Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:52 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:13 pm
As I said, the way the saying is treated (interpreted) is different, very different, in each case. That difference does extend to your observation about the two sayings having "opposite" basic meanings. But it is obviously the same basic saying that is being treated. Mark and John did not come up with these formulations independently; either one knew the other or both knew something else in common.
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.
I said
I think the usual discussions on such a topic are about sayings or parables which have more or less the same or a very similar content. They can differ in many aspects, but they go in the same direction and make a similar point. But I think the present case is interesting because the situation is different. It seems to me that we have not the same saying in different words, but partially the same words in different sayings (so to speak). For me it looks like as if one author had taken over two or three words or elements from another author, but then added other words or elements to give the saying a new meaning, a new context or a new direction.
The cause of our disagreement on this point seems to be, at least in part, that we have a different idea of sameness and a different opinion at what time of the research such an assessment should be made. The reason why I focus on how it is treated is the following. While I agree that you can show many verbal agreements between John and Mark 14:58, I think that you can't do that with other verses that you have also rated as treatments of “the same saying” in the OP, for example GPeter 7:26 and Mark 13:2
GPeter 7.26 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.
Mark 13.1-2: 1 And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down."
It was misleading on my part to call Peter 7.26 "the same saying." What I should have said is that it is a natural
consequence of that saying. If Jesus was reported, however truly or falsely, to have threatened the destruction of the temple, then it stands to reason that his associates and accomplices would be implicated in the same plot.
In contrast, despite the many striking agreements between Mark 14:58 and 2 Corinthians 5.1 you rate both verses not as „basically the same saying“.
Right, and I stand by that one. The OP was meant to be brief; thus, necessarily, I did not describe very completely all those thought processes I had while staring at these passages for literally weeks. (In a sense my OP is a mark of failure to some extent; after all that mulling over those passages, all I could come up with is a viable, plausible trajectory which must, naturally, compete with other trajectories. There is no "gotcha" moment, no great "aha!" or the like. But, you know, all one can do is dig for fossils; there is no guarantee one will find them.)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:45 pmYou are probably aware of it, but let me draw attention to the fact that we excluded some explanatory models in the moment we agreed on your selection.
Actually, I think this moment of exclusion happened even before that. It happened as soon as I called the saying in question "the temple word." What I meant by that (and what I think others mean by that same title) entails both denotation and connotation. The letter of the law, so to speak, is that it is a
word (saying) about the
temple (in Jerusalem). In spirit, it is also a word or saying
by Jesus about the
fate of the temple. So the question at hand is what Jesus said (or, in its earliest recoverable form, what Jesus is
alleged to have said) about the fate of the temple. I know I simply placed the original saying on Jesus' lips, but that was strictly for convenience, it being easier to say that "Jesus said" something than that "some early tradent alleged that Jesus said" something time after time. I am interested in the earliest recoverable saying, attributed to Jesus, concerning the fate of the temple. Claims and counterclaims must all be in play, as well, by necessity. (In other words, "Jesus said X" is important, but so is "this or that witness said that Jesus said X."
With that goal in mind, the passages actually suggest themselves. I acknowledge that Peter 7.26, while definitely on the table to discuss, is not actually an instance of the saying itself; but to omit it from consideration of the overall trajectory would be a mistake. Thomas 71, however, I count as an instance of the saying; strictly speaking, it might not be, but I do not actually believe for one sheer moment that it is not, so I have to go with my instincts on that: Thomas 71 is not just a coincidental formulation which happened to resemble the temple word.
Matthew 26.60-61, Mark 14.57-59, and Acts 6.13-14 are examples, since both "Stephen said" and "the witnesses said that Jesus said X" is, as mentioned above, just as important as "Jesus said X." Matthew 27.39-40 and Mark 15.29-30 are examples for the same reason. John 2.18-22 is another clear example in its own right.
Matthew 24.1-2, Mark 13.1-2, and Luke 21.5-6 are also clear examples, literally being sayings by Jesus about the fate of the temple. You are correct to note:
Furthermore, I tend to assume that most people would disagree with you that Mark 13:1-2 is just a reinterpretation of „basically the same saying“, even if you conceded that the historical temple destruction is the main influence of that reinterpretion. The opposite view, that the temple destruction was the main root for Mark 13:1-2 and any agreement in the wording only secondarily, may be at least a opinion to be respected.
And I basically agree. My view is that the abomination of desolation was originally about the desecration, not the destruction, of the temple. After 70, however, the prediction was tweaked to mean its destruction, partially by means of Matthew 24.1-2, Mark 13.1-2, and Luke 21.5-6. So the
origin of this particular version of the saying may well have had nothing to do with the other examples of the temple word; yet this version is a temple word, through and through. Once formulated, it could easily be used as "what Jesus really said," regardless of its exact etiology.
The flight of bumblebees, the flight of hummingbirds, and the flight of fruit bats are all subject to aerodynamic principles just by virtue of them being examples of winged flight, despite the fact that each of the three kinds of flight apparently evolved completely separately from one another. So too the saying in Mark 13.1-2 and the saying in Mark 14.57-59 are both examples of the temple word, despite their probably separate origins. This ought not to surprise us. Flight is of tremendous evolutionary advantage in certain conditions; of
course it might evolve more than once; and the destruction of the temple was of tremendous cultural, political, and religious significance; of
course Jesus might be given more than one saying concerning its fate. (Love, too, is such an important part of human life that of
course it will be called "the greatest" independently; hence, if I were to study "the love commandment," I would have to include 1 Corinthians 13, despite not necessarily being convinced that love being "the greatest" of the three main Christian virtues is the same thing as love being one of "the greatest" commandments.)
Besides, the Bezae version of Mark 13.1-2 would force us to consider this saying in this context, even if nothing else did. Matthew 24.1-2, Mark 13.1-2, and Luke 21.5-6 have invited themselves to the party, whether we want them there or not.
Neither 2 Corinthians 5.1 nor Colossians 2.11 can count, since they having nothing to do with Jesus saying anything, nor anything to do with the temple. They come into play, on my view, not as a version of the temple word, but as an explanation for parts of some versions of the temple word. The very fact, however, that they are in view while the entire group of sayings is being evaluated means that, if one should prefer (as you might) to think of this saying as the origin of the actual "temple word" sayings, that option is open. To me, that option seems less likely, for reasons I have at least partly explored, but it is certainly not impossible that the "temple word" might have started with a different kind of saying.
Once the exact question is asked ("what did Jesus, or the earliest tradent speaking in his name, originally say about the fate of the temple?"), I think the passages sort themselves out with little or no degree of arbitrary selection.