The Testing of Jesus

[Luce NDs]

Let's look at the actual application of the 3 temptations to our situation.
(1) The temptation to change stones into bread exemplifies the temptation to take illicit shortcuts to gratification.
e. g. an unwillingness to pay the price of developing healthy and ethical habits because this interferes with the pursuit of immediately available pleasures; premature sexual pressure.

(2) The temptation to test divine protection by jumping off the Temple pinnacle exemplifies the temptation to set up a test for God to pass to earn your devotion and service.
e. g. "God, if you heal this physical condition or get me this job or romantic relationship, or solve this personal problem, then I'll serve your church with total devotion."
(3) The temptation to worship Satan in exchange for expanded political rulership reflects Jesus' temptation to be the political Messiah of Jewish expectation rather than the Suffering Servant that is truly Jesus' divine mission. 2 modern applications: (a) the prosperity Gospel; (b) the temptation to pursue success and prosperity at the expense of an ambition to find God's will for a life that serves God and helps others.

If one carved a story on a stone ... would such a tablet he a haunting impression scare the illiterate in the perusing of this supernatural thing called psyche? Is that item out there beyond the characterization of emote? Thus difficult to get to if in a depression of great desire to put the adjacent person down as an alter personality ... and as Sam Johnson defined in an old lexicon: intelligence is beyond the emotional! It may just represent something far too deep!

Diabolical really ... if not dia Gnostic regarding words (them needing dissemination ... tough! Thus understanding quality is far off or way out ... crazy to the edifice containing facetious type if you cannot turn it over as Jesus koine ... earth shaking ... the levity within! In short life appears insane and many believe they are passionate about it ...

How does one define the mystical life ... back off and look at it from out there! There are some really hard cases to cause change and learning ... as orthodoxy! Thus the ram bull ... ripping through space as a sphere ... unseen to the flat outers ...

 

[jimkenney12]

I have not studied those documents. I thought there were multiple copies of the Gospels in a variety of communities and examination of these gospels led to guesses about the most likely original wording of each gospel. I do not understand how the differences you list are substantial evidence against either writer having seen the other gospel.

 

[paradox3]

In all of these discussions about the authorship of the gospels, it seems to me we have educated guesswork rather than proof.

The minutiae of such discussions sometimes make my head spin. I am left with the impression that Mark was the first gospel to be written and John the last. There is hypothesized to be an unknown source consulted by Matthew and Luke.

What really interests me is the different ways the four writers told the stories. I have especially enjoyed dealing with the material unique to each gospel.

I am having a leisurely read through John right now..

Maybe I would enjoy a more academic approach if I went back to university to tackle biblical study.

 

[jimkenney12]

It is all speculation.

 

[Mystic]

I have not studied those documents. I thought there were multiple copies of the Gospels in a variety of communities and examination of these gospels led to guesses about the most likely original wording of each gospel. I do not understand how the differences you list are substantial evidence against either writer having seen the other gospel.

It's very simple: Consider the examples I've given you, which could be multipied: If there are several examples where Luke preserves the more original wording of sayings also found in Matthew, that means that Luke did not copy Matthew to include those sayings.

You are imposing a modern mindset on both the possibility and the perceived necessity of "multiple copies" in the late first century. The cost and inconvenience of long-distance travel were huge barriers, as the age of apostles willing to pay the price was closing. Papias attests a common attitude with his preference for a "living voice" (of the 2 "disciples of the Lord" who were alive to circulate oral tradition). Your false "multiple copy" theory should be supported by Ignatius' 7 epistles, the Didache, 1 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas--but it is not. Of couse, by the 2nd half of the 2nd century Gospels have been sufficiently copied and circulated for wider use.

When Matthew copies Mark (a universally accepted scholarly certainty), Matthew incorporates unique Marcan stylistic elements into his Gospel that he otherwise avoids. For example, Mark has a bizarre preference for the word "immediately" (Greek: "euthus"), while Matthew prefers the alternate spelling "eutheos." But when Matthew copies Mark, he copies the various cases of "euthus" and thus betrays his copying. Matthew and Luke have vary different Greek styles. Similarly, if Luke copied Matthew, one would expect Matthean stylistic features to be incoporates into Luke's text-- but this doesn't happen.

What disturbs me about all this is the apparently unscholarly state of theological education for UCCan ministers that keeps them out of touch with modern critical Bible scholarship and thus encourages too heavy a reliance on 2nd-rate popularizers like Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can such things be a composite of an abstract psyche ... especially when many pious people deny Psyche?

Pum Mi soul it wasn't there and then it was ....

 

[Mendalla]

It is all speculation.

It is up to a point, but hypotheses like the Q theory do have a good basis. @Mystic talks about how textual analysis is used to determine where Matthew copied from Mark. Similar analyses of commonalities between Matthew and Luke support the Q theory rather than one copying the other (ie. a common source rather than one being the source for the other) as I understand it. Textual analysis is not speculation, it has established principles for analyzing texts to look for relationships among them. In the end, of course, anything we say about an historical document relies on preponderance of evidence rather than being able to test the hypothesis as we can in science. But that does not make it "speculation" if that preponderance of evidence is there.

EDIT: Or were you saying that your thoughts were speculation, in which case ignore my post above.

 

[Mystic]

Also, as a literary genre, Q is recognized as a Wisdom document with its own distinct theology; and so, scholarly books are written on "The Theology of Q," which you can google. I required my university NT students to buy and bring to class Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels," a book that places Mark, Matthew, and Luke in parallel columns, so that Matthew and Luke's dependence on Mark and Q becomes obvious. I confidently told my students, "In this course you will understand why your minister or priest doesn't grasp the difference between Jesus' intentions and Gospel authorial intentions without this Gospel parallel." It is by far the most important tool for Gospel studies.

 

[paradox3]

Re: John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg

Not to get us off on a tangent but I see these two authors quite differently. I wouldn't lump them together

 

[Waterfall]

Jesus had 12 close disciples, but many other followers also didnt he?
When the NT was put together, there must have been many books around to choose from, seeing as the "Christian Church" was supposedly as diversified as today. Could that also account for different traditions in the gospels we were given?
And Jesus as God? Wasnt that decided at a later date (Council of Nicea), after these books were written?

 

[Redbaron]

In the very beginning of the Gospel of Luke, the author indicates that because there were many who had compiled narratives of Jesus (whether written or oral), that this author was going to write down an orderly account of what went on concerning Jesus. Wouldn't that sort of confirm jimkenney12's point about, if not written copies (which would have been rare at that point) at least different cycles of stories and sayings were in comparatively) wide circulation?

 

[Mystic]

In the very beginning of the Gospel of Luke, the author indicates that because there were many who had compiled narratives of Jesus (whether written or oral), that this author was going to write down an orderly account of what went on concerning Jesus. Wouldn't that sort of confirm jimkenney12's point about, if not written copies (which would have been rare at that point) at least different cycles of stories and sayings were in comparatively) wide circulation?

Luke (1:1-4) probably refers to many lost Judean Gospels that Luke encountered or heard about when he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the early 60s before any of our canonical Gospels were written. One of these was no doubt the lost Aramaic Gospel of John that was once preserved in the library at Caesarea (so Eusebius). The infrequency with which these lost Gospels were copied is further evidence against Jim's claim.

In the early 60s the Jerusalem church fled advancing Roman armies and took their sacred library with them to Pella, a Decapolis city 2 miles east of the Jordan River and 17 miles south of the sea of Galilee. Only the Greek center of Pella has been excavated, but obviously a large influx of Jewish refugees would have to live on Pella's outskirts. The archaeological problem is that a modern Jordanian village occupies the land where the Jewish-Christian refugees are most likely to have settled. I like to imagine a cache of lost Jewish Christian Gospels in buried vases under these houses. I fantasize about persuading the king of Jordan to relocate that village to facilitate archaeological quest to discover where Jerusalem Christian immigrants settled and also where they might have buried their lost Gospels. I'd try to convince the king of Pella's potential to become a lucrative tourist destination for Christians.

A first-century Jewish coffin was discovered inside a 5th century Pellan Gentile cathedral. Its honored position probably means it once contained the remains of the Jerusalem church's leader of the flight to Pella. The problem is that Muslim invaders poured acid all over the remains, making DNA analysis impossible. The leader of the flight to Pella was Jesus's cousin, Simon the son of Clopas, Joseph's brother. This highly prized coffin now resides in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington. Last heard, scientists were still hopeful of extracting DNA from the acid. Imagine getting DNA from Jesus' family!

 

[Redbaron]

Luke (1:1-4) probably refers to many lost Judean Gospels that Luke encountered or heard about when he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the early 60s before any of our canonical Gospels were written. One of these was no doubt the lost Aramaic Gospel of John that was once preserved in the library at Caesarea (so Eusebius). The infrequency with which these lost Gospels were copied is further evidence against Jim's claim.

This looks like speculation to me. At that time. with a very few people who knew how to write, there would be very few written copies of ANYTHING. and "no doubt" one such book was the 'lost' Aramaic Gospel of John? Attested to by Eusebius, who was only born some three centuries later? Frankly it would seem to me that this has nothing to do with jimkenney12's statement. (and how convenient that the original Aramaic Gospel was 'lost', so that, like the 'autograph' originals of the Greek NT texts, one could say anything at all about them, without fear of being disproven.)

A first-century Jewish coffin was discovered inside a 5th century Pellan Gentile cathedral. Its honored position probably means it once contained the remains of the Jerusalem church's leader of the flight to Pella. The problem is that Muslim invaders poured acid all over the remains, making DNA analysis impossible. The leader of the flight to Pella was Jesus's cousin, Simon the son of Clopas, Joseph's brother. This highly prized coffin now resides in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington. Last heard, scientists were still hopeful of extracting DNA from the acid. Imagine getting DNA from Jesus' family!

Wake me up when they can extract the DNA from the remains in the coffin. Oh, and give me a shout when they find some of Jesus's DNA to compare it with. I'm sure those examinations would provide fascinating results.... if they can find Jesus's DNA. Or any of his family's.

Oh, and just a gentle reminder, in the Trump Legacy thread, there's a question that awaits your answer.

 

[Mystic]

This looks like speculation to me. At that time. with a very few people who knew how to write, there would be very few written copies of ANYTHING. and "no doubt" one such book was the 'lost' Aramaic Gospel of John?

Precisely why Luke's awareness of many Gospels from Paul's time or earlier is so important! Aramaic Gospels like the one in Eusebius' library were unlikely to be mass produced. One would expect the earliest gospels to stem from a region where oral tradition was fueled by the presence of many eyewitnesses. An Aramaic Gospel is likely very early because a later Gospel would be composed in Greek to promote a wider reading. Luke visited Palestine only once, so far as we know; so that was likely the occasion when he gathered sources for his own Gospel and became aware of the abundance of earlier Gospels.

Attested to by Eusebius, who was only born some three centuries later?

No scholar imagines Eusebius is lying! Eusebius is our first great Christian historian and was bishop of Caesarea, close to Palestinian churches. He is a primary source for many lost early Christian documents.

Frankly it would seem to me that this has nothing to do with jimkenney12's statement.

On the contrary, it decisively refutes Jim's claim. Luke's reference to "many" prior Gospels needs to be taken seriously. So what happened to all these Gospels? Obviously they perished from a lack of mass production and circulation.

Wake me up when they can extract the DNA from the remains in the coffin.

And wake me up when You actually read Ignatius' 7 epistles, Didache, 1 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas so you can address the question of why they don't support the multiple mass circulation of Gospel materials. Better yet, wake me up when you actually read scholarly books on Luke, so that you are informed by modern scholarly insights and consensus.

 

[Redbaron]

Jimkenney12's thought was that there were many gospel in circulation. You admit that Luke was aware of many gospels. How does that refute jimkenney12? It doesn't.
No one is calling Eusebius a liar. But the fact remains that he came onto the scene 250-300 years after the events in question, long after eyewitnesses were gone, and even the eyewitnesses of the eyewitnesses were gone. If the situation were such that the Gospel of Luke tried to create a coherent narrative, imagine what 250 years or 300 years would have meant.
You pointed out in another post that Dr. Guthrie, in his "magisterial" 3 volume work had refuted all the objections to Peter's authorship of 2 Peter, to his own satisfaction, and apparently to yours. Yet many, if not most, NT scholars question Peter's authorship, with some very solid reasons. It seems there exist other opinions on the matter. Do you read or pay any attention to any scholarly works with which you disagree?

Again, keep me posted on those DNA tests.
And that question is still waiting.

 

[Redbaron]

I've wondered what Jesus did, and thought, in the 40 days before the Tempter arrived. What was going through his mind? What decisions did he make, or what commitments might he have pondered and made? How did those factor in to how he responded to temptations?

 

[Luce NDs]

Is Tempter as mishandling of Templar considering literary transposition?

Don't suggest errs in that tome or the light might escape when cracked open ...

What's transliteration mean in a primarily aural construct? Thus it Eire daz something else ... and given millennia of lies in 'R systems ... they all fail ... like standing in another bote or boot ... and some were even buried in their chariots ... almost Mafia-like in presentation ... shoved deep into throats ... a political power? Das bote ide ...

In truth we know little and the powers demand lyon about the situation ... very cattish ... or even Kadesh ... it'll get cha in the end when the mistress throws a fit over your misunderstanding ...

I just noted a reference to a tome: The Heart id a Lonely Hunter ... until slipping in somewhere to consume the existent thought! And we wonder about losing thoughts as Lucid air ...

 

[paradox3]

I've wondered what Jesus did, and thought, in the 40 days before the Tempter arrived. What was going through his mind? What decisions did he make, or what commitments might he have pondered and made? How did those factor in to how he responded to temptations?

It's also interesting to ponder what Jesus might have been doing before the Spirit led or drove him into the wilderness.

The gospel writers are silent about the period of time between his baptism and his time in the wilderness. This was not necessarily a short interval although the events are related one right after the other.

Is it possible Jesus spent years coming to terms with his call from God?

 

[jimkenney12]

Let's focus on the words we have without further debate on how each author gathered their material for their gospels. For Mark, the two main points seem to be Jesus spending 40 days fasting and being tested and being cared for by angels at the end of the time of testing.

The forty days is usually thought to connect Jesus and Moses and the forty years in the wilderness. It can also connect Jesus and Elijah. I believe someone in a post above explained that the word translated as tested has a richer meaning. It brings to mind the vision quests that are part of many cultures. In Cree culture, young men, and sometimes women, isolate themselves in a wild place to fast and engage in ceremony in order to learn their true name among other things.

Matthew and Luke added three specific tests. Where I differ from other comments above is my interpretation of those tests as Jesus considering and rejecting three approaches to use in his mission. I also differ in that I believe his mission was to help people come to love God and accept reconciliation with God. My basis for this includes things I believe he said. He eats and socializes with sinners to heal their relationship with God. The three parables in Luke about the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son affirm my belief. His assertion that the kingdom of heaven is immanent implies that we, not God are the barriers to reconciliation. Love cannot be purchased, demanded, or gained through acts of wonder or power. I do not believe his mission was to be a sacrificial lamb. I believe it was to show us how to live as loving children of God. The cross modeled choosing righteousness over life.

 

[paradox3]

Agree with focusing on the words of the texts.

The debate about scholarly opinion has been interesting but it hasn't helped me to engage more deeply with the actual story.