Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] the sources of Matt 4:1-11 according to Griesbachians

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    ... argument based on trajectory (here it obviously has some appeal)-- but as a specific argument in favor of Mark s priority to Matthew in this part of his
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >
      > In a nut shell, it is weak and unconvincing -- not as an overall
      argument based
      on trajectory (here it obviously has some appeal)-- but as a
      specific argument
      in favor of Mark's priority to Matthew in this part of his Gospel.
      The problem
      as I see it lies in the implied argumentum ex silentio in the way
      you formulate
      Mark's supposed low Christology: "indwelt by the Spirit only from
      his Baptism to
      his Crucifixion."Â There is no way this is derived from the text of
      Mark except
      through an absolutely unacceptable implied argument from silence. We
      have no
      idea (from the text) what Mark thought of Jesus' conception and
      birth, because
      he tells us nothing about them. In Mark the Spirit comes upon Jesus
      at his
      baptism, in connection with (and preparation for) his mission (just
      as he does
      in Matt, who does have a conception by the spirit!). If I wereÂ
      compelled to
      guess what Mark's view was of the time prior to this incident in the
      life of
      Jesus, I would find it difficult to imagine that Mark thought of
      Jesus as
      exactly like every other human being that ever lived up until this
      time. Much
      more likely is that he knew and believed the stories of Jesus'Â
      conception by
      the spirit. He simply chose to begin his story with the baptism of
      Jesus. And,
      yes, there are numerous plausible reasons why he might have chosen
      this
      particular starting point.

      If there is any argument from Christological trajectory to be made
      from this
      part of the Gospel story, it arguably works in favor of Matthean
      priority. As
      Gerhardsson rightly notes, Jesus in Matt 4:1-11 is God's son in the
      sense that
      he is Israel, God's son. Mark does not go there (or at least, if he
      does, the
      equation of Jesus with Israel is so implicit in Mark as to be
      implausibly
      intended, and probably derived from remembering Matthew)Â and I
      would argue that
      Mark's account suggests a divine sonship that is more unique,
      mysterious, and
      elevated.


      Leonard,

      I don't find the argument from silence invalid. If we have two urns
      containing marbles one of which is unsampled and one of which has
      produced a few red marbles, I feel justified in considering red
      marbles to be the more probable contents of one urn compared to the
      other the other. If I were placing urns in order based on the
      probable frequency of red marbles they contain, I would place the
      sampled urn after the unsampled one. This seems to be an objective
      induction.

      I also note that elsewhere we have Mark telling us that the family
      of Jesus thinks he's nuts. This seems incompatible with miraculous
      conception narratives, and is evidence that Mark didn't know of them
      or accept them.

      Leonard: If I were compelled to
      guess what Mark's view was of the time prior to this incident in the
      life of
      Jesus, I would find it difficult to imagine that Mark thought of
      Jesus as
      exactly like every other human being that ever lived up until this
      time.

      Dave: Why?

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.