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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mk 8:11-12 plus Sywndz

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic (WSW) Again In Response To: Dennis Goffin On: The Lawfulness of Jesus From: Bruce Dennis: . Jesus attitude is consistently to emphasise the
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic (WSW)
      Again In Response To: Dennis Goffin
      On: The Lawfulness of Jesus
      From: Bruce

      Dennis: . Jesus' attitude is consistently to emphasise the spirit of an
      action over the empty observance and that is true of the Sabbath as well.

      Bruce: Jesus's Sabbath actions in Mark are consistently to violate the
      Sabbath as it was understood by other people in Mark's story. Jesus may
      preach on the Sabbath, whether at Capernaum or at Nazareth (it was the
      occasion when people were already gathered), but Jesus in Mark never, repeat
      never, enjoins respect for the Sabbath as the Pharisees understood it or as
      Moses had ordained it. Instead, he constantly violates it. Here are all,
      repeat all, of the nontrivial occurrences of Sabbath in Mark:

      1:21. Preaching at Capernaum. (There is an interpolation in which he
      exorcises on that occasion, but as a matter of methodological scruple, I
      ignore that as not part of the original story).

      2:23-28. Going through the fields; the disciples pluck grain to eat.
      Challenged for this Sabbath violation; defends the violation by citing
      Scripture (a story about David; this is a Messianic passage, and Jesus
      claims functional equality with David).

      3:1-6. Healing on the Sabbath. Jesus takes time to argue, not that healing
      is not "work," which was prohibited on the Sabbath, as a more conventional
      person might have done, but that the doing of good supersedes anything else.
      Here, as is not the case in 1:21, the healing and the Sabbath aspects of the
      story are integral; there is no interpolation, and thus no way out of taking
      the story as it stands. As it stands, it recognizes no value whatever in
      Sabbath observance. More than this, it recognizes an opposition between
      Sabbath observance and doing good. The ethical and the conventional cannot
      coexist.

      That's the lot. I think it is suggestive. A parallel case can easily be made
      for the food laws, which are Pharisaic rather than Mosaic, but which Jesus
      with equal consistency regarded as worthless. Jesus in Mark never enjoins
      respect for the Sabbath. Jesus in Mark never urges observance of the food
      and other purity rules. On the contrary, his violation of those rules is the
      basis for Pharisaic opposition, and as Mark chooses to interpret the story,
      a root cause of Jesus's eventual death.

      ----------------

      Of course there is a problem for modern persons in accepting this. Was Jesus
      a lawbreaker? A person who would park in a no parking space if he was in a
      hurry? Eek! The idea is somehow difficult; modern people, or anyway modern
      Congregationalists, are themselves nice, and they would like more civic
      nicety in their Jesus. The only sermons I have personally ever heard about
      parking spaces (and in our shallow age, I have heard several of them) enjoin
      respect for the parking rules. People go home comfortable from such a
      sermon, serene in their own good citizenship. reinforced in their
      respectability. For that sort of mindset, the Markan Jesus is a shock. But
      modern persons and mindsets are not evidence, and I turn to ancient ones.

      Matthew is Everybody's Jesus, and Matthew feels just as many moderns do
      about the parking rules. He continually intervenes to show that Jesus did
      not reject minor Pharisaic piety ("tithe mint and rue"), and much more
      strongly, that Jesus upheld every "jot and title of the Law." He shows
      Jesus, in a fit of hyperpiety, going *beyond* the Law, but in the same
      direction. This is a revisionist picture. It is possible to say exactly
      where Matthew was coming from, and in what year, but I leave that alone, and
      take the book of Matthew simply as we find it. What we find in it is a
      revisionist Jesus, whose lawlessness in the Markan Vorlage is often
      ameliorated or eliminated or transcended. This is part of what I have called
      the Nice Jesus image of the Second Generation Gospels.

      But as historians, we have no business reading Matthew, save for
      documentation about the *reception* of Jesus in later times (an important
      subject in its own right, but surely a different subject). For the
      historical Jesus, Mark is our only acceptable source. What Mark says on the
      subject here in question - what he seems to go out of his way to say - I
      have already recounted.

      -----------------

      I point out, by way of perspective, the way in which, like Jesus in the
      hands of Nice Matthew, the image of Paul after his death was altered and
      adjusted to make it more conventional, and in fact, more Nice. There were
      interpolations, like the beloved Love chapter of 1 Cor 13 (on its
      interpolation status, see the careful study of Walker), in which Paul is
      suddenly made to abandon his own central doctrinal concept (faith) for
      something else (an amorphous "love"). There were also social adjustments
      made to Paul, perhaps most obviously the bit about female equality. Female
      equality certainly obtained in Paul's own churches, but the secondary
      Pauline literature is actively and constantly concerned to subvert it and
      get rid of it (in that literature, and in some interpolations in the genuine
      Pauline literary leavings, women must be silent in church; their chief piety
      is childbearing). Again, something socially and religiously radical in the
      early church is being toned down and abandoned and moved back toward the
      socially acceptable center. This happens at the same time, by which I mean
      in the same year, the immediate post-Pauline couple of years, as the Gospel
      of Matthew was being put together. The conventionalizing push is the same,
      it is the same movement of the collective Church, in both cases.

      The Pastorals are not an improved portrait of Paul, just as Matthew is not
      an improved portrait of Jesus. In both cases what we have is a
      *conventionalized* portrait. Christianity, as it came of age, wanted to be
      more efficient, and also more acceptable to its pagan and indeed its Jewish
      neighbors. Matthew and the Pastorals are one way they went about this.
      Matthew and the Pastorals, among other things, represent the Organizational
      Christianity of the 60's. Do you know what happens when a business-based and
      not an academic-based president takes over some college? Well, Matthew and
      the Pastorals (to mention only them) are the analogue of that process in
      Middle Christianity.

      The job was well done, let me get that in. The PR (businesspeople are highly
      aware of the importance of PR), the community relations work, was well done.
      Matthew is the beloved Jesus, whereas nobody making up a lectionary ever
      culled Mark for passages. Similarly, on the Pauline side, Ephesians (a
      trito-Pauline document) has been called by commentators the most perfect
      expression of Pauline Christianity. Well it might be; it had had practice.
      Colossians had already tempered Paul to the shorn and conventional reader,
      and with the advantage of that trial run, Ephesians came along and finished
      the job.

      ---------------

      All this comes down, does it not? to a simple matter of method. For any
      historical question, the earliest evidence is the best evidence. I don't
      need to mention the name of Leopold von Ranke; it is just common sense. The
      guy who was there, or at least not far from there, is going to give a less
      evolved account of things than the guy who was not there, or the guy who
      comes along twenty-five years later. And evolution of historical image
      constantly happens; traditions and cultures and perhaps especially
      subcultures constantly adjust their past to conform to present needs. The
      later sources we use, the more our picture is going to be compromised by the
      workings of that constant tendency to adjustment.

      Similarly, if I may move to the larger world for a moment, the clash between
      Mencius and Sywndz is partly a generation clash. For Mencius, the question
      of the people and the new army was still partly open; he could imagine
      military force trumped by pure moral force. For Sywndz, born a few years
      before Mencius died, the efficiency and functionality of the new army were a
      given, one of the facts of life. He accepted the army, and its logistic and
      economic support, not as some ideological decision, but simply as the air he
      breathed. Mencius (and the more faithful of his followers, the people I have
      called the northern Mencians) focused on the personal; Sywndz more on the
      collective, on society as an entity to be philosophized about. The
      difference between them is partly personal temperament, of course, but with
      wide and deep roots in the fact that the new state was more fully realized
      in Sywndz's time. Reading the works of either school, it helps, it is
      illuminating, to keep in mind the difference in the societies they were
      talking about. Sywndz is not a very likeable guy, and the age in which he
      lived was not a very comfortable age, it was an age in which the scope of
      individual effort had become markedly curtailed. These are not two
      statements; they are one statement.

      This is kindergarten-level stuff, isn't it. I grieve that it should be so
      constantly ignored, not only in NT, where I am a sort of guest, but in my
      home field of classical Sinology. I think we will do better not to ignore
      it, which for Jesus questions (as distinct from reception-of-Jesus
      questions), means reading Mark instead of Matthew.

      Respectfully recommended,

      Bruce

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