their encounter with a godman.

Not too shabby, IMO. Your mileage may differ.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5727
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:07 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:47 am
Thank you for your reply. In my post, I meant "the point" in the sense of the chief feature that distinguishes this literary device from other literary devices. That is, the audience learns that something relevant to the story happened which they haven't been shown, can infer some part of what might have happened, but aren't told which possible version of events is "true."

Regrets if my choice of words was unclear. Beyond that, I'm unsure what you're asking. Why does any author use any literary device, except that he or she believes that using it will give the audience a better experience than telling the story some other way?

Which is not to say that I think Mark's choice is causal or arbitrary here. It pays off nicely on Jesus' earlier "forward" that his use of figurative language will cause some to hear without understanding, propels the trial scene onward in a convenient but still plausible way, and notches up yet another way that people might well have reacted to their encounter with a godman.

Not too shabby, IMO. Your mileage may differ.
What I am wondering is what would distinguish this literary device you are describing from sloppy writing. If an author literally forgets exactly what s/he wrote in a past scene and therefore does not quite "recall" it correctly in the current scene, would the result not look very much like the literary device you are pointing to? In both cases the reader would be expected to fill in or match up the details left out by the writer.

Other literary devices, at least the ones that are springing to my mind, are obviously deliberate. Foreshadowing, for example, can scarcely be the result of the author accidentally having alluded to the same event twice, once before it has happened and then again while it is happening. But your literary device, if such it is, looks to me like it can easily have resulted from carelessness, at least in some cases. So how can you tell those done on purpose from those done by accident?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply