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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Trajectory Arguments

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Leonard (11 June 08) On: Trajectory Arguments From: Bruce Leonard: I did not want to deal with your individual arguments,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Leonard (11 June 08)
      On: Trajectory Arguments
      From: Bruce

      Leonard: I did not want to deal with your individual arguments, partly
      because most of them fall outside of the methodology I am advocating (they
      rove elsewhere and yonder for killer arguments in favor of Markan priority),
      . . .

      Bruce: "rove" does not imply much system, and "killer" is not a word that
      will endear itself to the mild-mannered rank and file of NT persons. I would
      thus like to shrug off both words. I would rather go for "comprehensive" and
      "decisive." Thus relabeled, what rational objection can possibly arise? My
      trajectory arguments are taken from wherever they seem to occur in the
      Gospel texts. As for, shall we rather say, decisive Synoptic arguments,
      whether or not they favor Markan priority, surely after a century of
      indecisive ones, and with the NT world weary of the whole question anyway,
      now might be a good time for them. Would I incur fewer adjectives from
      Leonard if I went searching for INdecisive arguments?

      I repeat that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the direction of change in
      early Christian thinking, if change there was, ran from a divinely favored
      Mary (Lk 1:26f) to a meddlesome Mary rejected by her own son (Mk 3:31f). Or
      from a pre-existent Jesus (Jn 1:1f, 1:9-14) to a Jesus who received the Holy
      Spirit only at his baptism (Mk 1:9-11). Or etcetera. This being so, and I
      find it hard to conceive of it being otherwise, the trajectory arguments are
      strong arguments for the overall chronological position of the four Gospels.
      That order is Mk > Mt > Lk/Acts > Jn. These arguments say nothing about
      literary relationships *among* the Gospels, but they do locate the Gospels
      in relative time. This alone eliminates many of the theoretically possible
      Synoptic theories, and allows concentration on the task of deciding which of
      the remaining ones best accounts for the particular features of these texts.
      Inter alia, no theory positing Mt or Lk as the earliest Synoptic, no matter
      what literary relations are found to exist between the three, can possibly
      be correct.

      Leonard: but since your first argument (below) is at least related to
      material proximate to the temptation of Jesus parallels, I will deal with it
      briefly. / 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."

      There is no way this is derived from the text of Mark except through an
      absolutely unacceptable implied argument from silence.

      Bruce: The rejection of all argumenta ex silentio is often heard, but it is
      invalid all the same. There are indeed many reasons why a text might know
      something but not mention it, and the student of texts must be constantly
      alert for those situations. But the central fact is that if something did
      not exist for the author of a given text, the ONLY EVIDENCE that situation
      is capable of leaving in that text is the silence of that text. Silence thus
      needs to be counted, albeit tactfully, as evidence.

      Leonard: We have no idea (from the text) what Mark thought of Jesus'
      conception and birth, because he tells us nothing about them.

      Bruce: From the fact that Mark tells us nothing about the conception and
      birth of Jesus, we are probably entitled to infer that he either did not
      know them or else did not think them important. That he regarded them as
      UNimportant if, in his time, the Lukan model was generally accepted in his
      community, is unlikely save on some such assumption as that he was concerned
      to combat them. This motive is not, as far as I know, visible in Mark, hence
      that assumption seems to be unwarranted.

      A parallel case. It is traditionally supposed that Confucius wrote or edited
      all the Chinese classics, and that all hermeneutic interpretations of the
      Classics ultimately descend from Confucius. Not only is their a silence in
      the earliest layers of the tradition concerning the Chinese classics, but we
      see Confucius, in those earliest layers, teaching in other ways than by
      citing the classics, and doing in other ways what the later tradition did
      with the then canonical classics. The gap on the classics side is balanced
      by a positive presence on the teaching side (gnomic wisdom and the
      adjudication of empirical contradictions). So also in Mark: not only does
      Mark not show Jesus as receiving his special spiritual nature at his birth,
      a negative fact; he shows him receiving it at his baptism, a positive fact.

      Leonard: 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!).

      Bruce: Well, in direct preparation for his Temptation, in both texts, and
      also in Luke if we take the Lukan genealogy as a sort of long parenthesis. I
      am not sure that the inaccuracy affects the argument, but it is still an
      inaccuracy.

      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.

      Bruce: Those are not the alternatives. False antithesis.

      Leonard: Much more likely is that he knew and believed the stories of Jesus'
      conception by the spirit.

      Bruce: Petitio principii in the classical sense of the term: the fallacy of
      simply assuming that which it is desired to prove. As for "much more
      likely," not more likely. Rather, not likely at all. That Mark knew and
      believed the stories of Jesus' conception by the spirit, and yet portrayed
      Jesus as any other votary of John the B up to the point of the Voice From
      Heaven, seems drastically unlikely. In the story as it stands, the divine
      connection of Jesus begins immediately after Jesus' baptism. That is how
      Mark leaves it for his readers, and the best guess must be that that is how
      he saw it himself. Otherwise we must imagine him as maneuvering with the
      tradition, and with his readers, in a decidedly coy manner. There are a lot
      of stylistic traits in Mark, some of them reprehensible, but I wouldn't call
      him coy.

      Leonard: He simply chose to begin his story with the baptism of Jesus.

      Bruce: This "simply chose" massively begs the question. The whole matter
      turns on this point. *Why* did he so choose? If he knew and believed the
      Matthean account of Jesus's divinity, why did he so pointedly omit it? Was
      it because it varied so greatly from that of Luke, which he also knew? But
      he faced the same problem with the Resurrection narrative at the other end
      of his tale, where again Mt/Lk differ in important ways, but where Mk
      nevertheless contrives to have his own Resurrection account (differing, as
      far as the extant text of it goes, from both his supposed models; see
      Reimarus, at any desired length, on these contradictions in the four
      accounts of the Resurrection).

      Leonard: And, yes, there are numerous plausible reasons why he might have
      chosen this particular starting point.

      Bruce: I would like to hear just one. Failing one, we here have a key point
      of the argument not displayed, but gestured at offstage. It is far from
      reassuring to those who are having trouble giving their assent to the
      argument.

      Leonard: 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.

      Bruce: The Heavenly Voice relies on the Psalms. I don't get, from this text
      or its parallels, the meaning that Jesus = Israel. I get a sense of special
      individual status, indeed, of the conferral of special individual status. As
      Mark stands, and Mark as it stands is what we have to deal with, a lot of
      weight rests on that Voice in Mark. It singles Jesus out, as he had not
      before been narratively singled out. In the strict sense, that moment is
      narratively superfluous in Mt and Lk, where it has been preceded by a
      literal begetting. Do those texts take any account of this superfluity? Yes.
      I noted as a related Trajectory that the Baptism, though perhaps for reasons
      of tradition tenacity it does not immediately vanish, *is* progressively
      played down, and the role of John the B is also progressively diminished, in
      the successive Gospels (Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn).

      And the directional concurrence of those Gospel Trajectories remains, in my
      view, a very important point. If for example John the B were increasingly
      emphasized (rather than being reduced to a mere precursor and predictor of
      Jesus) in the same series of Gospels which show increasing status of Mary
      and the progressive Jerusalemization of Jesus's Appearances, then we would
      have a puzzlement, indeed a contradiction, and the Trajectory Arguments as a
      group would be in logical trouble. *This does not occur.* All the Trajectory
      Arguments run in the same direction, and all are in turn compatible with the
      observed history of other person-centered movements in ancient and modern
      times.

      Leonard: 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) and I would argue that Mark's
      account suggests a divine sonship that is more unique, mysterious, and
      elevated.

      Bruce: Unique, in the sense that no other Gospel exactly coincides; sure.
      Elevated, in the sense that here a human life is touched by something
      transcendent and powerful; again, sure. *All* the Synoptic accounts have
      these traits, though they have them in very different ways, so that the
      presence of these traits, as such, does nothing to clarify our problem. But
      mysterious? I would have to be shown how. The Markan account, read on its
      own terms, is simple and direct. It was surely intended to impress its
      readers with a sense of majesty and divine portent, but also with its
      immediacy and reality. Mysterious?? Not unless we posit a whole series of
      views of Jesus held but not expressed, or crucial moments in the life of
      Jesus known but not recounted. I can't think that this is a tenable position
      for a Gospel writer to occupy.

      I come back, as do many Synoptic observers, to the unlikelihood that Mark
      would withhold from his narrative anything which he knew, in which he
      believed, and which, if he believed it, he cannot have regarded as trivial
      in that story.

      I think instead that the conception stories are developments, and belong to
      a later stage of Christian thinking about Jesus. That the one in Lk is
      exiguous in that text, I pointed out years ago, in what seems to be a
      recurring conversation. Lk has a most sonorous beginning at Lk 3:1 (not at
      2:1, which is parasitic on what precedes), just after the Birth and Infancy
      and Genealogy portions of Lk. The text of Luke begins there just as
      satisfactorily as John ends at the end of Jn 20. If Lk's conception story is
      a textual afterthought in Lk, then the original manuscript of Lk also made
      no mention of Jesus's conception. Therefore, we have here two stages in the
      evolution of a manuscript, and the appearance of the divine conception motif
      in Christian thinking can be dated to a point between the first stage and
      the second. Nobody including Luke claims that Luke was an eyewitness to the
      events of Jesus's life. He relies explicitly on later traditions, sound and
      otherwise. His treatment of the conception story seems to suggest that,
      among those various traditions, the conception story is of only middling
      antiquity.

      Here is a case where we are not dependent on imagination, however acute, or
      on inferences, however plausible, but have evidence in the text itself about
      the relative age of one of the text's constituents. Such cases, I continue
      to think, are very valuable. We then have, as witnesses to the conception
      story:

      (a) Mk, Luke A (know nothing of it; Mk elsewhere shows disrespect for Mary)
      (b) Mt, Luke B (know it and include it; both texts omit Mk's disrespect for
      Mary)

      I see a pattern here. Doesn't everyone?

      Respectfully resuggested,

      Bruce
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.