Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

This answer draws on Michael J. Cahill, "Drinking Blood at a Kosher Eucharist? The Sound of Scholarly Silence", Biblical Theology Bulletin 32/4 (2002): 168-181. It should be consulted directly for full discussion and copious further references. OP: Wouldn't Jews be taken aback by the suggestion that they should drink blood? Yes, they would. OP: How ...


11

The other two answers do a good job of answering the question, but I thought it was worth pointing out the actual ban and its explanation: Leviticus 17:10 Explicitly makes your point for you; those who consume the blood of animals are cut off from the Jews, but then verse 11 explains the reason for the ban on blood of animals; drinking blood takes upon ...


9

There were two thieves reviling Jesus; one then repented. John Chrysostom, who was fluent in, and therefore familiar with, the Koine Greek of the New Testament, made no mention of the use of the grammar with regard to the apparent confusion and contradiction between the gospel accounts. Instead, he noted the following - Now that you may understand ...


7

In my understanding, the key arguments put forward for the order Mark > Luke > Matthew (i.e., for "Matthean posteriority") are: the literary observation that Matthew appears to collect, collate, and develop traditions found in Luke (e.g., what appears in Matt 5-7 in the "Sermon on the Mount" is found at various points, and in a more "primitive" form at ...


6

Jesus had aleady shocked his followers with references to drinking blood in John Chapter 6. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" When leads to.. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. I think we can infer that by the time of the Last Supper, any disciples who had a problem with ...


6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


3

Lots of scholars look for alternatives to the traditional Mark-Q priority, but in my view without success. Dennis R. MacDonald wrote a well-researched thesis in Two Shipwrecked Gospels that Luke knew not only Mark, but also Matthew. That would have caused an even bigger stir among critical scholars than his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, but ...


3

You have asked about the order being Mark > Luke > Matthew. My answer below addresses the order of Luke being written before even Mark. This arrangement is called Lukan Priority. It is very much a minority opinion. As you know, the prevailing theory in New Testament studies is Markan Priority. It has the most support among scholars. A minority position ...


3

The conservative view is that the Gospel of Thomas dates from the second century. This is largely because it demonstrates the existence of Gnostic Christian beliefs and, to some, it is inconceivable that such variant beliefs could have existed so soon after the crucifixion of Jesus. On the other hand, the dominant view among critical scholars is that it is ...


2

The literary device at play here is not synecdoche, but literary dependence and elaboration. When the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are laid side by side and read synoptically ('with the same eye') in the original Greek language, it is clear that there is a literary dependency among them. Further study shows that Mark was the first to be written, with ...


2

Since the stories are incompatible, can we conclude that at least one of them was invented? How can we tell which is true, if any? I would like to challenge the assumption that the the two narratives of the birth of Jesus are incompatible. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown writes: This leads us to the observation that the two narratives are not ...


2

The simple answer is, of course they are different, they are describing actions that happened on two separate occasions. One narrates from His birth until 40 days later; while the other tells of events that happened around the age of two. First you have to remember that there were no chapter and verse markers in the original Greek; you can’t always assume ...


1

This is a good question, and touches on a number of hermeneutical nuances. In order to bring out some of the subtleties which will underlie our answer, I'd like to begin by reviewing a number of key assumptions inherent in the question itself. Assumption 1: The disciples were Jews It is true that the disciples were of Israelite descent and had grown up ...


1

Each gospel writer put in those things which further and advance the conclusion to which he is heading toward. Of importance to Matthew is the royal line coming down from king David. Jesus must have a royal bloodline so David is mentioned 6 times in chap. 1. In MATT.1:1 David is mentioned before Abraham who fathered the nation of Israel. This shows Jesus ...


1

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 7, that the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends. She says (page 11) Luke wants to make the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem plausible by fabricating the story of the census. But since he handles the facts ...


1

Since Mark's Gospel used the term 'gospel' in verse 1:1 (the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God), we have tended to use the word in the quite specific sense of the story of the mission, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. At Matthew 11:5, this clearly could not have been what was being taught, although they could have taught that Jesus had begun to ...


1

It depends on your definition of gleaning, and what time of year they were doing it. Gleaning is supposed to be done by the poor after the harvesters have gone through the field and gathered in the harvest. From wikipedia: According to the Holiness Code and the Deuteronomic Code of the Torah, farmers should leave the corners of their fields ...


1

In one way, yes they are, but literally they are not the same. Looking at four different accounts, in context, we can see so many similarities that they must surely be versions of the same account, yet there are important differences: Mark 14:3-5,7 (KJV): "And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman ...


1

We need to start with Mark's Gospel, as this is the earliest source available to us. Matthew's Gospel is known to have been based substantially on Mark and, when copying the original gospel, its anonymous author sometimes resolves what he sees as errors in Mark's Gospel. An example is in Mark 5:1, where Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee to the land of the ...


1

Egerton may be to John what Q is hypothetically to Matt/Luke. Wikipedia cites Jon B. Daniels (The Complete Gospels): "... suggestions that the Egerton Gospel served as a source for the authors of Mark and/or John also lack conclusive evidence. The most likely explanation for the Egerton Gospel's similarities and differences from the canonical gospels is ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible