This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1richardbsmith
There are some interesting variations that can be noticed from studying the 3 predictions of Jesus' death in the synoptic gospels:
3 locations are Caeserea Philippi, Galilee, and Judea on the way to Jerusalem;
3 different references to the source of his death are Jewish leaders, humanity, and both Jewish leaders and the Gentiles;
2 different descriptions of how Jesus is taken are to suffer and be rejected by Jewish leaders and to be handed over/to be betrayed to authorities.
Consistent ideas include the Son of Man reference, the three days, and the actions of being killing and of being raised.
Is there significance in the different locations and variation of emphasis?
Is it possible that the three are from different sources and combined by Mark? If so, did he add the Son of Man reference or was it common to all three sources? If not, why did he use the difference references and emphases in the different predictions?
Comparing the similar and dissimilar language between the 3 predictions and also between the three gospels opens up many questions for me.
3 locations are Caeserea Philippi, Galilee, and Judea on the way to Jerusalem;
3 different references to the source of his death are Jewish leaders, humanity, and both Jewish leaders and the Gentiles;
2 different descriptions of how Jesus is taken are to suffer and be rejected by Jewish leaders and to be handed over/to be betrayed to authorities.
Consistent ideas include the Son of Man reference, the three days, and the actions of being killing and of being raised.
Is there significance in the different locations and variation of emphasis?
Is it possible that the three are from different sources and combined by Mark? If so, did he add the Son of Man reference or was it common to all three sources? If not, why did he use the difference references and emphases in the different predictions?
Comparing the similar and dissimilar language between the 3 predictions and also between the three gospels opens up many questions for me.
2richardbsmith
The question about the Son of Man reference is because the term initially referred to a triumphant figure, who is to establish a permanent rule on Earth after the 4 previous kingdoms represented by animal images are passed.
There is no mention of a suffering and crucified Son of Man.
Was it Mark that reinterpreted the Son of Man concept with the suffering and crucifixion, or was it an established idea?
If it were already established prior to Mark's gospel, it is hard to understand its lack of use elsewhere in the NT.
There is no mention of a suffering and crucified Son of Man.
Was it Mark that reinterpreted the Son of Man concept with the suffering and crucifixion, or was it an established idea?
If it were already established prior to Mark's gospel, it is hard to understand its lack of use elsewhere in the NT.
3richardbsmith
The shift of emphasis between the predictions invites consideration.
In the first prediction the Son of Man is to suffer and to be tested and rejected by the Jewish authorities.
In the second prediction the Son of Man is to be given over into the hands of men. This suggests a different class of humanity, lacking perhaps a spiritual insight, a distinction between spiritual authority and earthly authority.
In the third prediction the Son of man is to be given over to the Gentiles (for Luke) and to the Jewish authorities first, then to the Gentiles (for Matthew and Mark).
Perhaps one way to understand the synoptic presentation of the 3 predictions which are given to the disciples and to the reader is to see 3 tiers of subjection to earthly authority. Rejection by the religious authority, rejection by human understanding, and rejection by secular authority.
In the first prediction the Son of Man is to suffer and to be tested and rejected by the Jewish authorities.
In the second prediction the Son of Man is to be given over into the hands of men. This suggests a different class of humanity, lacking perhaps a spiritual insight, a distinction between spiritual authority and earthly authority.
In the third prediction the Son of man is to be given over to the Gentiles (for Luke) and to the Jewish authorities first, then to the Gentiles (for Matthew and Mark).
Perhaps one way to understand the synoptic presentation of the 3 predictions which are given to the disciples and to the reader is to see 3 tiers of subjection to earthly authority. Rejection by the religious authority, rejection by human understanding, and rejection by secular authority.
4richardbsmith
If the reasoning in the above comment is correct, that uses the 3 predictions to develop different emphases, then the idea in #1 of 3 sources is not necessary. Mark is developing the rejection of the triumphant Son of Man through the 3 predictions, each of which has a different emphasis.
This understanding is consistent with Markan literary style that makes frequent use of 3 elements.
Giving an apology for the Crucifixion is one of Mark's purposes for the gospel, and the three predictions are central to that effort. It seems likely to me that the 3 predictions are original to Mark.
This understanding is consistent with Markan literary style that makes frequent use of 3 elements.
Giving an apology for the Crucifixion is one of Mark's purposes for the gospel, and the three predictions are central to that effort. It seems likely to me that the 3 predictions are original to Mark.
