The temple word.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:05 pm This is, I think, where some of the confusion between us is coming in. I have zero interest in those opinions, nor were they on my mind when I composed the OP.
That used to be my attitude, too. But for some time now I find it very helpful to understand in which context of discussion a scholarly view has emerged that is important for a topic. I think that one is always more or less influenced by opinions of scholars. When everyone is always discussing certain aspects of certain problems in a certain context, it is easy to overlook other aspects, problems and contexts that were not discussed. One also has a better overview of what problems might have been overlooked in the discussion.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:05 pm The second half is not a weakness at all, since Paul's statements are a tangent to the actual trajectory outlined the in the OP. His statements (or statements like them) informed later tradents' formulation of the saying away from the temple connection. As such, the trajectory of the statement about the temple neither begins nor ends with Paul. (Paul is not an offshoot in this case. He is a tributary, not a distributary.)
Maybe I have not understood correctly how you imagine the relationship between the individual sayings. On the one hand, it seems that you would prefer a rather traditional model of a Jesus logion which are involuntarily transformed in oral and written tradition. On the other hand, you seem to assume intentional reinterpretations. Or is it both?

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.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly house (οἰκία) is destroyed (καταλυθῇ), we have a building (οἰκοδομὴν) from God, a house (οἰκίαν) not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Mark 14:58 "We heard him say, ‘I will destroy (καταλύσω) this temple (τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον) that is made with hands, and during three days I will build (οἰκοδομήσω) another, not made with hands.’"
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy (λύσατε) this temple (τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον), and in three days I will raise it up."
Thomas 71 Jesus said, "I shall destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to rebuild it ..."

Note that besides the obvious commonalities are also further similarities. Only Paul and Mark have two different buildings and both have a nice contrast in their sayings (Paul „earthly“ and „in heaven“, Mark „made with hands” and “not made with hands”). In GMark and GJohn the saying appears in a not completely dissimilar situation (Jesus is charged, in GMark in a trial, in GJohn on the street). In GMark it is a false claim, in GJohn is a false understanding. Paul and John share the explicit theme "body".
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:23 pmMaybe I have not understood correctly how you imagine the relationship between the individual sayings. On the one hand, it seems that you would prefer a rather traditional model of a Jesus logion which are involuntarily transformed in oral and written tradition. On the other hand, you seem to assume intentional reinterpretations. Or is it both?
It is neither. It is both. The very way you ask the question seems indicative to me of how differently we approach such matters.

Your question implies that I either am or ought to be applying a model (so which one is it??), but I am not (consciously) applying a model at all. One tradent may well be deliberately reinterpreting a saying, while another may be trying in good faith to reconstruct what Jesus actually said (though obviously influenced by his or her own views about Jesus, of course). Sometimes honest mistakes or misinterpretations (or even mistranslations) may be responsible for a saying changing its meaning or focus. Every step along the trajectory has to make sense on its own merits; to fit it into a preformed model seems like a good way to mangle the evidence, which is already scarce enough for the period we are studying.
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).
This is where my eclectic approach steps in, possibly to overcorrect, since I imagine you will at least somewhat agree with me here. The Pauline and Marcan versions of the saying (for example) appear to me to be quite what you describe here: the same words in different sayings. But the Marcan and Johannine versions of the saying (again, for example) appear to me to be the same saying; it is treated differently, but it is the same basic saying. (This is, in part, why I said that Paul lies outside of the main trajectory; in a set of sayings about the temple, Paul uses similar words to talk about the body. And, for reasons outlined in this thread, I am not convinced that the saying started out as a body saying and was turned cleanly into a temple saying.)

Mark and John are key for me here, as they are in rather many other situations. Both seem to be reacting to the same thing: the assertion that Jesus said something about destroying the temple. Mark's response is, "No, he said no such thing! That assertion is false." John's response is, "Yes, he said something like that, but he was actually talking about his body, not the temple in Jerusalem." These separate answers resemble two different modern attempts by inerrantists to solve a biblical contradiction: both inerrantists are convinced that there is no contradiction, but their solutions are not compatible with one another. Likewise, Mark and John both seem convinced that Jesus did not say he would destroy (and rebuild) the temple, but their solutions are not compatible with each other. I am not sure how this kind of scenario fits into your two models. Are these changes involuntary? No, the saying is being very carefully handled. Are these changes deliberate? No, at least not in the sense that the authors are passing on what they know to be false; they may well be acting in good faith, reconstructing what must have really happened on the reasonable (to them) assumption that Jesus would not have promised to destroy the temple. In other words, any changes being made are probably thought to be restoring the original sense of the saying, not altering it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pm Your question implies that I either am or ought to be applying a model
...
This is where my eclectic approach steps in, possibly to overcorrect, since I imagine you will at least somewhat agree with me here.
While I understand what your positions are I do not understand the logic of some of your positions and I try to discover why you think what you think (and come back to that later in this post)

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pm Every step along the trajectory has to make sense on its own merits
Okay, I have read your proposed countertrajectory … If it is roughly of the same quality, then are we stuck with whatever our presuppositions give us (that is, with whether it is originally about the temple or originally about the body)?
I think the way textual critcism studies text traditions gives a good example what questions and examinations are helpful. Imho it should always start with objective criteria such as close relationship in

- the specific wording of some sayings
- the form of some sayings
- the basic meaning of some sayings
- the way authors presented their sayings
- the context

Not that I would think that it should limited to such criteria, but observations in these fields may be more objective than our subjective interpretations.

My impression is that criteria like close relationship in wording and form of sayings play almost no role in your thinking.

But I noted with interest that Paul and Thomas agreed against all others in using the word “house”. I would also draw attention to the point that Mark agreed with Paul in more words and with John in more words than Paul and John. With regard to the specific wording Mark looks like a link between Paul and John.

Especially in the form of the sayings Paul and Mark have a very close relationship. Against all others their sayings contain the already mentioned contrast and repetitive clauses (Paul: our earthly house –> the tent; Mark: this temple -> the one made with hands).

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pmMark and John are key for me here, as they are in rather many other situations. Both seem to be reacting to the same thing: the assertion that Jesus said something about destroying the temple.
You seem to focus on the way authors presented their sayings but it is more your interpretation and your conclusion about what is important for your case.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pmBut the Marcan and Johannine versions of the saying (again, for example) appear to me to be the same saying; it is treated differently, but it is the same basic saying.
I do not understand the logic behind that. The Marcan and Johannine versions have nearly the opposite basic meaning. If I would say
KK says: Ben said to me that he will destroy this forum and build another one.

then I present you as an opponent to this forum. But if you would say
Ben says: Destroy it and I will rise it up!

then you present yourself not only as a miracele worker, but also as the rescuer of the meant thing in the case of need. In the former case you are an enemy, in the latter the best friend.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:24 pmBoth seem to be reacting to the same thing: the assertion that Jesus said something about destroying the temple.
Likewise, we ought to wonder whether Jesus uttered the temple word (or it was attributed to him early enough for later tradents to respond to) precisely because Matthew and Mark deny it.
I think that according to your own logic we would not suspect that John reacted to the same thing as Mark. We would suspect that John reacted to an assertion that Jesus once said that he would rescue the temple in the case of danger and this alleged saying would be remembered as a failed prophecy after the war.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:20 pmMy impression is that criteria like close relationship in wording and form of sayings play almost no role in your thinking.
"Close relationship in wording" is a principal basis for my contention that Mark and John present basically the same saying:

Mark: "I will destroy this temple made with hands, and through three days I will build another made without hands."

John: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

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.

It is somewhat similar to how "awful" and "awesome" are morphologically pretty much identical (-ful and -some being virtually synonymous suffixes meaning "characterized by"), but in practice they bear opposite meanings (one being negative, the other positive).

Is there anything in the following that you disagree with?
  1. Both Mark and John are talking, on the face of it, about destroying the Jerusalem temple.
  2. Both Mark and John are talking about the Jerusalem temple being rebuilt (the difference between "building another" and "raising it back up" being purely philosophical when it comes to destroyed buildings).
  3. Both Mark and John interpret the saying away from the contingency that Jesus spoke of destroying the Jerusalem temple and then rebuilding it.
  4. Both Mark and John point to a miracle happening in three days (making a building without hands is a miracle, and so is rebuilding a temple in only three days).
  5. Both Mark and John bring in the issue of resurrection (Mark by echoing that Pauline terminology, John by deliberately recasting the saying as having to do only with Jesus' body, and both of them by mentioning the three days).
These points are what I mean when I say that it is the same basic saying in both. These correspondences are not accidental. They are reacting either to each other or to a similar external stimulus, or both.
I think that according to your own logic we would not suspect that John reacted to the same thing as Mark. We would suspect that John reacted to an assertion that Jesus once said that he would rescue the temple in the case of danger and this alleged saying would be remembered as a failed prophecy after the war.
That contingent word "would" is important. If all we had is John, you would be right. But we have more than just John.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ulan »

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.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:13 pmThat contingent word "would" is important. If all we had is John, you would be right. But we have more than just John.
I meant that we „would“ suspect it if we would follow your logic of suspicion :D

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:13 pm"Close relationship in wording" is a principal basis for my contention that Mark and John present basically the same saying.

Mark and John did not come up with these formulations independently; either one knew the other or both knew something else in common.
Sorry, I should have explained it better. I did not mean the question of whether all the verses mentioned in the OP are related together and part of the problem, but the question of how these relationships are structured. I completely agree with you that all mentioned verses in the OP are part of the problem, but not other verses. At first, I was not sure about GPeter 7.26, but finally I fully agreed. Your selection is made very carefully and I confess that close relationship in wording was the principal basis of your selection.

Because our discussion is an opportunity for me to reflect on methodological issues, let me make a side note before I continue with regard to the content. You 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. If we involve GPeter 7.26 and Acts 6.13-14 then more or less we excluded the possibility that behind these verses are independent historical events. For example, another selection could look like that:

Mark 14.57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

GPeter 7.26 … we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the temple.

Acts 6.13 And they put forward false witnesses who said, "This man [Stephen] incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place

Acts 19:23 About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. 24 For a man named Demetrius, ... said, “... 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

Tacitus, Annales 15:44 Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Such a selection would point to the idea that behind all verses are persistent accusations from all sides against early Christians as it often happens in history to persecuted minorities. But we could also switch to the other side. If we suspect that the historical Jesus said something like, "I am going to destroy this temple", why not add Peter and the eleven, Stephen, Paul and the early Roman Christians to the list? Referring to Hurtado we could suspect that all were in fact „destroyers of Gods and their temples“.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

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."

Besides some general words such as articles, the words for „I“ and „and“ and the word „κατὰ“ (in a different sense), there is no literal agreement in Greek between these verses, not one. Meaning and context of the verses are very different. Nevertheless you rate both as two treatments of basically the same saying. 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“.

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.

My point is here not that you could be right or wrong, but that imho a rating, whether it is basically the same saying or not, can't be the starting point, but only the result of a research.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The temple word.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:56 amOnce 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.
"Oh! Well, why didn't you say so?..."

The earliest was the Priest who was of Immer, rotating into Jerusalem after Bilgah for the Coup Attempt against Herod in 4 BCE. Three days from Passover (Bilgah) to the Sabbath where Immer takes over.

There! That was easy, wasn't it?

CW
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The temple word.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:56 am 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.
Agreed. It looks like a theme of a narrative that is continued in the story, even if it is in practice a different narrative (GMark ↔ GPeter). We could imagine that the maiden of the chief priest (Mark 14:66) reported that Peter is going around like a spy and the chief priest, still shocked by the testimonies of the trial witnesses (Mark 14:58), sends out to search Peter and the other disciples as potential temple destroyers (GPeter 7:26). ;)

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:56 amActually, I think this moment of exclusion happened even before that. It happened as soon as I called the saying in question "the temple word."
Yes, from your point of view you did it with the thread title.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:56 amAnd 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.
...
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.
I see your point and as I said I agree that there is a relationship between them, but I'm not sure of what kind the relationship is.


In the OP you explained the relationships between your reconstructed original saying amd the many variants in the early writings. Many points are very well considered. It is in some sense a look from the external (from the reconstucted version of the original saying). For my own use I tried to make an overview of the relationships not from an external perspective, but between all mentioned verses and the focus on how the theme is treated. In some ways that may also be helpful because the relationship between two variants may be closer than the relationship between an original saying and his variants. I would claim that offhandedly in the case of Mark 14:57-59 and Acts 6:13-14.

The relationship between Mark 14:57-59 and Acts 6:13-14 seems essentially marked by copying in a copied context of a different story although that may contain some form of reinterpretation. In the case of Mark 14:57-59 par, Mark 15:29-30 par and GPeter 7:26 it looks to me like a continuation or retelling in the “same” continued story (, but in different narratives with different intentions). In a broader sense, that may be also a reinterpretation.

Reinterpretation seems to be the main function in the cases of John 2:18-22, Thomas 71, Mark 14:57-59, 2 Corinthians 5:1, bearing in mind that 2 Corinthians 5:1 is a special case.

As I said, I'm not sure about the relationship between Mark 13:1-2 par and the other variants.

Would you agree with it? (from the so-called internal perspective). Neither direct dependencies nor a priority of a verse should be assumed. If the agreements are based on a motive rather than words, I've chosen a gray stroke between the verses.

Image
Post Reply