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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Early Beliefs

Expand Messages
  • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dennis Goffin On: Early Beliefs From: Bruce The question is: How new were the teachings of Jesus, and how opposed were
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 16, 2010
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Dennis Goffin
      On: Early Beliefs
      From: Bruce

      The question is: How new were the teachings of Jesus, and how opposed
      were they to the conventional Judaism with which he was in immediate
      contact during his lifetime?

      BRUCE (quoted by Dennis): No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an
      old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from
      the old, and a worse tear is made" (Mk 2:18 [should have been 2:21 -
      EBB]). And so on.This amounts to a statement that Jesus's doctrines
      are not only distinctive within previous Judaism, they are
      incompatible with previous Judaism.

      DENNIS (quoting Brandon): Brandon says "Jesus is represented as
      pronouncing on the obsolescence of Judaism. The attempt made by Jewish
      Christians to adapt Christianity to Judaism was hopeless - new wine
      cannot be held in old wine skins. The ruin of the temple in AD70 (of
      which the Roman Christians were well aware from the triumph held by
      Vespasian and Titus in AD 71) had ended the compromise which the
      Jerusalem Christians had sought to maintain, and now Christianity was
      free of its Judaistic swaddling bands." [Page 266 in the chapter 'The
      Markan Gospel' from "Jesus and the Zealots".] Brandon dates Mark's
      Gospel to 71 AD.

      BRUCE (now): Brandon, typically, puts the difference more
      adversatively, not to say aggressively. But putting such matters
      aside, and also putting aside the Temple question, which is a
      logically separate matter, probably the first question to ask here is,
      Who is making this statement? Do we have Jesus talking, reported by
      Mark, or Mark making a point of his own by having Jesus articulate it?
      It may be relevant that Mark does not specifically flag this comment
      as a saying of Jesus The last explicit quote was at 2:18-20 (the
      Bridegroom logic for the nonfasting of Jesus's disciples). 20:21f is a
      change of tone, and need not be construed as a continuation of that
      saying, though of course there is a thematic link.

      But does the link join things that are really consecutive? The point
      of Jesus's reply in 2:19f, about a seeming violation of fasting
      conventions, is that the violation is only temporary, and that normal
      practice will be resumed after Jesus himself has died. That is, there
      is here no rejection of fasting as such; on the contrary, fasting is
      going to be part of the future culture of Jesus's followers. The
      interruption is only due to Jesus's presence.

      [And we seem to know that the early Jesuites, or some of them, DID
      observe fast days; they also baptized, as Jesus and his followers in
      his lifetime did not do].

      Whereas in 2:21f, the incompatibility of Jesuite beliefs or practices
      with those of conventional Judaism is insisted upon. The two passages
      are thus not really consecutive after all, and though 2:18f already
      looks forward to a time after Jesus's death, it seems that 2:21f looks
      to a time still later, when similarity of custom does not suffice for
      viable fellowship, and incompatibility of doctrine must be recognized.
      In fact, a split of some sort has likely occurred between the two.
      Then 2:21f are an update of a previous passage, changing its message
      to fit more conflicted times.

      Mark elsewhere narrates Jesus as producing an impression of novelty,
      not just authority, on his hearers, and I am still disposed to take
      that as a historical memory; I think Jesus WAS distinctive, and I find
      the claim that Jesus was simply teaching Judaism to be wide of the
      mark. But that the differences provoked conflict and a parting of the
      ways seems to have been a later matter. I take Mark, in these two
      passages, to be witnessing to both stages in that evolution.

      It would now be interesting to ask, What else in Mark takes the same
      oppositional stance as we have just been inclined to attribute to the
      seeming update passage 2:21f? And do any such passages cohere to form
      a whole update layer in Mark? But we are supposed to keep these
      messages short, and I will therefore confine any further exploration
      to the smaller and more private of the two groups here addressed.


      E Bruce Brooks
      warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: GPG Cc: Synoptic In Response To: Keith Yoder On: Mark and John From: Bruce Thanks to Keith for his additional notes on recasting of previous tradition in
      Message 33 of 33 , Mar 24, 2010
        To: GPG
        Cc: Synoptic
        In Response To: Keith Yoder
        On: Mark and John
        From: Bruce

        Thanks to Keith for his additional notes on recasting of previous
        tradition in John. The subject is a large one, with its own special
        interest, and all points are welcome.

        One of the skills needed by the successful churchman is the grace to
        respond politely when presented with a Festschrift which is small,
        undistinguished, and full of internal rancor, one author using his
        space to trash the opinion of another author about the date and
        authenticity of 1 Peter. Such was the crisis which must have
        confronted the dedicatee when he was handed Sherman E Johnson, The Joy
        of Study: Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects Presented to
        Honor Frederick Clifton Grant (Macmillan 1951).

        Fred his my sympathy in that moment.

        Nevertheless, there are some shreds of interest in the thing. One is
        the paper by Sydney Temple (University of Massachusetts, no less) on
        Geography and Climate in the Fourth Gospel. He makes what looks to me
        like a good case that the author of John knew Palestinian geography
        and its seasons very well: when a certain ford was passable, when the
        court migrated from Jerusalem to Jericho, when the high road through
        Samaria would have been preferable to the more obvious lowland one.

        Does this mean that John, being more cogent about geography than it
        seems Mark always was, knew Palestine, and Mark did not? That might be
        a rash conclusion. But with Temple's data in mind, we can at least say
        that he had done his homework, not only on the calendar, but on the


        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.