Not all scholars agree with Jesus’ Jewish roots. Some of them think Jesus started off as a kind of cynic-sage in the Greek tradition. They imagine that the earliest Christians were very syncretistic, borrowing freely from neighboring religions, especially the mystery cults. Burton Mack, for example, argues that, “The Jesus movement began as a home-grown variety of Cynicism in the rough and ready circumstance of Galilee before the war” (p. 120). In his reconstruction of the origins of Christianity, Jesus’ earliest followers did not think of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. They did not believe that Jesus died for sins or that he rose from the dead. Nor did they worship and honor him with hymns, prayers, and rituals (p. 4).
To arrive at his reconstruction of Christian origins, Mack begins with a particular solution to the synoptic problem. The synoptic problem is the problem of determining how Matthew, Mark, and Luke are related in terms of literary dependence. John’s gospel is different from the first three, but the first three gospels are so similar in their stories and even in their wording that they can be placed side by side and compared. (See Gospel Parallels.) Mack uses the most popular solution, which is the two-source hypothesis (2SH). In the 2SH, Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke both wrote their gospels using Mark as a source and then adding other material. In much of the additional material not found in Mark, Matthew and Luke still agree with one another, which has led scholars to think they shared a common source besides Mark. The hypothetical source they shared is designated Q, which comes from the German word quelle, meaning source. Mack takes Q quite seriously as a document in its own right and believes that, “Q is the best record we have for the first forty years of the Jesus movements” (p. 245).
Mack further relies on John Kloppenborg’s division of Q into earlier and later layers (Kloppenborg, John. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). “The earliest layer consisting of ‘sapiential instruction’ was now referred to as Q1, and the ‘announcement of judgment’ as Q2. Kloppenborg has also identified a small amount of material that had been added later than the composition of Q2, such as the story of Jesus’ temptation. These later additions were referred to as Q3” (p. 44). The first and earliest layer consists of pithy sayings that tend to be somewhat counter-cultural, which one would expect from a cynic-sage. They consist of sayings such as, “Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your belongings, do not ask to have them back,” and, “Don’t judge and you won’t be judged,” and, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear.”
Based on a few sayings that are found in Q1 and the maxim that there is always a community behind a text (p. 41), Mack reconstructs a highly speculative scenario of what the earliest Jesus people were like, how they lived, what they believed and what they didn’t believe. They were nothing like Jews. Jewish elements, such as apocalyptic pronouncements of judgment, didn’t enter into the Q tradition until the Q2 layer. Based on the three layers, Mack tells the story of an emerging and developing community who eventually merged with the Christ cult as Mark wrote his gospel (p. 178). The Christ cult itself emerged from some of the original Jesus people who migrated to Syria (p. 216). The message of the Christ cult was that Jesus died and rose from the dead, but the message was placed in a mythological once upon a time, and not a specific time and place (p. 219). It wasn’t until Mark’s gospel was written that Jesus was placed in a specific historical context.
Mack’s reconstruction of Christian origins is problematic on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. He weaves an elaborate scenario of the developing thought of the first Jesus people based on the scant evidence he is left with after a highly speculative reconstruction of its literary history. Without blushing, he arrives at a Hellenistic group of counter-cultural cynics formed around the memory of Jesus without the slightest corroborating evidence that such people ever even existed. No hint of their existence has ever been forthcoming. The evidence we do have of the earliest Christians completely contradicts Mack’s scenario. Yet Mack dismisses the positive evidence we do have as myth while thinking his own reconstruction to be sober history. It would seem that Mack has created a myth of his own, and one cannot miss the irony that he begins his reconstruction with the words, “Once upon a time…”(p. 1).
The irony is further evident in the fact that Mack claims the kerygma (proclamation) of the Christ cult was itself set in a “once upon a time.” His claim is obviously false, though. In the earliest literature we have from the Christ cult, which is Paul’s letters, we see that Jesus was a real person who died in the recent past. Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus’ brother, James (Galatians 1:19). Jesus was a contemporary of many who were still alive, so the kerygma certainly wasn’t placed in any once upon a time. It was placed in recent history, and he had living followers who had been personally acquainted with him during his ministry.
Mack’s reconstruction is based on speculation upon speculation. He begins with what is most widely accepted among scholars (the 2SH) and gradually piles on the speculation. But even the 2SH is not without its rivals, and Q itself is only a hypothetical source. It isn’t a gospel document that archaeologist have discovered. If it ever did exist, no copy of it has ever been found. The reconstructions of it from the synoptic gospels are themselves speculative. Mack takes this speculative reconstruction of a hypothetical source and further divides it into three layers (more speculation) and then arranges the three layers from earliest to latest (even more speculation). Then, based on what he deems represents the earliest layer of tradition, Mack makes speculative pronouncements of what the Jesus people did not believe.
One of the rival solutions to the synoptic problem is the Griesbach hypothesis (GH). According to the GH, Matthew was written first. Luke used Matthew as his primary source. Then Mark used both Matthew and Luke as his sources. The GH dispenses with Q since it is unnecessary to explain why Matthew and Luke sometimes agree against Mark. Although not widely accepted, the GH has some arguments in its favor. Some of the reasons Mark is more widely thought to have been written first is because almost all of it is found in Matthew and Luke and because Matthew and Luke both agree in their order when they follow Mark but then diverge when they are not following Mark. It seems more natural to think that if someone were to write a new gospel, he would add to his source rather than take away from it, so it’s more likely that Matthew and Luke added to Mark rather than that Mark abbreviated Matthew and Luke. The GH has a somewhat plausible answer to the objection, though. It may be the case that Mark wrote his gospel in order to harmonize Matthew and Luke. Mark’s gospel includes material from Matthew and Luke where they agree in both content and order, and it excludes material where Matthew and Luke do not agree, which is what we would expect if Mark were attempting a harmonization. The case that Mark used Matthew and Luke is strengthened by the fact that Mark contains several explanatory clauses not found in Matthew or Luke. For example, Mark 2:15 says, “Many tax-gatherers and sinners were dining with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following him” (Compare Matt 9:10//Luke 5:29). Mark 3:29-30 says, “’Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,’ because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (Compare Matthew 12:32//Luke 12:10). Mark 7:18-19 says, “’Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” (Compare Matthew 15:17). In Mark 11:13, Jesus went to a fig tree and “found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (Compare Matt 21:19; see also Matt 17:4//Mark 9:5-6//Luke 9:33 and Mark 16:4//Luke 24:2). Q is unnecessary in the GH because Luke used Matthew.
Another possible solution to the synoptic problem is the Farrer hypothesis (FH), which has been gaining in popularity in recent years. The FH keeps Markan priority but dispenses with Q by maintaining that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark. There are good reasons to accept the FH, not least of which is due to the numerous major and minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in triple tradition material. There is a sliding scale from double tradition (material in Matthew and Luke but not Mark) to major agreements (where Matthew and Luke agree substantially against Mark in triple tradition) to minor agreements (where Matthew and Luke agree in minor details against Mark in triple tradition). Since there is a sliding scale, these categories are artificial. The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark vary in degree. There are agreements in spelling, wording, and chronology, and there are agreements of omission and addition. The following example has agreement against Mark in three categories: omission, addition, and wording. [I did my best to make the texts line up so you could see the differences more clearly. Where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, I coloured the words green. Where Mark has something that is omitted in Matthew and Luke, or where Mark's wording is different than Matthew and Luke, I've coloured it in red.]
| Matthew 8:2-4 | Mark 1:40-44 | Luke 5:12-14 |
| And behold a leper came to him, and bowed down to him, saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” | And a leper came to him, beseeching him and falling on his knees before him, and saying to him “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” And moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand, and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.” | And it came about that while he was in one of the cities, behold, there was a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored him, saying "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” And he stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” |
It would be a remarkable coincidence if Matthew and Luke redacted Mark independently of each other and yet their redactions agree with each other, so these agreements are best explained by the fact that Luke used Matthew and sometimes chose Matthew’s wording over Mark’s. If Luke used Matthew, that also accounts for the material shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, thus dispensing with any need to postulate a hypothetical source such as Q.
To account for the major agreements, Q theorists suppose that there is some Mark/Q overlap. Either Mark and Q happen to contain the same material, or Mark used Q as a source. Using Mark/Q overlap to explain the agreements is problematic for Burton Mack’s case, though, for three reasons. First, minor agreements appear in almost every case of triple tradition material, and there are far too many of them to brush off as coincidence. Second, Q would have to contain substantially more material (including narrative) than Q theorists (and Burton Mack in particular) are willing to admit. Third, some of what Q would have to contain completely contradicts Mack’s thesis. Mack argues that the Q community had no belief or interest in Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection, but there are agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark both in the passion narrative and in Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection.
| Matthew 16:20-21 | Mark 8:30-31 | Luke 9:21-22 |
| Then he warned the disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus Christ began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. | And he warned them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. | But he warned them, and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, saying, “The son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.” |
Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark on their prediction of Jesus’ resurrection. Whether we account for this agreement by saying Luke was using Matthew (which dispenses with Q) or by saying this is an example of Mark/Q overlap (which means Q has a resurrection prediction), Burton Mack’s thesis is in trouble. The following agreement is also problematic for Mack’s thesis because it is part of the passion narrative.
| Matthew 26:67-68 | Mark 14:65 | Luke 22:63-64 |
| Then they spat in his face and beat him with their fists; and others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ; who is the one who hit you?” | And some began to spit, at him, and to blindfold him, and to beat him with their fists, and to say to him, “Prophesy!” | And the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him, and beating him, and they blindfolded him and were asking him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit you?” |
Given the above two alternatives to the 2SH, the Q hypothesis appears to be ad hoc. It is not necessary to postulate a hypothetical document to explain the agreement between Matthew and Luke when it is more simple to suppose that Luke used Matthew. (See The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre.)
Let us suppose the 2SH is correct, though, and there was a common source used by both Matthew and Luke other than Mark. Even if that were the case, it is impossible to reconstruct the document from the synoptic gospels with any degree of certainty. Because of the sliding scale from major to minor agreements between Matthew and Mark, it is impossible to tell what Q said, for where do we draw the line? Mack thinks that Mark actually used Q in writing his gospel (p. 178), but if that is the case, then anything found in all three gospels could have been in Q. That includes all the elements of the Jesus movement that Mack denies were a part of the Q community, such as the notion that Jesus was the messiah, that he died for sins, and that he was raised from the dead. Mack’s whole thesis depends on an argument from silence. It is based on what a speculative reconstruction of a hypothetical document did not say rather than what it did say.
Let us continue, though, and assume that we have a fairly accurate reconstruction of what Q said. Doing so still causes Mack some problems. The division between the three layers of Q basically just amount to dividing them up according to categories—moral teachings in Q1, apocalyptic pronouncements of judgment and the coming kingdom of God in Q2, and miscellaneous in Q3. One could arrive at a different result just by using different categories. The reason for dividing moral teachings from apocalyptic pronouncements is because of the difficulty in reconciling the two. If the end of the world is about to happen, so the argument goes, there’s no reason for Jesus to prescribe how people ought to live their lives (pp. 29-39). If understood from a Jewish perspective, though, morality and apocalyptic are inseparable. The Jews believed that “defection from the paths of Torah had caused persecution and exile. Fidelity to its commandments would be rewarded by an ingathering of the dispersed and Yahweh’s special providence” (Goldberg, David J. and John D. Rayner, The Jewish People: Their History and Their Religion, (London: Pinguin Books, 1987), 52). The whole basis of the pharisaic movement was that personal piety would result in a return from exile and an independent nation with God’s kingdom established on earth. With that background in mind, there is no problem reconciling ethical teachings with apocalyptic pronouncements of judgment. In fact, it would be odd if predictions of judgment were not accompanied by ethical teachings since judgments were coming on those who were living immoral lives. Most of the pronouncements of judgment in Q2 are accompanied by admonitions of repentance. For example, in Q2, Jesus said, “The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment and condemn this generation. For they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and look, something greater than Jonah is here.” Jesus expected the people of his own generation to repent at his preaching just as Nineveh repented at Jonah’s preaching, and the reason was the same in both cases: judgment was coming.
Let us continue to be generous and assume that Q1, Q2 and Q3 represent legitimate layers of tradition. Mack’s thesis is still not salvaged, for he also relies on Kloppenborg’s chronology, placing Q1 earlier than Q2, and that assumption is questionable. Logically speaking, pronouncements of judgment ought to come before ethical teachings because it is the impending doom that gives the ethical teachings their force. It is because judgment is coming that we ought to be moral, so Q2 is logically prior to Q1. Mack knows that apocalyptic pronouncements of the coming kingdom of God is thoroughly Jewish, so he needs to place Q2 sayings later than Q1. But Mack acknowledges that “The kingdom of God is mentioned in seven sayings at the Q1 level.” Mack attempts to salvage his thesis by pointing out that none of the kingdom of God sayings at the Q1 level speak of the kingdom of God in an apocalyptic sense and then triumphantly announces, “Thus the old apocalyptic hypothesis can safely be set aside” (pp. 123-124). The circularity of his argument is hard to miss. The reason Mack finds no apocalyptic references to the kingdom of God in Q1 is because by definition apocalyptic sayings belong to Q2. If there actually were apocalyptic sayings in Q1, Mack would have placed them in Q2 simply because that’s the way he has defined his categories.
If we continue to be generous and assume that Q1 is the earliest layer of Q, and if we assume that Mack’s reconstruction of what they did not believe is accurate, will we be granting Mack the day? No, we won’t. At this point, Mack faces an insurmountable problem because he has no basis upon which to claim that the Q1 community is earlier and more authentic than the Christ cult. He simply asserts that “Q reveals what Jesus people thought about Jesus before there was a Christian congregation of the type reflected in the letters of Paul, and before the idea of a narrative gospel was even dared” (p. 245). Even if we grant the entire house of cards its legitimacy, we end up with the realization that Mack’s conclusion is actually worse than speculative; it is completely arbitrary. But that may itself be too generous, for the actual evidence shows that the earliest followers of Jesus were thoroughly Jewish, and they actually did believe Jesus was the Christ, that he died for sins, and that he was raised from the dead.
8 comments:
Bravo!
Extremely well written. Enjoyed it thoroughly. I agree 100% with your criticism of Mack’s theory. I would capsulize it in your statement:
Sam: He weaves an elaborate scenario of the developing thought of the first Jesus people based on the scant evidence he is left with after a highly speculative reconstruction of its literary history.
.
On a related note, where do you come down on the Synoptic Problem? I lean heavily toward Farrer (Mark, then Matthew using Mark, then Luke using Mark and Matthew), although I do see the possibility of Matthew and Luke using an undiscovered gospel. It is a bit disconcerting how many other writings of the time we have discovered in the past 100 years (Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls) to completely discount the possibility of “Q.”
I just find “Q” more speculative (with our current state of evidence) and therefore unnecessary as compared to the Farrer hypothesis. And, like this review, considering the speculative nature of “Q,” to start postulating “Q1” and “Q2,” their contents and their order becomes speculation upon speculation upon speculation.
I share Dr. Wallace’s difficulties with Matthean priority—namely Mark’s lengthier writing in individual pericopes and the harder readings in Mark.
I read rumors on the ‘net that Matthean priority is back on the rise, yet every scholar I have read who has published in the past few years maintains Markan priority. I wonder if it is just a rumor.
Anyway—anywhere in particular that you fall on a resolution? No matter what it is, there are eminent scholars who agree with you, and eminent scholars who do not. *wink*
Thanks Dagoods.
I suspect that if we went back in time and actually watched the gospels be written, the process would be more complex than anything we could reconstruct just by examining the synoptic gospels. By the time Luke wrote his gospel, there were many gospels floating about, not just Matthew and Mark. Most of them are lost to history, but since Luke knew about them, he probably used them. So who knows what the real story is?
It's been a long time since I've studied the synoptic problem, and I don't remember everything I used to know. But I used to think the Farrer hypothesis was the most likely. I remember thinking the argument from fatigue was the strongest argument for Markan priority. I was convinced mostly by the many minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in triple tradition that Luke must've used Matthew.
I don't know whether Matthean priority is on the rise or not, but I do know there are some scholars who defend it, such as Allan J. McNicol and David B. Peabody.
Two quick thoughts:
Those proposing alternate theories like this are far more generous with their own skimpy evidences than they are with the large body of evidences supporting classical Christianity. Basically, ANYTHING is more credible than the portait of Jesus in the Gospels. Apparently, even a Gnostic Jesus (who wasn't even human).
Such alternate theories seem to ultimately require outright deception and fabrication on the part of the authors of Scripture. But the deeper you go down the deception road, the more of a convoluted tangle of counter-factuals has to be explained away in the whole historical record. As one atheist said to me, who believed that Jesus didn't even exist, "it's all one big phantasmagoria."
Paul, I am curious what you mean by the term “deception.” I’d like to ask two questions to clarify.
Assume Matthew’s birth narrative, while anchored in certain historical facts, was created by the author of Matthew. There really was King Herod, a country Egypt, and a man named Jesus who came from Galilee. But the rest was made-up out of the author’s mind. No angelic appearances. No wise men. No slaughter of the innocents. No trip to Egypt.
Here are my two questions:
1. Would you consider that deception?
2. Would the culture of the time consider it deception?
If you don't mind, I'll answer this way:
I understand how great historical events and persons can accumulate embellishment and mythic elements (e.g., Iliad, Alexander the Great, King Arthur). It would be difficult to call this deception, since it is probably a gradual process where no one person or generation could be said to author the entire fable. Even so, if something like the Iliad were authored by Homer, original in all its mythic elements, then even that is not necessarily deception, maybe just good historical fiction.
As to the culture of the time, I think there would be (was) generosity toward my above cases, but I think the Jewish culture was less tolerant, especially where the myth made claim to speak to matters of religion. Simply note the caution and skepticism toward the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
The problem as I see it with the books of the N.T. is that the allegedly fictional elements are in there to support some very important claims — claims that are being commended to us as genuinely true and which are meant to turn our worlds upside-down. It's not just harmless storytelling, and the offense that many people take to biblical theology is a testament to that fact.
Additionally, the fact that these books are written within the generation of the primary witnesses eats into the plausibility of the idea that there were just many rounds of harmless and ignorant layering of mythology between the "real" itinerate rabbi and the miracle working God-in-the-flesh. If it is indeed myth, then it is myth on the fast-track and someone had to work overtime to speed it along.
Thanks for the response, Paul. I’ve read through it and while I understand what you are saying, I am not certain of how you would answer my questions. Maybe I am asking the wrong questions…
When you used the term “deception…on the part of the authors of Scripture” and “…the deception road…”, I am wondering—who is it you are claiming is deceiving whom?
I understand you don’t think the authors were being deceitful, and you indicate it is these “alternative theories” that are making such claims. I am still not clear as to what your answer would be in my small example taken from Matthew under what you see as the alternative theories.
If Matthew fabricated—made up out of whole cloth—the birth narrative as we have it (again with some historical elements, such as Herod, Egypt, an actual personage of Jesus):
1) Would you consider that deception?
2) Would the culture of that time (First Century Mediterranean to narrow it down) consider it deception?
Sorry for trying to anticipate the point of your question. I'll try to answer it more directly now.
1) Yes. I don't think it was just good clean fun from someone making tall tales about a dear departed teacher and hero. Taken in context, these kinds of "mythical" story elements are for the sake of establishing a larger truth. If Jesus is not, in fact, a virgin-born, prophecy-fulfilling miracle-worker, then we've got no compelling reason to believe that He is divine and a necessary gate on our road to heaven, as Matthew insists (e.g., vv. 7:27, 10:23, 14:33, 16:16, 20:28). You answer for yourself: If I told you that you are going to hell unless you bend the knee to my dead friend Bob, then how will you think upon me and my anecdotal stories evidencing belief in such a thing if you discover that I have simply invented them?
2) Given that Matthew was a Jew and his target audience appears to be the Jews, then I think there is much grounds for offense in this book (e.g., vv. 9:2-6, 11:24, 21:43, 23:33, 26:64). Both ancient and modern Jews take the view of God-as-man, depicted in Matthew, to be blasphemous. Any mythical embellishments used to justify such a view would certainly not be well received.
Thanks, Paul.
I responded to your original comment, interested in how you appear to approach New Testament studies from only your own paradigm. I am curious whether you could be empathetic to other proposals. I surmised this from terms like “alternative theories like this” and “outright deception.”
What sprung to mind immediately was, “Alternative to…what?” As if classical Christianity was THE theory and all others were mere second- and third-rate contrived proposals—falling far short. Actually, all theories (including classical Christianity) are alternative—both to reality and to each other. The question we constantly face is the particular theory’s likelihood. By weighing what little evidence we have: is the theory more likely or less likely to conform to reality.
I understand under your classical Christian view, some theories would require outright deception and fabrication from the gospel writers—can you understand why, under those theories, it does not? That other scholars look at how biographies were written and how histories were written during the same time period, and such invented modifications were not considered deceptive? Rather, that this was simply how histories were done?
It is like watching cricket. I don’t know cricket rules; I know baseball rules. So when I watch cricket, I constantly attempt to put the game in baseball framework. How are runs scored? Who is pitching? Who is catching, and what do they do with the ball once they catch it? I keep seeing it as different, because it is not like baseball. I keep viewing it in light of baseball. I fail to appreciate cricket for what it is—cricket.
In the same way, we approach New Testament studies from our own view. We see theories unlike ours and call them “alternative.” We see problems in the theories--because they do not conform to our own paradigm--not because they fail to conform to their own. This is not limited to Christian perspectives. We have all seen the conversation regarding naturalists dismissing Scripture due to miraculous claims. The (perhaps accurate) observation the naturalist is seeing the problem in classical Christian claim—miracles—because it does not conform to the naturalist’s paradigm. Whereas miracles are consistent within the classical Christian model.
Paul, what I saw in your response (I could be wrong) was a failure to appreciate the other models. As if their proposals entailed “deception” whereas if one looks at what the theory is, it does not. And the “tangle” you see is where the theory does not conform to your particular view; yet the theory has no intention of conforming to your view! Because it is a different theory, with different criteria, different views and different aspects.
You view (as is your privilege) Matthew being written (1) by a Jew, (2) to a Jewish [Christian] audience, (3) with a particular purpose of establishing Jesus as a Divine God-man. Further, although you don’t explicitly state it, you imply Matthew would be (4) rejected by its intended audience if discovered not historically accurate and (5) targeted for criticism by Jewish leadership.
I can understand where, under that model, making up the birth narrative would be viewed as deceptive. However, I am not persuaded as to any of those five particulars. (Albeit, I suspect the author was a Hellenized Jew.) Can you understand, under a model that does NOT hold those facts to be true, why I do not consider the made-up Matthean birth narrative to be deceptive?
Post a Comment