Pericope: The Rich Young Man
[QUOTE="Vanellus, post: 74279486, member: 358349"]I'm asking why there are the differences between the different synoptic versions of the text and why the second part of Mt 19:17 fits the Mark and Luke versions better than Matthew's version.[/QUOTE]
The gospels were written 10-15 years apart capturing the then current teaching of the apostles (in Hebrew) and relaying it to the Greek church. Remember, the Greek church did not wish to be Jewish and had little interest in learning Hebrew. by 400 AD they were even claiming that the Septuagint version (the Greek translation) was more authoritative and accurate than the Hebrew.
In this case, it migrated from 'good teacher' to 'good thing/work' and back to 'good teacher'. With time the focus of teaching on this probably went from the literal event where he was called 'good teacher', to a deeper meaning which made a point about works, and then back to an even deeper meaning with a focus on Christ. Lets see if it makes sense when we pull the conclusion back in and understand the word-play and riddles.
The Hebrew letter gimel ג has a metaphoric meaning of a rich man chasing a poor man. We see this as the circumstance of the event; the rich man chased the poor man; Jesus. The word 'gimel' means 'camel'; revealing a hint of the nature of the word-play.
There is so much debate concerning the eye of the needle which I do not care to engage. But to put it simply let's understand threading a needle. You lick the thread and straighten it. Then holding the needle in one hand try to pass the thread through the needle by bringing them together. As you hand shakes, the thread wilts, and so you start over. This is how people do it that don't do it often.
Now lick the thread and straighten it. To prevent it from wilting, hold it against your cheek in front of your eye. Bring the needle to the thread. The needle does not wilt and the thread does not shake. This is important to understand the conversation.
The rich man chased the poor man. He literally said "Good teacher" Jesus says that only God is good, but the man insists the he too is good; essentially claiming to be equal to God. How could he say such a thing. He held himself steady as the center of truth, and brought the law to himself, defining it according to his own character. He justified himself by the law, rather than let the law do it's work on his heart. He threaded the needle of the law such that he was at the center and the conviction passed around him.
Mark records the transaction with only a basic understanding of the teaching of Jesus that the man had made himself equal to God.
Matthew records a deeper understanding. He is focusing on the aspect that the law of love summed up and included all the law. Though the man had not committed those specific sins, and was justifying himself, he committed the sins of omitting love.
Luke then has the deepest understanding; writing 20 - 30 years after Mark. Now he understands that Jesus was saying, that the man made himself equal to God, and Jesus was God. Jesus had everything as the Word before the incarnation. He gave up all the riches of heaven to be the poor man in the event. Since the rich man was claiming to be equal to God; to Jesus, Jesus challenged him to do what he had done; to give up all, and join him.
It is easier for a literal camel to go through the eye of a literal needle, than for a rich man to justify his way into the kingdom.The teaching has nothing to do with money, but of the heart of the one who justifies himself
The apostles studied the scripture and had a growing understanding of its depth with time as led by the Holy Spirit. The differences allow us to learn the tools of exegesis that they used.
