09-30-2004, 04:46 PM
DAVE:
How is "the whole episode very different in Matthew and Mark" ?
YURI:
Shlama, Dave.
It is different in every way in Matthew and Mark.
In Mark, this is a "Markan sandwich", i.e. the incident is split in two, and surrounds the cleansing of the temple.
DAVE:
I don't accept redaction theories, but the theory I am familiar with is that Matthew followed Mark, Mark being the shortest and most basic narrative, and Mark used "Q" for the basic gospel account.
YURI:
I don't accept this. I don't think that Mk was the earliest gospel.
And I don't believe in "Q".
DAVE:
To suggest that The LORD was merely stating a prophesy about the temple is silly.
YURI:
Why is this silly?
DAVE:
"No man shall eat fruit of thee from now and forever", is an assertion of power over the fig tree.
YURI:
Well, this depends on the grammar, isn't it?
So this is what I'm trying to ascertain.
There is a whole range of difficult problems in interpreting this incident. You seem to think that this is all a very easy matter, but it is not.
Perhaps you don't realise that such things as "Q" have been _created_ by modern scholars. Where is there any "Q" mentioned in the Scripture?
You seem to want to pick-and-choose among scholarly opinions, while claiming to know the truth from above. This is not how scholarship is done.
Shlama,
Yuri.
How is "the whole episode very different in Matthew and Mark" ?
YURI:
Shlama, Dave.
It is different in every way in Matthew and Mark.
In Mark, this is a "Markan sandwich", i.e. the incident is split in two, and surrounds the cleansing of the temple.
DAVE:
I don't accept redaction theories, but the theory I am familiar with is that Matthew followed Mark, Mark being the shortest and most basic narrative, and Mark used "Q" for the basic gospel account.
YURI:
I don't accept this. I don't think that Mk was the earliest gospel.
And I don't believe in "Q".
DAVE:
To suggest that The LORD was merely stating a prophesy about the temple is silly.
YURI:
Why is this silly?
DAVE:
"No man shall eat fruit of thee from now and forever", is an assertion of power over the fig tree.
YURI:
Well, this depends on the grammar, isn't it?
So this is what I'm trying to ascertain.
There is a whole range of difficult problems in interpreting this incident. You seem to think that this is all a very easy matter, but it is not.
Perhaps you don't realise that such things as "Q" have been _created_ by modern scholars. Where is there any "Q" mentioned in the Scripture?
You seem to want to pick-and-choose among scholarly opinions, while claiming to know the truth from above. This is not how scholarship is done.
Shlama,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->