brenmcg said
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?
Only with very good grounds, which one must be able to provide if called on to do so. A proposition without a strong supporting argument is merely an assertion, and assertions are not evidence. More importantly, it is irresponsible to offer such a proposition as if it is actually Matthew’s thinking, when it is merely your own suggestion of what he might have been thinking. Reasoned conclusions require plausible evidence, not merely assumptions. At most, one might say that such an assumption would be consistent with Matthew’s other occasions of touching on such a subject, and demonstrate it. (If you can establish a consistent pattern, then you may have an argument to offer.) With short gospels, there isn’t a lot of material to work with. One might further point out that, at best, the gospel according to Matthew makes such statements or takes such positions, and not really Matthew himself, since the authorship of the gospels is a matter of further dispute. And in the end, one can make reasoned arguments for interpretations, and not really firm conclusions.
I should qualify part of my previous comment. As long as we all realize that the writer of Matthew was probably not Matthew, and of Mark was probably not Mark, it is fine, in a casual sense, to refer to them as the authors using those names. (Otherwise, one would have to use very clumsy references like “the author of Matthew” over and over.) My concern is the risk of inventing a personification for that author based on very little material. We really know very little about the true authors, and we do not have a large body of reliable writings by them that would let us make more expansive interpretations.
If Edgar Allan Poe makes a comment in a review that seems out of place or hard to interpret, I can expand on the idea using other reviews or essays that he is known to have written. (This effort is, of course, greatly complicated by the fact that most of Poe’s reviews are not signed, and the authorship of many are hotly debated. It is true that Poe does also sometimes contradict himself, or that he may change his mind on a particular issue, which any person should be allowed to do.) But my point is that we do have a large body of material by Poe to use in establishing a context of meaning. For the authors of the gospels, we really do not have such a thing, so our ability to do something similar is greatly restricted.
Can any reasoned conclusions ever be drawn if they’re based on assumptions of about what an ancient author was thinking?
No. Because we have no access to the motivations of these ancient authors. (I don’t know my own real motivations half the time. Who does? How could I possibly understand the motivations of an ancient writer living in an ancient culture writing in an ancient language?) Consequently we are forced to take these ancient texts at more or less face value.
I am prepared to argue from hints in the text that Mark was written as an attempt to use the Jesus tradition to minister to a congregation of believers who had undergone some kind of trauma in the recent past. But I can’t say that’s what the author intended. All I can say is that if you read it that way it appears to clear up some of the difficulties in interpretation.
I can also point out that the fact you can only support Matthean priority by assuming authorial intent should tell you much.
JAS said
Only with very good grounds, which one must be able to provide if called on to do so. A proposition without a strong supporting argument is merely an assertion, and assertions are not evidence. More importantly, it is irresponsible to offer such a proposition as if it is actually Matthew’s thinking, when it is merely your own suggestion of what he might have been thinking. Reasoned conclusions require plausible evidence, not merely assumptions. At most, one might say that such an assumption would be consistent with Matthew’s other occasions of touching on such a subject, and demonstrate it. (If you can establish a consistent pattern, then you may have an argument to offer.) With short gospels, there isn’t a lot of material to work with. One might further point out that, at best, the gospel according to Matthew makes such statements or takes such positions, and not really Matthew himself, since the authorship of the gospels is a matter of further dispute. And in the end, one can make reasoned arguments for interpretations, and not really firm conclusions.
But that’s what a proposition is, one’s own suggestion of what Matthew or Mark might be thinking in the hope that it explains the editing choices of the secondary author.
Robert said
I think you’re looking for way too much specificity in the sense of a conscious redactional intent on the part of this scribe. You’re still confusing redaction criticism with textual criticism. This allows you to insert your own thoughts to support your predetermined conclusion into what is almost certainly a careless, unconscious addition of a word by a bored scribe. For all we know, the scribe was a frustrated monk fantasizing about a woman or a fellow monk sitting next to him in the scriptorium. We only really know the scribe was much more familiar with Matthew’s text, so when he’s copying a very similar text he’s liable to be understanding Mark’s text, if he thinks of it at all, in the same sense in which he understood Matthew’s text.
We’re talking about a single manuscript with “his” inserted. We’re asking how the majority of manuscripts could come to have “his” in Mark if it wasn’t originally there. A single careless unconscious mistake by a bored scribe won’t cut it. That explanation works far better for the other direction – Mark originally had “his” but a bored scribed missed it and infected a couple of manuscripts.
Robert said
No, not necessarily. Mark may think of the elect as already being the elect, otherwise how would they even be in danger of being led astray? More importantly, if we look at the whole of Mark’s text we see a much richer sense of who and why some people will be saved, ie, repentance, good soil, following the commandments, taking up one’s cross, serving others, etc. I would be very surprised if Mark’s thoughts just happened to correspond with your contrived arguments for Matthean priority.
I’m not arguing here for Matthean priority, here I’m arguing that if Matthew wrote first then “his” is most likely originally kept in Mark. You claimed that in this case Mark’s removing of the “sheep and goats” would suggest his preference for removing “his” as well. This isn’t true.
In Mark Jesus tells his disciples to “take up the cross and follow me”, it is not the rich man who keeps the commandments who will enter heaven but those who have “given up father, mother, brothers, sisters … for the sake of me and gospel”, John and James must “drink the cup Jesus drinks”, in the end it will be those who endure persecution that will be saved.
The nuance present in Matthew is missing in Mark. And far better to see that as the reason Mark removed the “sheep and goats” than claiming he doesn’t want the “lord of the house” to be the one who does the electing.
Stephen said
Can any reasoned conclusions ever be drawn if they’re based on assumptions of about what an ancient author was thinking?No. Because we have no access to the motivations of these ancient authors. (I don’t know my own real motivations half the time. Who does? How could I possibly understand the motivations of an ancient writer living in an ancient culture writing in an ancient language?) Consequently we are forced to take these ancient texts at more or less face value.
Ifsomeone claims that Matthew edited Marks “he could do no miracles there … ” to “he did no miracles there … ” because Matthew didn’t like the limitation placed on Jesus’s power, would you tell them they couldn’t possibly understand the motivations of an ancient writer living in an ancients culture writing in an ancient language? Or would you say that’s pretty good evidence for Markan priority?
I can also point out that the fact you can only support Matthean priority by assuming authorial intent should tell you much.
There’s not a single argument for Markan priority that doesn’t rely in some sense on assumptions of authorial intentions.
brenmcg said
But that’s what a proposition is, one’s own suggestion of what Matthew or Mark might be thinking in the hope that it explains the editing choices of the secondary author.
And without much more than the mere impression of the person proposing it, the proposition is inherently very weak as an argument for the interpretation. Others will be persuaded or not as it happens to strike them. It becomes a kind of vote by scholars in the field, who are best informed about how to evaluate it. Typically, the further the argument proceeds beyond currently accepted interpretations, the less likely it will be to be accepted. At this moment in time, the overwhelming consensus is that Mark was written before Matthew, and that Matthew lifted from Mark. You want to overturn that assumption? Then you need to present a better case, and the evaluators of the case get to determine the verdict of its merits . . . or not. (And in presenting that case, you need to be careful in phrasing so that it is clear what elements are speculative, and that you are aware of that limitation.)
Robert said
Actually, that’s not really so. Absent something that might cause a parablesis, eg, homeoteleuton or homeoarcton, the deletion of a word is not more likely. You’re just making stuff up to suit your desired conclusion.
If our best explanation is that some scribe carelessly added it then certainly a scribe carelessly removing it is the far better explanation. Even excluding the fact that the majority have the “his”. This would be true even before discussing the case in which Matthew wrote first.
If someone claims that Matthew edited Marks “he could do no miracles there … ” to “he did no miracles there … ” because Matthew didn’t like the limitation placed on Jesus’s power, would you tell them they couldn’t possibly understand the motivations of an ancient writer living in an ancients culture writing in an ancient language? Or would you say that’s pretty good evidence for Markan priority?
What you do is note the similarities and differences between the texts and ask yourself what is more likely, that early Christian writers would tend to increase the agency of Jesus over time or decrease it? Doesn’t it seem reasonable to suppose that the Christian perception of Jesus’ agency would increase over time? If you agree (Markan priority) then there’s no need try to read anybody’s mind. But if you suppose that Jesus’ agency would be decreased over time (Matthean priority) then you have no other recourse than to authorial intent. Mark must have had some reason to decrease Jesus’ agency and then the mind reading starts.
There’s not a single argument for Markan priority that doesn’t rely in some sense on assumptions of authorial intentions.
Do you understand the arguments for Markan priority? The early Church view that Mark was a synopsis of Matthew relies on an assumption of authorial intent. It was only by taking the texts at face value that modern scholars were able to determine that Mark was first.
Robert said
Welcome, brickleytre, to the Readers Forum.Bart changed his mind while he was writing How Jesus Became God. He used to believe that Mark did not intend to portray Jesus as divine, as in your first quote, but later came to the opposite conclusion, as in the interview with Williams. And, as you say, it all depends on what you mean by divine. I agree with you (and Bart), that Mark does indeed portray Jesus as in some sense divine. There may even be an allusion to Jesus using the divine self declaration of Yahweh in 14,62, but even here it is clear that Jesus is referring to his future exalted role, seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven.
I think the fact that Mark wrote about miracles Jesus performed that he was in some way divine. It’s never stated that God gave Jesus these powers, so the reader is to assume he was born with them. This means he’s more than a normal human and has supernatural powers.
I think the fact that Mark wrote about miracles Jesus performed that he was in some way divine. It’s never stated that God gave Jesus these powers, so the reader is to assume he was born with them. This means he’s more than a normal human and has supernatural powers.
Prof Ehrman takes the view that Mark has an “Adoptionist” Christology. Jesus was adopted by God and made divine at his baptism. It follows that Jesus had a normal human birth. Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God has a good discussion about this.
Stephen said
I think the fact that Mark wrote about miracles Jesus performed that he was in some way divine. It’s never stated that God gave Jesus these powers, so the reader is to assume he was born with them. This means he’s more than a normal human and has supernatural powers.Prof Ehrman takes the view that Mark has an “Adoptionist” Christology. Jesus was adopted by God and made divine at his baptism. It follows that Jesus had a normal human birth. Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God has a good discussion about this.
I agree with him in the sense that the “Christology” became “higher” as the gospels were written, but it’s not explicit in Mark what happened at his baptism. God doesn’t say Jesus is *now* divine, it only says “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” That could mean Jesus was born a normal human being but also some sort of preexistent divine being.
The author of Mark also had access to Paul’s letters in which Paul considered Jesus a divine being.
…but it’s not explicit in Mark what happened at his baptism.
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
preceded by
…so John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.
John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
After the people were baptized by John they confessed their sins.
Jesus was baptized by John implying that he confessed his sins and his sins were forgiven.
After Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit entered into him implying that he didn’t possess the spirit before his baptism.
God adopts the human Jesus as his son.
Finally in the same passage in Luke (who is copying Mark) there is a textual variation in the best manuscripts that follows Psalm 2:7 – “You are my beloved son. Today I have begotten you.” While there is no textual variation in Mark, since Luke is copying Mark, it seems likely that the adoptionist pov applying Psalm 2:7 would have been the original reading. The trajectory would have been away from adoptionism since it became a heretical doctrine.
The author of Mark also had access to Paul’s letters in which Paul considered Jesus a divine being.
There is no real evidence for this. Mark and Paul’s soteriologies are similar but their christologies are different.
“The author of Mark also had access to Paul’s letters in which Paul considered Jesus a divine being.
There is no real evidence for this.”
This is what I consider evidence:
1 Cor. 11: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[** you do not have permission to see this link **] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.“
Written ~20 years later:
Mark 14: “While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the[** you do not have permission to see this link **] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
cstu said
“The author of Mark also had access to Paul’s letters in which Paul considered Jesus a divine being.There is no real evidence for this.”
This is what I consider evidence:
1 Cor. 11: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[** you do not have permission to see this link **] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.“
Written ~20 years later:
Mark 14: “While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the[** you do not have permission to see this link **] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
What you have is evidence of a shared tradition.
Mark’s author’s access to Paul’s letters is a debated issue.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert