Robert said
What are they making explicit?
That they are so very much more familiar with from the text of Matthew.
But what they would be more familiar with from Matthew is that Jesus does the electing. Is that what they are trying to make explicit when they add “his” to Mark?
No, they are simply more familiar with the text of Matthew, which they copied and used so much more frequently as that of Mark.
But what is it they are making explicit when they add “his” to Mark?
this is your claim “An additional transcriptional probability argument in favor of ‘his’ being added is that this might merely make explicit how the text could have been read even without the presence of ‘his’,“
What’s being changed and made explicit when the word “his” is added to Mark?
But he would nonetheless be removing an explicit reference to the Son of Man doing the selection. You can’t get around that with your silly attempts to read Mark’s mind with contrived attempts to insert your desires into Mark’s head. Why not learn about text-criticism instead?
But he is not just randomly removing the text. The reason he removes it is important. We both need to try read his mind to understand why he removes it to support our own theories.
JAS said
brenmcg said
. . . The reason he removes it is important. We both need to try read his mind to understand why he removes it to support our own theories.
So now mind reading has replaced more traditional means of scholarship? Shall tarot cards be next?
There’s two senses to this. One is the paranormal supernatural sense of knowing the thoughts of someone else, the other is just the everyday attempt to understand the reason someone does something.
If one thought Matthew had changed Mark’s “why do you call me good only God is good” to “why do you ask me about the good only one is good” one might try to discern why Matthew had done it.
In exactly the same sense as one might try to understand why Mark would remove Matthew’s ‘sheep and goats’ story.
When someone criticizes someone for “mind-reading” in this way its a deliberate abuse of the ambiguity of the term.
Robert said
brenmcg said
Robert said
What are they making explicit?
That they are so very much more familiar with from the text of Matthew.
But what they would be more familiar with from Matthew is that Jesus does the electing. Is that what they are trying to make explicit when they add “his” to Mark?
No, they are simply more familiar with the text of Matthew, which they copied and used so much more frequently as that of Mark.
But what is it they are making explicit when they add “his” to Mark?
How many times do I have to answer this question? Are you just employing magical thinking whereby I might by chance give a different answer that accords with your desired answer?
No, I just don’t think you’re being specific enough.
A scribe might add “his” to make it explicit that Jesus does the electing, or might add “his” to make it explicit that Jesus owns or has responsibility for the elect.
I just don’t know what exactly you are claiming is being made explicit?
brenmcg said
JAS said
brenmcg said
. . . The reason he removes it is important. We both need to try read his mind to understand why he removes it to support our own theories.
So now mind reading has replaced more traditional means of scholarship? Shall tarot cards be next?
There’s two senses to this. One is the paranormal supernatural sense of knowing the thoughts of someone else, the other is just the everyday attempt to understand the reason someone does something.
If one thought Matthew had changed Mark’s “why do you call me good only God is good” to “why do you ask me about the good only one is good” one might try to discern why Matthew had done it.
In exactly the same sense as one might try to understand why Mark would remove Matthew’s ‘sheep and goats’ story.
When someone criticizes someone for “mind-reading” in this way its a deliberate abuse of the ambiguity of the term.
I don’t think that it is possible to abuse “the ambiguity of the term,” deliberately or not. You are proposing trying to “read the mind” of an author when you don’t know who the author really is or his immediate context. It is a fantasy no matter how you phrase it. What you are really doing is making wild guesses, probably heavily based on your own preferences. It is more mind-stuffing than mind-reading.
I was going to post a cartoon, but it is apparently too large, and I don’t want to break the thread. In any case, the caption is the key:
So, must imagine the cartoon with a devil and two people in a fiery cave-like setting:
“Welcome to science Hell, Professor. This is Tony. He once read something on the Internet about your field of expertise and is going to spend eternity lecturing you on it. “
JAS said
I don’t think that it is possible to abuse “the ambiguity of the term,” deliberately or not. You are proposing trying to “read the mind” of an author when you don’t know who the author really is or his immediate context. It is a fantasy no matter how you phrase it. What you are really doing is making wild guesses, probably heavily based on your own preferences. It is more mind-stuffing than mind-reading.
If someone proposes that Matthew had changed Mark’s “why do you call me good only God is good” to “why do you ask me about the good only one is good” because Matthew didn’t like the implication the Jesus denied being god, and this despite the fact that the proposer didn’t know who the author really is or his immediate context, would you describe them as engaging in mind-stuffing or mind-reading? Or would you consider it legitimate reasoning?
brenmcg said
JAS said
I don’t think that it is possible to abuse “the ambiguity of the term,” deliberately or not. You are proposing trying to “read the mind” of an author when you don’t know who the author really is or his immediate context. It is a fantasy no matter how you phrase it. What you are really doing is making wild guesses, probably heavily based on your own preferences. It is more mind-stuffing than mind-reading.
If someone proposes that Matthew had changed Mark’s “why do you call me good only God is good” to “why do you ask me about the good only one is good” because Matthew didn’t like the implication the Jesus denied being god, and this despite the fact that the proposer didn’t know who the author really is or his immediate context, would you describe them as engaging in mind-stuffing or mind-reading? Or would you consider it legitimate reasoning?
I would consider it speaking inappropriately for the author. At best, one can say maybe a reason would be . . . . It would necessarily be a guess, and must be carefully presented as such. And without a good reason behind it, it may not be worth much of anything.
Robert said
There aren’t just two senses of ‘mind-reading’, natural or supernatural, but a whole spectrum. While I would hope most people would understand what is meant colloquially, perhaps its best to clarify how I use the term. There are indeed changes to a text that are relatively obvious, which is why 99.9% of critical scholars are thoroughly convinced of Markan priority, and this explains the phenomenal success of redaction criticism in the fields of Matthean and Lukan studies. But there is plenty of disagreement among redaction critics when they try to define the redactional perspective of Matthew or Luke too exactly, eg, when it comes to relatively obscure or anachronistic areas of theology. When it comes to the specific field of textual criticism, the overwhelming majority of scribal changes in the manuscript tradition are unconscious careless mistakes of one type or another. These types are generally pretty easy to identify and classify, ‘though there are a few good examples where one can argue for intentional scribal changes in support of a specific position. Bart is well known for identifying some of these as orthodox corruptions of scripture. There is plenty of room for disagreement among text critics in trying to identify and understand these types of scribal changes. When one, however, tries to concoct impossibly complex and overly specific explanations for some changes or differences between texts, especially when this is done to concoct contrived explanations in support of a predetermined conclusion, that is a form of special pleading, impossible mind-reading, or, as JAS has termed it here, mind-stuffing. This is the sort of obsession Bren has with his his many contrived arguments for Matthean priority. Sorry, Bren, I’m really not trying to offend you, but perhaps you recognize this tendency in yourself? To the extent that you are not aware of this tendency, however, then it is somewhat excused as obsessive and not deliberate. If I remember correctly, I think the clinical term godspell used to use for you was monomanical, or something like that. Do you recall?
Do you think its a reasonable proposition that Matthew’s “sheep and goats” narrative is an earlier version of the selection process on judgement day?
Do you agree that Mark sees those who will be elected as being those who endure persecution for Jesus’s name til the end?
Do you think its a reasonable proposition that if Mark removed the “sheep and goats” narrative it was done so as not to contradict the enduring of persecution account?
Can you point to any proposed Matthean redaction of Mark which would be more obvious than this?
JAS said
I would consider it speaking inappropriately for the author. At best, one can say maybe a reason would be . . . . It would necessarily be a guess, and must be carefully presented as such. And without a good reason behind it, it may not be worth much of anything.
How about proposing Matthew changing Mark’s “Jesus couldn’t do many miracles” to “Jesus didn’t do many miracles” because Matthew didn’t like the limitation placed on Jesus’s power? Mind-stuffing or mind-reading? or legitimate reasoning?
brenmcg said
JAS said
I would consider it speaking inappropriately for the author. At best, one can say maybe a reason would be . . . . It would necessarily be a guess, and must be carefully presented as such. And without a good reason behind it, it may not be worth much of anything.
How about proposing Matthew changing Mark’s “Jesus couldn’t do many miracles” to “Jesus didn’t do many miracles” because Matthew didn’t like the limitation placed on Jesus’s power? Mind-stuffing or mind-reading? or legitimate reasoning?
It is the “because” that becomes the problem, unless you can really substantiate it (and it has to be really good). The usual way of extending the meaning of what an author writes is to establish it in a larger context of writings that are reliably known to be by the same author. We just don’t have that for the gospels. We are entering dangerous waters the moment we move from “the author says this” (and essentially repeating what was said) to “the author meant this even though it isn’t what he really said.”) One can make the assertion, but it has to be granted the status of an assertion.
JAS said
It is the “because” that becomes the problem, unless you can really substantiate it (and it has to be really good). The usual way of extending the meaning of what an author writes is to establish it in a larger context of writings that are reliably known to be by the same author. We just don’t have that for the gospels. We are entering dangerous waters the moment we move from “the author says this” (and essentially repeating what was said) to “the author meant this even though it isn’t what he really said.”) One can make the assertion, but it has to be granted the status of an assertion.
How about proposing Mark changing Matthew’s “sheep and goats” narrative because Mark didn’t like the apparent contradiction with his narrative of those who endure persecution for the name of Jesus being the one’s who are saved? Mind-stuffing or mind-reading? contrived explanation in support of a predetermined conclusion? special pleading? or legitimate reasoning?
brenmcg said
JAS said
It is the “because” that becomes the problem, unless you can really substantiate it (and it has to be really good). The usual way of extending the meaning of what an author writes is to establish it in a larger context of writings that are reliably known to be by the same author. We just don’t have that for the gospels. We are entering dangerous waters the moment we move from “the author says this” (and essentially repeating what was said) to “the author meant this even though it isn’t what he really said.”) One can make the assertion, but it has to be granted the status of an assertion.
How about proposing Mark changing Matthew’s “sheep and goats” narrative because Mark didn’t like the apparent contradiction with his narrative of those who endure persecution for the name of Jesus being the one’s who are saved? Mind-stuffing or mind-reading? contrived explanation in support of a predetermined conclusion? special pleading? or legitimate reasoning?
It isn’t the specific examples that make the difference; it is the type of argument being made. I am not sure why this very basic and obvious point isn’t clear. Here, I would think that it might be fine to point out that the two accounts differ, ideally pointing out how. The problem, again, is “because Mark didn’t like . . . ” What is the basis for that assertion of interpreting the author’s thinking?
Edit: There may be a second objection with the presumption that Mark is responding to having read Matthew. That can easily become something like begging the question.
JAS said
It isn’t the specific examples that make the difference; it is the type of argument being made. I am not sure why this very basic and obvious point isn’t clear. Here, I would think that it might be fine to point out that the two accounts differ, ideally pointing out how. The problem, again, is “because Mark didn’t like . . . ” What is the basis for that assertion of interpreting the author’s thinking?
Edit: There may be a second objection with the presumption that Mark is responding to having read Matthew. That can easily become something like begging the question.
So you don’t like dogmatic assertions of ‘facts’. But you’re ok with proposition arguments involving the supposed motivations of ancients writers?
brenmcg said
JAS said
It isn’t the specific examples that make the difference; it is the type of argument being made. I am not sure why this very basic and obvious point isn’t clear. Here, I would think that it might be fine to point out that the two accounts differ, ideally pointing out how. The problem, again, is “because Mark didn’t like . . . ” What is the basis for that assertion of interpreting the author’s thinking?
Edit: There may be a second objection with the presumption that Mark is responding to having read Matthew. That can easily become something like begging the question.
So you don’t like dogmatic assertions of ‘facts’. But you’re ok with proposition arguments involving the supposed motivations of ancients writers?
As long as it is clear that you are making your own interpretation, and not proposing that it comes from the original author. But again, it should be more than just the assertion; some effort should be made to explain why you are adopting that reading. Others, of course, are free to accept or reject such interpretations.
JAS said
As long as it is clear that you are making your own interpretation, and not proposing that it comes from the original author.
But the proposition is making a claim about the ancient authors personal motivations. Is this a legitimate or illegitimate form of reasoning?
brenmcg said
JAS said
As long as it is clear that you are making your own interpretation, and not proposing that it comes from the original author.
But the proposition is making a claim about the ancient authors personal motivations. Is this a legitimate or illegitimate form of reasoning?
Based on what? Do you legitimately have special insights on the internal thoughts of ancient authors? Or are you just imposing your own thoughts because you find the idea interesting or you like the conclusions?
JAS said
Based on what? Do you legitimately have special insights on the internal thoughts of ancient authors? Or are you just imposing your own thoughts because you find the idea interesting or you like the conclusions?
I’m trying to find out if you believe it is generally acceptable to make propositions about the private motivations of ancient authors
If someone proposes that Matthew changed Mark’s “Jesus couldn’t do many miracles” to “Jesus didn’t do many miracles” because Matthew didn’t like the limitation placed on Jesus’s power in Marks gospel, is that a legitimate or illegitimate proposition?
Can any reasoned conclusions ever be drawn if they’re based on assumptions of about what an ancient author was thinking?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert