Different Storytellers

[LittleLes]

Matt 26: 6-7 " Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table

Mark 14:3 "When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.

Matthew has copied pretty accurately from Mark's gospel here, but evidently John has a different version.

John 12:1 -4 "Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him. Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.

In John's story, it's at Lazarus's house, Mary is the actor, and Jesus' feet (not head) got anointed.

Different versions from different storytellers. Which is factual?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 02:18 PM']Matt 26: 6-7 " Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table

Mark 14:3  "When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.

Matthew has copied pretty accurately from Mark's gospel here, but evidently John has a different version.

John 12:1 -4 "Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him. Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus  and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.

In John's story, it's at Lazarus's house, Mary is the actor, and Jesus' feet (not head) got anointed.

Different versions from different storytellers. Which is factual?
[right][snapback]657024[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


1) The passage from John does not state it was Lazarus' home, it only stated that he was there.

2) Matthew and Mark only mention "woman", but Mary was also a woman. It would be a contradiction if the person who annointed Jesus was a woman with another name, or a man.

3) Jesus was annointed on the head and feet.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:31 PM']1) The passage from John does not state it was Lazarus' home, it only stated that he was there.

2) Matthew and Mark only mention "woman", but Mary was also a woman.  It would be a contradiction if the person who annointed Jesus was a woman with another name, or a man.

3) Jesus was annointed on the head and feet.
[right][snapback]657051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I see. You are saying that Mary anointed Jesus twice then, on both the head and on the feet? And you think that neither Matthew nor Mark knew the woman's name was Mary, Lazarus's sister?????

Face it. It's a different version of the story from a different storyteller.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 06:34 PM']RESPONSE:

I see. You are saying that Mary anointed Jesus twice then, on both the head and on the feet? And you think that neither Matthew nor Mark knew the woman's name was Mary, Lazarus's sister????? [/quote]

Each of the four Gospels were written to different audiences, that is why some details are mentioned in some and not in others. :


[quote]Face it. It's a different version of the story from a different storyteller.
[right][snapback]657381[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Proof?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 24 2005, 08:17 PM']
LittleLes stated:
I see. You are saying that Mary anointed Jesus twice then, on both the head and on the feet? And you think that neither Matthew nor Mark knew the woman's name was Mary, Lazarus's sister?????

Paladin replied:
Each of the four Gospels were written to different audiences, that is why some details are mentioned in some and not in others. :

Little Les stated.
Face it. It's a different version of the story from a different storyteller

Paladin asked:
Proof?

[right][snapback]657561[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Each of the Gospels were written by different unknown writers recalling different versions of popular legends.

I've alread quoted the differing versions of the anointing at Bethany (the village, not Mt Olivet : ) by Mark, Matthew, and John. Are you now trying to argue that the four different stroytellers were really the same person?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:28 AM']RESPONSE:

Each of the Gospels were written by different unknown writers recalling different versions of popular legends.

I've alread quoted the differing versions of the anointing at Bethany (the village, not Mt Olivet : ) by Mark, Matthew, and John. Are you now trying to argue that the four different stroytellers were really the same person?
[right][snapback]657954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They were written by [b]known[/b] authors. Matthew and John were [b]apostles[/b], therefore they were direct eyewitnesses; while Mark and Luke were [b]disciples[/b], they relied on second-hand information most of the time. They were written to [b]different audiences[/b]; Matthew was for the Jews, Luke for the Gentiles, Mark for the Romans, and John (the longest) for the Christians.

I'm glad you accepted the Bethany/Mt. Olive explanation that I gave you.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:30 AM']They were written by [b]known[/b] authors.  Matthew and John were [b]apostles[/b], therefore they were direct eyewitnesses; [/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not really. But apologists try to convince us of that.

The New American Bible's Introduction to Matthew summarizes the current thinking against the authorship of Matthew being the apostle of that name.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is UNTENABLE because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."

Of course, Matthew's blunder of having Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two animals (so Matthew could claim yet another prophecy), evidences that Matthew was not an eyewitness.

And it would take a longer explanation, but John's Gospel is the combined work of three, quite possibly four, writers.

It was a common practice to name a writing after an important person in those days.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:56 AM']RESPONSE:

Not really. But apologists try to convince us of that.

The New American Bible's Introduction to Matthew summarizes the current thinking against the authorship of Matthew being the apostle of that name.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is UNTENABLE because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."

Of course, Matthew's blunder of having Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two animals (so Matthew could claim yet another prophecy), evidences that Matthew  was not an eyewitness.

And it would take a longer explanation, but John's Gospel is the combined work of three, quite possibly four, writers.

It was a common practice to name a writing after an important person in those days.
[right][snapback]658165[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It's unfortunate that you're being dooped into the [b]Markan Priority Theory[/b].



[i][b]THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY[/b] asserts that:

+ Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.

+ Mark`s Gospel is in `poor Greek` when compared to that of Matthew and Luke.

+ So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark.

+ This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e. Markan priority).

+ Matthew the Apostle (an eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account.

+ This indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark`s Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources (these are referred to as `Q`).

+ As Luke also improved on Mark`s Greek, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul.

+ These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus..

+ As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings can not be seen as accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did.

+The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories.



As the Markan priority theory is based upon modern scientific

research, and the Jerome Tradition is based on historical records,

`Science` should be trusted in preference to `old traditions`.

`The Jesus of History` is not the same as `The Christ of Faith`

Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis.
====================================================[/i]







While I hold onto the Clementine tradition:




[i][b]THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION[/b]

+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.

+ Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

+ In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.

+ Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers used the same order.

+ When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.

+ A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternatively, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.

+ Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles

+ Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

+ By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel..

+ This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.

+ The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement.

THE CHURCH

+ Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.

+ The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.

+ The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.

+ Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis

+ The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.

================

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

is in full accord with:

The earliest Christian historians

Modern literary analysis

The doctrine of the church

Recent Church statements
====================================================[/i]





A rather detailed and insightful analysis. [url="http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm"]http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/boo...s-gospels-1.htm[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:18 AM']It's unfortunate that you're being dooped into the [b]Markan Priority Theory[/b].


+[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I'll stick with the Markan Priority Theory only because Mark wrote first. That's pretty much what the Catholic Church is teaching these days as well.

The older theory, favored by the more fundamentalist among us, - never very convincing - is based on the unreliable writings of some early church fathers such as Papias.

However, I do agree that there is at least one early gospel by Mathew to the Hebrews which may be authentic But in this case, too, we don't know who the actual author was.

This is the gospel of Matthew without a nativity narrative or virgin birth story and in which Jesus is held to have had a natural birth and not to be divine. It was used by the the original Christian communities such as Ebionites and others .

See the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Ebionites, or read the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:20 PM']RESPONSE:

I'll stick with the Markan Priority Theory only because Mark wrote first. That's pretty much what the Catholic Church is teaching these days as well.[/quote]


Only from heterodox Catholics and groups, not from the teaching authority of the Magisterium.



[quote]The older theory, favored by the more fundamentalist among us, - never very convincing - is based on the unreliable writings of some early church fathers such as Papias.

However, I do agree that there is at least one early gospel by Mathew to the Hebrews which may be authentic  But in this case, too, we don't know who the actual author was.

This is the gospel of Matthew  without a nativity narrative or virgin birth story and in which Jesus is held  to have had a natural birth and not to be divine. It was used by the the original Christian communities such as Ebionites and others .

See the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Ebionites, or read the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
[right][snapback]658279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'll give you a few days to take your time and read the link I provided, it's an interesting read (even if you may not agree with it).

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 12:25 PM']Only from heterodox Catholics and groups, not from the teaching authority of the Magisterium.
I'll give you a few days to take your time and read the link I provided, it's an interesting read (even if you may not agree with it).
[right][snapback]658289[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think that the New American Bible, sponsored by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and produced by the Catholic Biblical Association with a foreword of approval by the pope might be considered more or less the official Church Teachings.

Does the "authority of the magisterium" say otherwise? If you are making that claim, please present your evidence.

I'll hold off reading your lengthy link until you do! :

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:40 PM']RESPONSE:

I think that the New American Bible, sponsored by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and produced by the Catholic Biblical Association with a foreword of approval by the pope might be considered more or less the official Church Teachings.

Does the "authority of the magisterium" say otherwise? If you are making that claim, please present your evidence.

I'll hold off reading your lengthy  link until you do! :
[right][snapback]658309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Same old NAB stuff, huh? It's been explained 100+ times, but you refuse to believe it without coming up with a valid response. The Vatican won't even let the published NAB (the one you're reading) be used at Mass and you are trying to tell us that it is the end all of Catholic biblical scholarship...

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 25 2005, 12:49 PM'] Same old NAB stuff, huh?  It's been explained 100+ times, but you refuse to believe it without coming up with a valid response.  The Vatican won't even let the published NAB (the one you're reading) be used at Mass and you are trying to tell us that it is the end all of Catholic biblical scholarship...
[right][snapback]658321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I await your evidence that the "teaching authority of the Magisterium" does not support the New American Bible.

In the meantime there is this from the Adoramus Bulletin:

VATICAN -- NCCB: ACCORD ON LITURGY TEXTS
US Bishops' Vote on Lectionary Revisions Signals Renewed Cooperation

By Helen Hull Hitchcock and Susan Benofy

".....Both volumes of this edition of the Lectionary are based on a revised translation of the New American Bible, the most common Lectionary translation in current use in the US. The New American Bible is a translation prepared under the authority of the US bishops' conference."

Perhaps your information regarding the NAB like your claim against Markean Primacy is a bit out of date.

I'll await your evidence (or your withdrawal of your assertion) of the Magisterium's disapproval of the New American Bible.

But this, of course, is a peripheral issue to the different versions of the same stories in the New Testamant which is the subject of this thread.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:30 PM']".....Both volumes of this edition of the Lectionary are based on a [b]revised[/b] translation of the New American Bible, the most common Lectionary translation in current use in the US. The New American Bible is a translation prepared under the authority of the US bishops' conference."
[right][snapback]658384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Notice the word [i]revised[/i]. [b]This quotation is a [u]confirmation[/u] of my assertion[/b]. The Lectionary version of the NAB was [i]revised[/i] so it could be used at Mass. This version, however, has never been offered to the faithful for purchase, thus, [b]you are reading/quoting the unapproved version[/b]. [u][b]It is fact[/b][/u], and if you deny it, I will have nothing left to think but that you are living in a fantasy world.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:18 PM']Notice the word [i]revised[/i].  [b]This quotation is a [u]confirmation[/u] of my assertion[/b].  The Lectionary version of the NAB was [i]revised[/i] so it could be used at Mass.  This version, however, has never been offered to the faithful for purchase, thus, [b]you are reading/quoting the unapproved version[/b].  [u][b]It is fact[/b][/u], and if you deny it, I will have nothing left to think but that you are living in a fantasy world.
[right][snapback]658447[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Is that right? If you want to pursue this as a topic, you might want to check the dates of the revisions. I believe that they are available on-line. And then start a thread about this or Matthew's primacy . Or what ever else you want. But these aren't the topic of the present thread.

We have seriously deviated from the present topic which is that of the different storytellers and the variations in their stories. Which I have shown.

I will return to this topic now.