Yuku free message boards

Etherman ~

RE: "So are you saying that Jesus spoke in this garbled incoherent way, or that the gospel writers just rearranged his words so that he'd appear psychotic?"

(Kinda like the question "Do you still smoke pot?", isn't it.) I'm saying that Jesus' statements did not seem garbled to the disciples on the scene or to the recipients of the Gospel of Matthew. You just needed to know what to expect, somewhat like one needs to know what to expect in the organization of a city-newspaper to read an entire news-story.

RE: "How come Mark and Luke don't report any question about the end of the world? They only report the question about the end of the Temple."

In Mark 13:3-4, Peter, James, John and Andrew ask Jesus "When will these things be" and "What will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?" And that's pretty much what follows in Mark 13:5-23 -- predictions about the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, and what the disciples could expect to see at that time. The only part of Mark 13 that applies primarily to the end-times is 13:24-27. Luke arranged the material similarly -- and even paraphrased the reference to the "abomination of desolation" by referring to the scenario in which Jerusalem was to be surrounded by armies (in Luke 21:20).

RE: "It can't be because this question isn't important because they both decided it was important enough to give Jesus' answer to the question."

It looks to me like Matthew 24:29-31, and Mark 13:24-27, and Luke 21:25-28 (parallel-passages) were appended to the material about the destruction of Jerusalem but were understood to be a separate pericope with a separate focus.

RE: "Weren't they worried that they might mislead their readers who might not have access to Matthew?"

No, because their readers already knew the material and its focus-points from the period in which Jesus' sermons were circulated as small compositions. Those who already knew how the "Little Apocalypse" source which underlies Mark 13 (which, in turn, underlies Matthew 24 and Luke 21) should be digested would know how these source-dependent portions in the Gospels should be digested.

RE: "Of course there's a simple solution to this. The gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple and the writers were convinced the end would be soon."

But then why write a book in the first place? Writing and disseminating even a slender book in those days was an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. And why feature instructions about things like swearing by the Temple (in Matthew 23) if the Temple was gone?

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock