Can list members provide me with some examples from the second temple
and tannaitic period  of masters not only instructing their disciples in
the ways of prayer, but of giving them particular prayers to pray --
besides the example in Matt. 6:9 and Luke 11:2  of Jesus doing so?

If there are such examples (that of John the Baptiser comes to mind),
what do they tell us about the purpose that a master had for doing so?

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
On: Jesus and Disciples
From: Bruce

I guess it was the phrase "felt it necessary" that was giving me trouble. It
implied emotion to me, and not just a scenario. I couldn't recall anywhere
in Mark where Jesus expressed emotion about the choice of a disciple, or
toward any of those disciples later on (the real disciples, not the
cardboard Twelve). Toward the almost disciple, the rich young ruler (as
people call him), sure: And Jesus looking on him, loved him (Mk 10:21). But
toward those who *did* follow him, nothing in the category of feeling that I
can recall, save occasional impatience at their obtuseness. Peter has a
large store of emotions to display in Jesus's direction, but I don't see
anything coming the other way. Though I am prepared to be reminded if I have
missed one.

JEFFREY: It's implied, isn't it in the fact that unlike a Rabbi, he recruits
disciples and commissions them to advance his mission.

BRUCE: "Implied" is us working on the text, it isn't the text telling us
anything. To me there is a difference, and it was this difference I was
noticing. Also, isn't it a problem that those around Jesus are most commonly
called his "disciples," and only on a few occasions is an "apostle" function
evident. Mark seems to be of at least two minds about the function of the
Jesus circle.

JEFFREY: If he didn't need them, he wouldn't have taken these actions.

BRUCE: I suppose. But this is another inferential statement. Mark doesn't
himself tell us these things. As he might easily have done without violating
his stylistic parameters (see above).

JEFFREY: It's also in implied in the despair that he is depicted as
undergoing in Gethsemane after one betrays him and after he sees how the
others are likely to (and then do) desert him.

BRUCE: I can only feel that this is a misreading. There was a lot more that
was worrying Jesus at that moment than the defection, or (as far as the plot
had then gone) the sleepiness, of his disciples. The sleepiness strikes me
as incidental in the Markan account. What Jesus has to say to God at
Gethsemane is not the problem of his erring disciples, it is something else.
No?

Even at the Last Supper, where Jesus is made to address the coming betrayal,
he seems to me to approach it almost clinically. There is a shadowy sense
about it. Which I am prepared to explain, but explained or not, there it is.

I have always found it a shock to come from the dry treatment of
Jesus/disciple feelings in Mk to the much moister atmosphere of gJn, and
this mysterious "beloved disciple" stuff. Doesn't everybody?

The list of things that Mark shows Jesus as having emotions about is an
interesting list. Especially if one divides it into passages likely to be
late, in Mark, and passages probably early. The sparseness of disciples on
that list is only one of the interesting points. Or so it looks from here.

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

At 01:17 PM 2/23/2009, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Can list members provide me with some examples from the second temple
>and tannaitic period  of masters not only instructing their disciples in
>the ways of prayer, but of giving them particular prayers to pray --
>besides the example in Matt. 6:9 and Luke 11:2  of Jesus doing so?
>
>If there are such examples (that of John the Baptiser comes to mind),
>what do they tell us about the purpose that a master had for doing so?

This is a rather interesting question.
Of course, the immediate parallel example is John the Baptist, in Luke 11:1

But we bring some baggage to it in the way we moderns think of prayer. We
should remember that Jesus lived during the period when the Second Temple
was in use. "Prayers" were those said in Temple, and prayer practice is
reflected, IIRC, in the Psalms. Thus, I'm wondering about the historicity
of Mat. 6:6-7. What is the setting? Synagogues and street corners? Of
course the setting here may be Galilee, in which non-Temple forms of prayer
and worship may have developed even before the destruction of the Temple.

My guess is that the practice of private prayer, or even small group prayer
(such as disciples might pray together, as the LP was apparently designed
to do) did not become common general practice until after the destruction
of the Temple, which destroyed the primary locus of prayer. But you weren't
asking about general practice, you were asking about disciples.

How much baggage are we putting on the term "disciples"? To what extent
does disciple simply mean "student"? Paul was a student of Gamaliel,
according to Acts 5:24; 22:3. Did Gamaliel teach him to pray?
We have record of 4 alleged prayers of Paul (conveniently gathered at
http://www.aaidu.org/prayer.html):
     * Ephesians 1:17-23
     * Ephesians 3:14-21
     * Philippians:1:9-11
     * Colossians:1:9-11
In these letters, Paul may have been setting an example by which he
intended to teach his churches how to pray-- and judging by how he was
regarded, some members of those congregations were regarded as his
disciples (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4). In fact, these prayers could be interpreted as
prayers for his disciples. This may qualify as your "instructing their
disciples in the ways of prayer," but not with any specific prayer.

Otherwise, one must look to the heterodox non-Temple Jews, e.g. Qumran, the
Essenes, perhaps Masada for prayer by disciples. And to curiosities such as
the Prayer of Manasseh, which looks like it was composed for the benefit of
disciples (whose? when? where?), as an exemplar of a prayer to be prayed--
and the fact of its continued recitation for centuries afterwards suggests
that this pattern succeeded.

Well, I'm rambling. Get what you can out of this.

Bob Schacht
University of Hawaii

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

[Bruce said: it implied emotion to me, and not just a scenario. I
couldn't recall anywhere in Mark where Jesus expressed emotion about
the choice of a disciple,... Toward the almost disciple, the rich
young ruler (as people call him), sure: And Jesus looking on him,
loved him (Mk 10:21). But toward those who *did* follow him, nothing
in the category of feeling that I can recall, save occasional
impatience at their obtuseness.]

Not to repeat what's been said elsewhere, but I have repeatedly been
struck by the way that Mark has Jesus react to people and situations
in such an emotional and usually negative and impulsive manner.  And
in almost all cases Mark's language is omitted by Mt and Lk.  Here is
my quick list of such, does not the directionality issue tilt toward
Markan priority? At least to me it does:

1:41-43 (Synopsis Quat. Ev. #42) - Cleansing of the Leper:  Mark's
Jesus in 1:43 gruffly rebukes the just-healed leper, as he upbraids
him for no stated reason whatsoever, and then "casts him out" (same
verb used of casting out demons in the two preceding paragraphs),
language appropriately softened by most translations.  If Mk>Mt>Lk,
then Mt and Lk both omit the "casting out" and tone down the grouchy
"upbraided".  If Mt>Mk, then Mark is going out of his way to make
Jesus appear needlessly grumpy and abrupt - "OK you're healed, now get
out of my way!".  Does this not lend contextual support for the
minority mss reading of "being angered" for "being moved with
compassion" in verse 41 -- notably both Mt and Lk omit this initial
display of compassion/temper? altogether.

3:5 (SQE #47) - Healing the Withered Hand on the Sabbath:  Mark shows
an intensely emotional and confrontational Jesus, as he "looked around
at them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts".
Once again, both Mt and Lk omit the anger and the grieving.  Mark
often portrays Jesus "looking around" or "looking intently" at people
(eg, 3:34, and 10:21 with 10:23,27); we say of some people that they
use a "look" that controls the conversation, which is pretty much the
way Mark presents Jesus, but this descriptive touch is usually lacking
in Mt and Lk.  Which way directionality?

3:9-10 (#48) - Healing by the Sea (L1):  I am struck that Jesus felt
he was being "crushed" by the crowds of weak, sick and crippled who
"pressed upon him to touch him", so he wanted a boat to be ready for
him to escape from the needy throng.  Mt omits all of this, and Lk
includes only the observation that the crowds "sought to touch him"
but nothing of Jesus' negative reaction.  Is Mark adding these
negative touches to tell us that Jesus was actually repelled when
crowded and touched by the sick, or are Mt and Lk redlining
embarrassing negative emotions?

3:21 (#116) - Jesus' Associates Say He is Beside Himself (L1):  Both
Mt and Lk omit this description of Jesus associates (family?) coming
to "take charge" of him because of his apparently irrational behavior
(for his own protection?).  The people who apparently know him best
are trying to rein in (help?) a man whom we would say is "out of
control".  Once again, is this embarrassing detail omitted by Mt and
Lk, or did Mark throw it in to somehow enhance Jesus or to embarrass
his disciples (or family, or whoever this ambiguously (un-) identified
is supposed to be)?

4:13 (#124) - Interpretating the Parable of the Sower:  Mt and Lk omit
Jesus berating his disciples for not understanding his parable.  Or,
did Mark add this touch.  In either case, why?

5:30-32 (138) - The Woman with the Hemmorrhage:  Mark shows Jesus
intense and persistent reaction to the woman "touching" him for
healing.  He felt the power leave him, he instantly whirled around in
the crowd asking "who touched me?", and when the disciples try to calm
him down he persists to "look around" to see who did it.  No wonder
the poor woman approached him with "fear and trembling".  Mt and Lk
omit all Jesus' inner feeling and persistent turning/looking around.
Mark shows us a Jesus who first and immediate reaction to people who
bothered or distracted from what he was doing was negative and
impulsive, ditto the leper in 1:41-43.

[Luke takes a timeout here]

6:6 (#139) - Rejected in His Hometown (L1):  According to Mark, Jesus
expected his home village folk to be cheering him on, and he is
"amazed" that they reject him.  Again, Mt and Lk both omit that Jesus
"was amazed" (how far Mark's Jesus from gJn); or does Mark add this
remark, and why?

8:12 (#154) - Pharisees Seek a Sign:  Jesus reacts here to the
Pharisees by "sighing deeply in his spirit".  Yet another intense
emotional display, omitted by Mt or added by Mark?

8:17,21 (#155) - Leaven of the Pharisees:  Mt here includes most of
Mark's description of Jesus' intense tongue lashing of his slow
learning disciples, but he omits the final gratuitous twisting of the
knife that Mark gives us in 8:21, "do you still not get it!".  Mark
definitely gives us a Jesus with a take-no-prisoners management style
- but is he just piling on to Mt's description, or does Mt decide that
Mark's closing touch is over the top?

[Luke back in the game]

9:19 (#163) - The Boy Possessed by an Unclean Spirit ("O faithless
generation!"):  For once, both Mt and Lk include all the elements of
Jesus' intense reaction - or does Mark simply think Mt and/or Lk did a
good enough job?

10:14 (#253) - Let the Children Come to Me (L1):  Only Mark says that
Jesus was "indignant" toward his disciples for trying to keep the
children away from him.  Mk>Mt>Lk or vice-versa?

10:21 (#254) - Rich Young Ruler:  Lk includes Jesus' "looking" at the
young man, but only Mark adds that Jesus "loved him", pretty much a
unique description in the synoptics.  I think it fitting that only
Mark includes such as this, the polar opposite reaction that he has
Jesus exhibit throughout the preceding 9 1/2 chapters, and such an
intense and impulsive reaction is not at all unexpected by this time.
  Directionality?

10:32 (#262) - Third Prediction of Suffering (Disciples' Reaction):
Here the emotional reaction is on the part of Jesus' followers rather
than Jesus himself, but once again Mt and Lk omit it completely.

11:14,21 (#272,275) - Cursing the Fig Tree:  Mt omits Mark's Peter
saying that Jesus actually "cursed" the fig tree in 11:21.  Two other
things Mt omits:  One, while Mark 11:14 says that Jesus "answered and
said to it", Mt omits the "answsered".  I don't think this is a
superfluous element of Mark's description, rather it colorfully shows
Jesus reacting to the barren fig tree just like he reacts to most
people, that is negatively and impulsively.  Two, Mark's prior
editorial comment that "it was not the season for figs" makes Jesus'
cursing of the hapless tree even more irrational.  Why curse (and
whither) a perfectly good tree for not having fruit out of season!
Directionality?


Keith Yoder
Retired govt manager, M.Div many years ago
Carmel, Indiana

Keith,

I was very impressed by your survey of the emotional responses of Jesus to
various people and situations. Given that Mark is the earliest gospel and the
subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise me that
Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later
ones.

Dennis

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Keith Yoder
   To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:46 AM
   Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples


   --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

   [Bruce said: it implied emotion to me, and not just a scenario. I
   couldn't recall anywhere in Mark where Jesus expressed emotion about
   the choice of a disciple,... Toward the almost disciple, the rich
   young ruler (as people call him), sure: And Jesus looking on him,
   loved him (Mk 10:21). But toward those who *did* follow him, nothing
   in the category of feeling that I can recall, save occasional
   impatience at their obtuseness.]

   Not to repeat what's been said elsewhere, but I have repeatedly been
   struck by the way that Mark has Jesus react to people and situations
   in such an emotional and usually negative and impulsive manner. And
   in almost all cases Mark's language is omitted by Mt and Lk. Here is
   my quick list of such, does not the directionality issue tilt toward
   Markan priority? At least to me it does:

   1:41-43 (Synopsis Quat. Ev. #42) - Cleansing of the Leper: Mark's
   Jesus in 1:43 gruffly rebukes the just-healed leper, as he upbraids
   him for no stated reason whatsoever, and then "casts him out" (same
   verb used of casting out demons in the two preceding paragraphs),
   language appropriately softened by most translations. If Mk>Mt>Lk,
   then Mt and Lk both omit the "casting out" and tone down the grouchy
   "upbraided". If Mt>Mk, then Mark is going out of his way to make
   Jesus appear needlessly grumpy and abrupt - "OK you're healed, now get
   out of my way!". Does this not lend contextual support for the
   minority mss reading of "being angered" for "being moved with
   compassion" in verse 41 -- notably both Mt and Lk omit this initial
   display of compassion/temper? altogether.

   3:5 (SQE #47) - Healing the Withered Hand on the Sabbath: Mark shows
   an intensely emotional and confrontational Jesus, as he "looked around
   at them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts".
   Once again, both Mt and Lk omit the anger and the grieving. Mark
   often portrays Jesus "looking around" or "looking intently" at people
   (eg, 3:34, and 10:21 with 10:23,27); we say of some people that they
   use a "look" that controls the conversation, which is pretty much the
   way Mark presents Jesus, but this descriptive touch is usually lacking
   in Mt and Lk. Which way directionality?

   3:9-10 (#48) - Healing by the Sea (L1): I am struck that Jesus felt
   he was being "crushed" by the crowds of weak, sick and crippled who
   "pressed upon him to touch him", so he wanted a boat to be ready for
   him to escape from the needy throng. Mt omits all of this, and Lk
   includes only the observation that the crowds "sought to touch him"
   but nothing of Jesus' negative reaction. Is Mark adding these
   negative touches to tell us that Jesus was actually repelled when
   crowded and touched by the sick, or are Mt and Lk redlining
   embarrassing negative emotions?

   3:21 (#116) - Jesus' Associates Say He is Beside Himself (L1): Both
   Mt and Lk omit this description of Jesus associates (family?) coming
   to "take charge" of him because of his apparently irrational behavior
   (for his own protection?). The people who apparently know him best
   are trying to rein in (help?) a man whom we would say is "out of
   control". Once again, is this embarrassing detail omitted by Mt and
   Lk, or did Mark throw it in to somehow enhance Jesus or to embarrass
   his disciples (or family, or whoever this ambiguously (un-) identified
   is supposed to be)?

   4:13 (#124) - Interpretating the Parable of the Sower: Mt and Lk omit
   Jesus berating his disciples for not understanding his parable. Or,
   did Mark add this touch. In either case, why?

   5:30-32 (138) - The Woman with the Hemmorrhage: Mark shows Jesus
   intense and persistent reaction to the woman "touching" him for
   healing. He felt the power leave him, he instantly whirled around in
   the crowd asking "who touched me?", and when the disciples try to calm
   him down he persists to "look around" to see who did it. No wonder
   the poor woman approached him with "fear and trembling". Mt and Lk
   omit all Jesus' inner feeling and persistent turning/looking around.
   Mark shows us a Jesus who first and immediate reaction to people who
   bothered or distracted from what he was doing was negative and
   impulsive, ditto the leper in 1:41-43.

   [Luke takes a timeout here]

   6:6 (#139) - Rejected in His Hometown (L1): According to Mark, Jesus
   expected his home village folk to be cheering him on, and he is
   "amazed" that they reject him. Again, Mt and Lk both omit that Jesus
   "was amazed" (how far Mark's Jesus from gJn); or does Mark add this
   remark, and why?

   8:12 (#154) - Pharisees Seek a Sign: Jesus reacts here to the
   Pharisees by "sighing deeply in his spirit". Yet another intense
   emotional display, omitted by Mt or added by Mark?

   8:17,21 (#155) - Leaven of the Pharisees: Mt here includes most of
   Mark's description of Jesus' intense tongue lashing of his slow
   learning disciples, but he omits the final gratuitous twisting of the
   knife that Mark gives us in 8:21, "do you still not get it!". Mark
   definitely gives us a Jesus with a take-no-prisoners management style
   - but is he just piling on to Mt's description, or does Mt decide that
   Mark's closing touch is over the top?

   [Luke back in the game]

   9:19 (#163) - The Boy Possessed by an Unclean Spirit ("O faithless
   generation!"): For once, both Mt and Lk include all the elements of
   Jesus' intense reaction - or does Mark simply think Mt and/or Lk did a
   good enough job?

   10:14 (#253) - Let the Children Come to Me (L1): Only Mark says that
   Jesus was "indignant" toward his disciples for trying to keep the
   children away from him. Mk>Mt>Lk or vice-versa?

   10:21 (#254) - Rich Young Ruler: Lk includes Jesus' "looking" at the
   young man, but only Mark adds that Jesus "loved him", pretty much a
   unique description in the synoptics. I think it fitting that only
   Mark includes such as this, the polar opposite reaction that he has
   Jesus exhibit throughout the preceding 9 1/2 chapters, and such an
   intense and impulsive reaction is not at all unexpected by this time.
   Directionality?

   10:32 (#262) - Third Prediction of Suffering (Disciples' Reaction):
   Here the emotional reaction is on the part of Jesus' followers rather
   than Jesus himself, but once again Mt and Lk omit it completely.

   11:14,21 (#272,275) - Cursing the Fig Tree: Mt omits Mark's Peter
   saying that Jesus actually "cursed" the fig tree in 11:21. Two other
   things Mt omits: One, while Mark 11:14 says that Jesus "answered and
   said to it", Mt omits the "answsered". I don't think this is a
   superfluous element of Mark's description, rather it colorfully shows
   Jesus reacting to the barren fig tree just like he reacts to most
   people, that is negatively and impulsively. Two, Mark's prior
   editorial comment that "it was not the season for figs" makes Jesus'
   cursing of the hapless tree even more irrational. Why curse (and
   whither) a perfectly good tree for not having fruit out of season!
   Directionality?

   Keith Yoder
   Retired govt manager, M.Div many years ago
   Carmel, Indiana




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JBG asks:
"Why was it that Jesus thought
it necessary to have any disciples at all,
let alone those who would
pray in the manner he instructed them to pray?"

a) 12 disciples, 12 tribes, renew Israel?
(Evidence for 12 is pre 50 CE in Paul)

b) If some of the disciples were prone
to pray for fire to be sent down on those
who refused them the (sacred) duty of
hospitality maybe they needed some guidelines.
(Lk 9.54 for the problem).

One might extend the issue - using the LP
as guide what kinds of prayer are notably
absent from it?  Have some later traditions imported
the kinds of prayer some key NT texts gently
or less gently discourage?

David M.




---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG, WSW
In Response To: Keith Yoder
On: Jesus's Emotions in Mk
From: Bruce

ABSTRACT: Thanks to Keith for his list; I here dispute a few, and add some
notes. Warning to the casual: there are fourteen of them, and although I
argue for a somewhat shorter list (* marks the passages I would exclude),
that argument itself takes up space. Bracketed at the end of each passage
discussion, for the amusement of those interested, is the layer to which
that passage is assigned in the present state of the still in-progress
Accretional Mark reconstruction. In the concluding Analysis, I find that
there is an interesting progression within Mark, and I agree also, though
more strongly, to the progression which Keith notes here and there as
possible in the larger Mk > Mt/Lk sequence. I see no sign anywhere that
would suggest that Mark is secondary to Mt/Lk.

(1) Mk 1:41-43. Cleansing of the Leper. I can't make sense, emotional or
theological, of the "anger" reading, and conclude that "compassion" is all
that works. I could if pressed explain the change, or so I think, but this
is not the place to get into it. Anyway, here we have an explicit Markan
naming of an emotion which the story reports Jesus as having, not merely a
scene which invites its readers to draw that inference. Compare passim
below. [1]

(2) Mk 3:5. Healing on the Sabbath. Jesus's anger/grief is here also
explicit. I note that it is directed not at the person being healed, but at
those who would object to the healing. [5]

*(3) Mk 3:9-10. Healing by the Sea. There is no actual healing, and there is
no explicit emotion reported by Mk. As far as the text tells us, and that is
as far as I care to go here, Jesus is simply taking precautions against
being mobbed, and finding a practical way to address the crowd. I thus don't
think this belongs on the "emotion" list. I don't think that Jesus anywhere
in Mark is impatient or angry at his crowds. [1]

*(4) Mk 3:21. Jesus's Associates. The embarrassment scenario, as Keith
notes, will well account for the omission of this line in Mt/Lk, but I would
add that no emotion is here attributed to Jesus, just other people's
opinions about his mental equilibrium. You or I might be annoyed, but the
point is that Mark doesn't tell us what Jesus felt, and that is the whole
point here. Should accordingly be omitted. [1]

*(5) Mk 4:13. Interpreting the Sower Parable. Jesus questions his disciples'
not understanding the parable, but the scene to me falls well short of
Keith's description "berates." The passage is still interesting. It is one
of the famously interpolated pieces in Mk (see my previous arguments). It
arises because the later movement wanted to attribute, to these originally
Messianic messages, a meaning more appropriate to the Apostolic Age. So, to
answer Keith's question, a later Mark added it to the earlier Mark (we have
no outside interpolations in Mark, just improvements made by the custodians
of the text, whoever they were, and for present purposes it doesn't matter).
[4]

*(6) Mk 5:30-32). Woman With an Issue of Blood. Probably not a hemorrhage,
which would have been fatal long before twelve years' time, but more likely
menorrhagia. Anyway, another very famous interpolation; it is perhaps not
without interest that this insert, minus the older surrounding narrative,
appears in the Epistle of the Apostles; that is, it proved to be a viable
story in itself. Like the Episode at Kusinara (a fairly early interpolation
in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta; it appears intact at the beginning of the
Maha-Sudassana  Sutta, which further develops it), it has proved
portability. In the case of Mk, the Woman episode develops, with cinematic
realism, a hint in the earlier passage 6:56 (itself the second stage of a
triplet, as I noted earlier on this list). As to Jesus, he is portrayed in
great detail, but does Mark specifically attribute emotion to him? We may so
imagine, but if we do, I think we are reading into Mark more than he is
reading out to us. I would not include this passage with the "emotion" ones.
[3]

(7) Mk 6:6. Rejection in Nazareth. "He marveled because of their unbelief."
Note that this is not an anger reaction as such, just surprise approaching
astonishment. I think we are entitled to say that Mark shows us a Jesus
expecting a strong reception in his home town, and not getting it. Luke, who
for reasons of his own places this episode at the beginning of Jesus's
Galilee period, makes the whole thing more confrontational. For that matter,
Luke makes the entire story of Jesus more consistently confrontational, from
beginning to end. [1]

(8) Mk 8:12). Pharisees Seek a Sign. Jesus "sighed deeply in his spirit,"
and went on to complain of the entire generation, saying that no sign would
be given to it. For a guy who has been scattering signs of healing and other
forms of power all up and down Galilee, this is a remarkable attitude. To me
it speaks of Apostolic impatience with those who were awaiting some sign of
the Last Days; Mk 13 in my view was added to the text as a more extended way
of addressing this impatience of the believing public. Anyway, there is no
doubt that Mk is here reporting Jesus's feelings. [5]

*(9) Mk 8:17, 21. Leaven of the Pharisees. Jesus directs to the disciples a
whole series of questions, including whether their "hearts are hardened."
Impatience and even exasperation are strongly implied, but they are not
stated (compare preceding; Mk is perfectly capable of naming a feeling when
he cares to; for a closely parallel case compare #5 above]. I am interested
in cases where Mark himself notes the emotion, and on that narrower ground I
would be inclined to exclude this passage from the list. In the end,
everything is part of the story, and it all has to fit in. I am just trying
to keep the inventory precise. [5]

*(10) Mk 9:19. The Epileptic Boy. "O faithless generation!" (cf #8 above).
Strongly implied, but not named. If we were asked to say, in Greek, what the
emotion here expressed is called, we would not be able to answer by pointing
to the text of Mk. I would tentatively exclude, though as with all the
others, it has its place in the final accounting for Mark. [5]

(11) Mk 10:14. Jesus was "indignant" at the disciples' exclusion of
children. Again, the feeling is directed toward those who would interfere,
not to the person or persons whom he would address or heal. [5]

(12) 10:21. The "Rich Young Ruler" (neither rich nor young, but the label is
now traditional). "And Jesus, looking on him, loved him." I agree with Keith
that this one is unique. [5]

*(13) Mk 10:32. Amazement of Jesus' Followers. I share Keith's thought that
this does not belong on the list, since it attributes an emotion not to
Jesus, but to his followers. It thus belongs to the class of things which
Timothy Dwyer treats in his book The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark.
I gave that motif considerable space in my SBL/NE paper last year, which I
won't here attempt to duplicate; the gist is that to my eye the book
combines too many things, but that if carefully separated, we get a
preponderance of that motif in the early layers of Mark. Anyway, let's leave
it out of account for present purposes, but put it in a different data set
for future purposes. [2]

*(14) Mk  11:14, 21. Cursing the Fig Tree. The action is certainly hostile,
but again, Mk does not name the emotion involved. If we are going to include
hostile actions, the overturning of the moneychangers' tables in the Temple
surely ought to be included, and so on. I think things will be easier to
understand if we do not expand the inventory in that direction. [5]

ANALYSIS: CATEGORIZED INVENTORY
By number as above. * indicates exclusions

Emotions of Jesus:
     Positive:
         Compassion: 1 [1]
         Surprise at Unbelief: 7 [1]
         Affection: 12 [5]
     No Specified Emotion: *3 [1], *4 [1], *6 [5]
     Negative:
         Against those who Interfere: 2 [5], 11 [5]
         Impatience with Disciples: *5 [4], *9 [5]
         Against the Age: 8 [5], *10 [5], *14 [5]
  Excluded as Not Applying to Jesus:
         Awe of Followers: *13 [2]

To me, that breakdown is interesting at several points. First, the emotions
which Mark specifies as those of Jesus (as distinct from our empathetic
responses), that is the unstarred items above, are on the whole positive
early in Mark, and negative late in Mark. (The great exception was and
remains the Rich Young Ruler). This is to me one of the facts that indicate
a slightly different authorial strategy, and perhaps even a different author
(many of the Markan signature style traits are rare or missing in the very
late material) for the last couple layers of Mark.

The positive awe of Jesus's followers also comes in here (#13, also
relatively early).

I would say, to speak to some of Keith's directionality questions, that the
course of Synoptic evolution, including the several strata of it which are
subtended by our Gospel of Mark, begins with an essentially positive
portrait of Jesus, and becomes both more realistic and also more sour as it
proceeds. Both types of emotion are then largely filtered out by the Second
Tier Evangelists, presumably because *any* too human emotion was
increasingly felt to be inappropriate for a being who was being
theologically upgraded to divine status at that time. That is, the greater
realism of the middle and late Markan writer was surely effective in
engaging the human-interest sympathies of his intended audience, but it
worked against the agenda of the following age. (And by the time we get to
John, Jesus is so attenuated that he becomes virtually a shadow presence in
his own story; here is another of the Trajectory arguments: the Human >
Divine > Cosmological Jesus).

One could go on, up to and including book length, but I guess I should leave
it there. Thanks to Keith for the occasion, and I hope some of this will be
of some use to the Synoptic regulars or irregulars.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Dennis wrote:



Keith,

I was very impressed by your survey of the emotional responses of Jesus to
various people and situations. Given that Mark is the earliest gospel and the
subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise me that
Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later
ones.


  Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in Mark's Gospel
behaves this way. The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a theological
significance. Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark, like so
many other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National? Seminary
Weston, MA







-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Goffin <dgoffin@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Cc: gpg@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 7:41 am
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples










Keith,

I was very impressed by your survey of the emotional responses of Jesus to
various people and situations. Given that Mark is the earliest gospel and the
subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise me that
Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later
ones.

Dennis

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Keith Yoder
   To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:46 AM
   Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples


   --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

   [Bruce said: it implied emotion to me, and not just a scenario. I
   couldn't recall anywhere in Mark where Jesus expressed emotion about
   the choice of a disciple,... Toward the almost disciple, the rich
   young ruler (as people call him), sure: And Jesus looking on him,
   loved him (Mk 10:21). But toward those who *did* follow him, nothing
   in the category of feeling that I can recall, save occasional
   impatience at their obtuseness.]

   Not to repeat what's been said elsewhere, but I have repeatedly been
   struck by the way that Mark has Jesus react to people and situations
   in such an emotional and usually negative and impulsive manner. And
   in almost all cases Mark's language is omitted by Mt and Lk. Here is
   my quick list of such, does not the directionality issue tilt toward
   Markan priority? At least to me it does:

   1:41-43 (Synopsis Quat. Ev. #42) - Cleansing of the Leper: Mark's
   Jesus in 1:43 gruffly rebukes the just-healed leper, as he upbraids
   him for no stated reason whatsoever, and then "casts him out" (same
   verb used of casting out demons in the two preceding paragraphs),
   language appropriately softened by most translations. If Mk>Mt>Lk,
   then Mt and Lk both omit the "casting out" and tone down the grouchy
   "upbraided". If Mt>Mk, then Mark is going out of his way to make
   Jesus appear needlessly grumpy and abrupt - "OK you're healed, now get
   out of my way!". Does this not lend contextual support for the
   minority mss reading of "being angered" for "being moved with
   compassion" in verse 41 -- notably both Mt and Lk omit this initial
   display of compassion/temper? altogether.

   3:5 (SQE #47) - Healing the Withered Hand on the Sabbath: Mark shows
   an intensely emotional and confrontational Jesus, as he "looked around
   at them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts".
   Once again, both Mt and Lk omit the anger and the grieving. Mark
   often portrays Jesus "looking around" or "looking intently" at people
   (eg, 3:34, and 10:21 with 10:23,27); we say of some people that they
   use a "look" that controls the conversation, which is pretty much the
   way Mark presents Jesus, but this descriptive touch is usually lacking
   in Mt and Lk. Which way directionality?

   3:9-10 (#48) - Healing by the Sea (L1): I am struck that Jesus felt
   he was being "crushed" by the crowds of weak, sick and crippled who
   "pressed upon him to touch him", so he wanted a boat to be ready for
   him to escape from the needy throng. Mt omits all of this, and Lk
   includes only the observation that the crowds "sought to touch him"
   but nothing of Jesus' negative reaction. Is Mark adding these
   negative touches to tell us that Jesus was actually repelled when
   crowded and touched by the sick, or are Mt and Lk redlining
   embarrassing negative emotions?

   3:21 (#116) - Jesus' Associates Say He is Beside Himself (L1): Both
   Mt and Lk omit this description of Jesus associates (family?) coming
   to "take charge" of him because of his apparently irrational behavior
   (for his own protection?). The people who apparently know him best
   are trying to rein in (help?) a man whom we would say is "out of
   control". Once again, is this embarrassing detail omitted by Mt and
   Lk, or did Mark throw it in to somehow enhance Jesus or to embarrass
   his disciples (or family, or whoever this ambiguously (un-) identified
   is supposed to be)?

   4:13 (#124) - Interpretating the Parable of the Sower: Mt and Lk omit
   Jesus berating his disciples for not understanding his parable. Or,
   did Mark add this touch. In either case, why?

   5:30-32 (138) - The Woman with the Hemmorrhage: Mark shows Jesus
   intense and persistent reaction to the woman "touching" him for
   healing. He felt the power leave him, he instantly whirled around in
   the crowd asking "who touched me?", and when the disciples try to calm
   him down he persists to "look around" to see who did it. No wonder
   the poor woman approached him with "fear and trembling". Mt and Lk
   omit all Jesus' inner feeling and persistent turning/looking around.
   Mark shows us a Jesus who first and immediate reaction to people who
   bothered or distracted from what he was doing was negative and
   impulsive, ditto the leper in 1:41-43.

   [Luke takes a timeout here]

   6:6 (#139) - Rejected in His Hometown (L1): According to Mark, Jesus
   expected his home village folk to be cheering him on, and he is
   "amazed" that they reject him. Again, Mt and Lk both omit that Jesus
   "was amazed" (how far Mark's Jesus from gJn); or does Mark add this
   remark, and why?

   8:12 (#154) - Pharisees Seek a Sign: Jesus reacts here to the
   Pharisees by "sighing deeply in his spirit". Yet another intense
   emotional display, omitted by Mt or added by Mark?

   8:17,21 (#155) - Leaven of the Pharisees: Mt here includes most of
   Mark's description of Jesus' intense tongue lashing of his slow
   learning disciples, but he omits the final gratuitous twisting of the
   knife that Mark gives us in 8:21, "do you still not get it!". Mark
   definitely gives us a Jesus with a take-no-prisoners management style
   - but is he just piling on to Mt's description, or does Mt decide that
   Mark's closing touch is over the top?

   [Luke back in the game]

   9:19 (#163) - The Boy Possessed by an Unclean Spirit ("O faithless
   generation!"): For once, both Mt and Lk include all the elements of
   Jesus' intense reaction - or does Mark simply think Mt and/or Lk did a
   good enough job?

   10:14 (#253) - Let the Children Come to Me (L1): Only Mark says that
   Jesus was "indignant" toward his disciples for trying to keep the
   children away from him. Mk>Mt>Lk or vice-versa?

   10:21 (#254) - Rich Young Ruler: Lk includes Jesus' "looking" at the
   young man, but only Mark adds that Jesus "loved him", pretty much a
   unique description in the synoptics. I think it fitting that only
   Mark includes such as this, the polar opposite reaction that he has
   Jesus exhibit throughout the preceding 9 1/2 chapters, and such an
   intense and impulsive reaction is not at all unexpected by this time.
   Directionality?

   10:32 (#262) - Third Prediction of Suffering (Disciples' Reaction):
   Here the emotional reaction is on the part of Jesus' followers rather
   than Jesus himself, but once again Mt and Lk omit it completely.

   11:14,21 (#272,275) - Cursing the Fig Tree: Mt omits Mark's Peter
   saying that Jesus actually "cursed" the fig tree in 11:21. Two other
   things Mt omits: One, while Mark 11:14 says that Jesus "answered and
   said to it", Mt omits the "answsered". I don't think this is a
   superfluous element of Mark's description, rather it colorfully shows
   Jesus reacting to the barren fig tree just like he reacts to most
   people, that is negatively and impulsively. Two, Mark's prior
   editorial comment that "it was not the season for figs" makes Jesus'
   cursing of the hapless tree even more irrational. Why curse (and
   whither) a perfectly good tree for not having fruit out of season!
   Directionality?

   Keith Yoder
   Retired govt manager, M.Div many years ago
   Carmel, Indiana




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce wrote:



I would say, to speak to some of Keith's directionality questions, that the
course of Synoptic evolution, including the several strata of it which are
subtended by our Gospel of Mark, begins with an essentially positive
portrait of Jesus, and becomes both more realistic and also more sour as it
proceeds. Both types of emotion are then largely filtered out by the Second
Tier Evangelists, presumably because *any* too human emotion was
increasingly felt to be inappropriate for a being who was being
theologically upgraded to divine status at that time. That is, the greater
realism of the middle and late Markan writer was surely effective in
engaging the human-interest sympathies of his intended audience, but it
worked against the agenda of the following age. (And by the time we get to
John, Jesus is so attenuated that he becomes virtually a shadow presence in
his own story; here is another of the Trajectory arguments: the Human >
Divine > Cosmological Jesus).







  The synoptic portrait of Jesus, as Bruce says, here with my comments in
brackets: "Begins with an essentially positive portrait of Jesus [yes, in
Matthew and Luke] and becomes both more realistic and also more sour as it
proceeds [e.g. in Mark]". The idea of Matthew and Luke independently acting like
robots and performing identical literary excisions to material found offensive
in Mark is both grotesque and extremely implausible. Bruce's paragraph as a
whole reflects a prejudice in favor Markan priority, rather than anything
remotely resembling an argument, let alone an effective one, on its behalf.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Leonard,
 
Might the theological point be that Jesus was an ordinary person who felt human
emotions?
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
______________________________

Dennis had written: "...it does not surprise me that Mark's gospel should be
much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later ones."

Leonard wrorte: "Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in
Mark's Gospel behaves this way. The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a
theological significance. Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark,
like so many other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition."





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Several
On: Jesus and Disciples
From: Bruce

DENNIS (Responding to Keith): . . . Given that Mark is the earliest gospel
and the subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise
me that Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than
the later ones.

LEONARD: Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in Mark's
Gospel behaves this way.

BRUCE: Non sequitur. We were discussing the emotions of Jesus, not the lack
of those emotions in anybody else in the story. And as far as I can see, the
emotions explicitly attributed to Jesus by aMk are perfectly recognizable by
Mark's human audience as things they might have felt themselves: compassion,
impatience, anger. Nothing out of the terrestrial order here.

As far as other persons in Mark are concerned, it would be interesting to
list, not only the emotions actually attributed by aMk to Jesus, as we have
been doing, but the emotions attributed by aMk to everybody else in the
story. My guess, in advance of actual work, is that Peter would come out to
be the most fully emotionally realized of aMk's characters. Of course that
perception would need to be complicated if in fact (as I have been
suggesting) there is more than one aMk. But a complication is not yet a
refutation, and it would be fun to see how that comes out. Has anybody got a
ready-made list they can contribute?

LEONARD: The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a theological
significance.

BRUCE: That they occur with Jesus is given. That they occur with no one else
has yet to be demonstrated. However that might be, the *theological
significance* of the emotions attributed to Jesus escapes me. Some of his
*actions* are not those of a mere mortal being (stilling the waves), and
those actions surely have the theological significance of directly attesting
Jesus as a more than mortal being, or at any rate as wielding more than
mortal power. Some of the words also. No problem yet. But the emotions??
Explications welcome.

LEONARD: Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark, like so many
other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition.

BRUCE: The evolution here is complex. Middle Synoptic tradition likes, and
documents, the Nice Jesus. This is a Jesus to which humans more readily
relate than to the rather austere one earlier encountered (ie, in Mk). Lambs
and children and flowers in the grass. One sees why it was done. But the
large trajectory is also for increasing divinization. The middle Synoptics
insist alike on Jesus's physical humanity and on his divinity, leading to
famous if not always universally convincing theological solutions. What no
one including Leonard has ever explained is why (on the assumption that Mk
was later than Mt/Lk) there should be, in the Markan community or any other,
a strong tendency toward (a) less divinization of Jesus, and in particular
(b) a seemingly adoptionist rather then literally inborn scenario for
Jesus's divine power, (c) less respect for Jesus's family, including his
mother, (d) a less obsequiously subordinate John the Baptist, who seems in
Mk to have been Jesus's guru, and about half a dozen others.

Some have claimed that Mark is anti-Semitic. Personally, I think that needs
to be tempered a good deal (for my money, "anti-Semitic" is a term too
redolent of contemporary events to be very useful in the analysis of ancient
situations). But on the above account, by the things Mark does for the first
time on the Mt/Lk > Mk scenario, we would also have to say that Mark was
anti-Christian. I have a really hard time with that proposal.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Leonard
On: Jesus and Disciples
From: Bruce

This won't take much time.

LEONARD: The idea of Matthew and Luke independently acting like robots and
performing identical literary excisions to material found offensive in Mark
is both grotesque and extremely implausible.

BRUCE: Caricature ("robots") is not argument. Characterization ("grotesque")
is also not argument. And as I have earlier shown in stupefying detail, for
anyone paying cumulative attention, my own conclusion is that Mt and Lk are
NOT, repeat NOT, acting independently. Luke, as the Farmer Synopsis or one's
own careful reading allows one to see rather clearly, is high-handed with
Matthew, but he is also deeply indebted to Matthew. So the argument, if one
there is, or anyway the reaction, applies to a different page, perhaps a Q
page, of the Synoptic forum. I suggest its redirection thither.

LEONARD: Bruce's paragraph as a whole reflects a prejudice in favor Markan
priority, rather than anything remotely resembling an argument, let alone an
effective one, on its behalf.

BRUCE: Leonard himself, some time ago (11 June 2008, if anyone cares to look
it up), referred to what I call the "trajectory arguments" as "killer
arguments." I think that is exactly right. The trajectory arguments
(increasing divinization of Jesus, increasing respect for his family and
especially for his mother, increasing marginalization of John the Baptist,
increasing Jerusalemization of early church history, . . .) are to my mind
decisive for the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn. The already great plausibility
of that argument is further enhanced by the fact that analogous developments
can be observed in the evolution history of every other movement or belief
system or personal cult known to analytical man (Buddha, Confucius,
Alexander, Nero, Napoleon, you name it). It is for this and like reasons
that I take that Gospel sequence as a working basis for further
investigations.

This everyone knows who reads their Synoptic mail at all regularly. To
represent my evidentially based conclusion as a "prejudice" is neither very
attentive nor, if it should come to that, very polite. It is doubtless
easier to miscategorize an argument than to meet it, but does it advance the
conversation?

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

With Nicene Christianity reaching its creedal conclusions of the fully
divine, fully human Christ, how certain can we be of a trajectory toward
divinization, especially given the factions supporting heterodox view
(like Arius or the Gnostics)? I realize that all of this took place
after the gospels were written, but I see no reason to believe that the
gospel writers were free from having to struggle with the same issues.
Each author had to have a concept of who Jesus was, and I don't know why
the first writer
couldn't have thought him God, so much so, that another writer thought
it necessary to show him human. So what is the actual evidence of a
trajectory towards divinization, that is not based on inference from
Markan priority?

Adam Crumpton

Leonard made me curious as to whether Mk records emotions of other persons in
addition to Jesus.  Here are the results of a very quick scan.  Depending on how
you count them, there 34 emotions attributed to the disciples, crowds and
others.  The most common are amazement (and synonyms) and being afraid. 
Interesting that these words are found in the final verse of the book.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
_____________________________
 
1:22, 27   The Capernaum synagogue audience was "astonished"  and "amazed."

4:41 When Jesus calmed the storm, the disciples were "filled with awe."
 
5:15, 20  Legion's townspeople were "afraid."  Folks from the region "marveled."
 
5:34 The woman with the hemorrage "came in fear and trembling and fell down
before him."
 
5:42 The witnesses of the raising of the little girl were "overcome with
amazement."
 
6:1, 3 The Nazareth villagers were "astonished...and they took offense at him."
 
6:20 "Herod feared John.... When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he
heard him gladly."
 
6:26 Herod "was exceedingly sorry."
 
6:50 The disciples saw Jesus walking on the water and "were terrified."
 
7:37 Those who witnessed the healing of a deaf man were "were astonished beyond
measure."
 
9:6  On the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James and John "were exceedingly
afraid."
 
9:32 As Jesus predicted his death, the disciples "did not understand the saying,
and they were afraid to ask him."
 
10:22   The Rich Young Ruler "went away sorrowful."
 
10:24, 26 When they heard about the camel and the needle's eye, the disciples
"were amazed at his words.... And they were exceedingly astonished."
 
10:32 "And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking
ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid."
 
10:41 The ten were "indignant at James and John."
 
11:18 The chief priests and scribes "feared him."
 
11:18 "All the multitude was astonished at his teaching."
 
11:32 The chief priests, scribes and elders "were afraid of the people."
 
12:12 The same group "feared the multitude."
 
12:17 The Pharisees and Herodians "were amazed at him."
 
14:4 Seeing Jesus' feet annointed, some reacted "indignantly."
 
14:19 Hearing that one of them would betray him, the  disciples "began to be
sorrowful.'
 
14:72 Hearing the rooster crow, Peter "broke down and wept."
 
16:5, 8 When they say the young man in white at the tomb, the women "amazed....
And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had
come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid."
 
 
 
 
 

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...> wrote:

From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 11:24 AM







Dennis wrote:

Keith,

I was very impressed by your survey of the emotional responses of Jesus to
various people and situations. Given that Mark is the earliest gospel and the
subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise me that
Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later
ones.

Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in Mark's Gospel
behaves this way. The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a theological
significance. Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark, like so
many other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National? Seminary
Weston, MA

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Goffin <dgoffin@ntlworld. com>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
Cc: gpg@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 7:41 am
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples

Keith,

I was very impressed by your survey of the emotional responses of Jesus to
various people and situations. Given that Mark is the earliest gospel and the
subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise me that
Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later
ones.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Yoder
To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples

--- In Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

[Bruce said: it implied emotion to me, and not just a scenario. I
couldn't recall anywhere in Mark where Jesus expressed emotion about
the choice of a disciple,... Toward the almost disciple, the rich
young ruler (as people call him), sure: And Jesus looking on him,
loved him (Mk 10:21). But toward those who *did* follow him, nothing
in the category of feeling that I can recall, save occasional
impatience at their obtuseness.]

Not to repeat what's been said elsewhere, but I have repeatedly been
struck by the way that Mark has Jesus react to people and situations
in such an emotional and usually negative and impulsive manner. And
in almost all cases Mark's language is omitted by Mt and Lk. Here is
my quick list of such, does not the directionality issue tilt toward
Markan priority? At least to me it does:

1:41-43 (Synopsis Quat. Ev. #42) - Cleansing of the Leper: Mark's
Jesus in 1:43 gruffly rebukes the just-healed leper, as he upbraids
him for no stated reason whatsoever, and then "casts him out" (same
verb used of casting out demons in the two preceding paragraphs),
language appropriately softened by most translations. If Mk>Mt>Lk,
then Mt and Lk both omit the "casting out" and tone down the grouchy
"upbraided". If Mt>Mk, then Mark is going out of his way to make
Jesus appear needlessly grumpy and abrupt - "OK you're healed, now get
out of my way!". Does this not lend contextual support for the
minority mss reading of "being angered" for "being moved with
compassion" in verse 41 -- notably both Mt and Lk omit this initial
display of compassion/temper? altogether.

3:5 (SQE #47) - Healing the Withered Hand on the Sabbath: Mark shows
an intensely emotional and confrontational Jesus, as he "looked around
at them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts".
Once again, both Mt and Lk omit the anger and the grieving. Mark
often portrays Jesus "looking around" or "looking intently" at people
(eg, 3:34, and 10:21 with 10:23,27); we say of some people that they
use a "look" that controls the conversation, which is pretty much the
way Mark presents Jesus, but this descriptive touch is usually lacking
in Mt and Lk. Which way directionality?

3:9-10 (#48) - Healing by the Sea (L1): I am struck that Jesus felt
he was being "crushed" by the crowds of weak, sick and crippled who
"pressed upon him to touch him", so he wanted a boat to be ready for
him to escape from the needy throng. Mt omits all of this, and Lk
includes only the observation that the crowds "sought to touch him"
but nothing of Jesus' negative reaction. Is Mark adding these
negative touches to tell us that Jesus was actually repelled when
crowded and touched by the sick, or are Mt and Lk redlining
embarrassing negative emotions?

3:21 (#116) - Jesus' Associates Say He is Beside Himself (L1): Both
Mt and Lk omit this description of Jesus associates (family?) coming
to "take charge" of him because of his apparently irrational behavior
(for his own protection?) . The people who apparently know him best
are trying to rein in (help?) a man whom we would say is "out of
control". Once again, is this embarrassing detail omitted by Mt and
Lk, or did Mark throw it in to somehow enhance Jesus or to embarrass
his disciples (or family, or whoever this ambiguously (un-) identified
is supposed to be)?

4:13 (#124) - Interpretating the Parable of the Sower: Mt and Lk omit
Jesus berating his disciples for not understanding his parable. Or,
did Mark add this touch. In either case, why?

5:30-32 (138) - The Woman with the Hemmorrhage: Mark shows Jesus
intense and persistent reaction to the woman "touching" him for
healing. He felt the power leave him, he instantly whirled around in
the crowd asking "who touched me?", and when the disciples try to calm
him down he persists to "look around" to see who did it. No wonder
the poor woman approached him with "fear and trembling". Mt and Lk
omit all Jesus' inner feeling and persistent turning/looking around.
Mark shows us a Jesus who first and immediate reaction to people who
bothered or distracted from what he was doing was negative and
impulsive, ditto the leper in 1:41-43.

[Luke takes a timeout here]

6:6 (#139) - Rejected in His Hometown (L1): According to Mark, Jesus
expected his home village folk to be cheering him on, and he is
"amazed" that they reject him. Again, Mt and Lk both omit that Jesus
"was amazed" (how far Mark's Jesus from gJn); or does Mark add this
remark, and why?

8:12 (#154) - Pharisees Seek a Sign: Jesus reacts here to the
Pharisees by "sighing deeply in his spirit". Yet another intense
emotional display, omitted by Mt or added by Mark?

8:17,21 (#155) - Leaven of the Pharisees: Mt here includes most of
Mark's description of Jesus' intense tongue lashing of his slow
learning disciples, but he omits the final gratuitous twisting of the
knife that Mark gives us in 8:21, "do you still not get it!". Mark
definitely gives us a Jesus with a take-no-prisoners management style
- but is he just piling on to Mt's description, or does Mt decide that
Mark's closing touch is over the top?

[Luke back in the game]

9:19 (#163) - The Boy Possessed by an Unclean Spirit ("O faithless
generation!" ): For once, both Mt and Lk include all the elements of
Jesus' intense reaction - or does Mark simply think Mt and/or Lk did a
good enough job?

10:14 (#253) - Let the Children Come to Me (L1): Only Mark says that
Jesus was "indignant" toward his disciples for trying to keep the
children away from him. Mk>Mt>Lk or vice-versa?

10:21 (#254) - Rich Young Ruler: Lk includes Jesus' "looking" at the
young man, but only Mark adds that Jesus "loved him", pretty much a
unique description in the synoptics. I think it fitting that only
Mark includes such as this, the polar opposite reaction that he has
Jesus exhibit throughout the preceding 9 1/2 chapters, and such an
intense and impulsive reaction is not at all unexpected by this time.
Directionality?

10:32 (#262) - Third Prediction of Suffering (Disciples' Reaction):
Here the emotional reaction is on the part of Jesus' followers rather
than Jesus himself, but once again Mt and Lk omit it completely.

11:14,21 (#272,275) - Cursing the Fig Tree: Mt omits Mark's Peter
saying that Jesus actually "cursed" the fig tree in 11:21. Two other
things Mt omits: One, while Mark 11:14 says that Jesus "answered and
said to it", Mt omits the "answsered". I don't think this is a
superfluous element of Mark's description, rather it colorfully shows
Jesus reacting to the barren fig tree just like he reacts to most
people, that is negatively and impulsively. Two, Mark's prior
editorial comment that "it was not the season for figs" makes Jesus'
cursing of the hapless tree even more irrational. Why curse (and
whither) a perfectly good tree for not having fruit out of season!
Directionality?

Keith Yoder
Retired govt manager, M.Div many years ago
Carmel, Indiana

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway. com/synoptic- lYahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Adam,
 
It is often pointed out that with only a single, arguable exception, authentic
Paul never describes Christ as a pre-existent, incarnate god.  He takes what we
might call an adoptionist view--that god made Jesus his son at the
resurrection.  If we believe Paul wrote 20 years earlier than the synopticists,
that's part of the argument.
 
I think your point makes sense, by the  way.  Just sharing what I've read.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Adam Crumpton <adam@...> wrote:

From: Adam Crumpton <adam@...>
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] the trajectory towards divinization [was: Jesus and
disciples]
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 2:07 PM






With Nicene Christianity reaching its creedal conclusions of the fully
divine, fully human Christ, how certain can we be of a trajectory toward
divinization, especially given the factions supporting heterodox view
(like Arius or the Gnostics)? I realize that all of this took place
after the gospels were written, but I see no reason to believe that the
gospel writers were free from having to struggle with the same issues.
Each author had to have a concept of who Jesus was, and I don't know why
the first writer
couldn't have thought him God, so much so, that another writer thought
it necessary to show him human. So what is the actual evidence of a
trajectory towards divinization, that is not based on inference from
Markan priority?

Adam Crumpton


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You are on to something. Those who have read Larry Hurtado's LORD JESUS
CHRIST will resonate with your comments. And I think also raise
questions about the "trajectory" argument that is often raised.
Basically Hurtado shows, I think pretty effectively, that worship of
Jesus occurred very early. And thus the move to "divinization" was
already apparent at the earliest strata (and certainly in Paul, which
ostensibly is pre-gospels).

mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Adam Crumpton
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:08 PM
> To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] the trajectory towards divinization [was:
> Jesus and disciples]
>
> With Nicene Christianity reaching its creedal conclusions of the fully
> divine, fully human Christ, how certain can we be of a trajectory
> toward
> divinization, especially given the factions supporting heterodox view
> (like Arius or the Gnostics)? I realize that all of this took place
> after the gospels were written, but I see no reason to believe that
the
> gospel writers were free from having to struggle with the same issues.
> Each author had to have a concept of who Jesus was, and I don't know
> why
> the first writer
> couldn't have thought him God, so much so, that another writer thought
> it necessary to show him human. So what is the actual evidence of a
> trajectory towards divinization, that is not based on inference from
> Markan priority?
>
> Adam Crumpton
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups
Links
>
>
>

Chuck:

Have you read Hurtado's various books (notably Lord Jesus Christ).  He argues
that there is more here to Paul than you might suggest.

Of course the Philippians Christ hymn presumes some kind of pre-existence.  Some
consider Colossians Pauline (of course this is contested).

But I also think the issue of divinization need not only be equated with
pre-existence.  Does it?  After all, the Romans divinized their emperors, but
never considered them to be pre-existent.  Need we conflate the two issues?

> Chuck Jones wrote:
>
>
> Adam,
>
> It is often pointed out that with only a single, arguable exception,
> authentic Paul never describes Christ as a pre-existent,
> incarnate god.  He takes what we might call an adoptionist view--that
> god made Jesus his son at the resurrection.  If we believe Paul wrote
> 20 years earlier than the synopticists, that's part of the argument.
>

There is a huge problem in any honest study of "Paul." Darrell Doughty, in
"Forum" 5.2, summed it up best when he wrote, "Unlike any other field in the
study of early Christianity, traditional Pauline studies deals with writings
whose authorial authenticity and literary integrity are taken for granted. The
critical metholodolgies - historical criticism and compositional criticis - that
we apply to other early Christian writings have no place here, not because the
historical integrity of these writings was demonstrated long ago, but because of
the assumption of authenticity is foundational for Christian theological
hermeneutics. The Pauline writings enjoy a privileged place because these
writings more than any others in the Christian canon, whose historical integrity
succumbed long ago to the skepticism oof historical criticism, continue to
uphold view of authority and identity that are fundamental for the Christian
religion..."

In other words, Pauline studies are not "played on a level playing field."
Generally, what I hear when I attempt to discuss it is something to the efrfect
of "He wrote it, I believe he wrote it, and that's all!" Still, I will continue
to "chip away" at the Galatians "correspondence." (The core seems to be
obviously Marcionite, but hey! The last thing I would do here is get into an
argument!)

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.


   You are on to something. Those who have read Larry Hurtado's LORD JESUS
   CHRIST will resonate with your comments. And I think also raise
   questions about the "trajectory" argument that is often raised.
   Basically Hurtado shows, I think pretty effectively, that worship of
   Jesus occurred very early. And thus the move to "divinization" was
   already apparent at the earliest strata (and certainly in Paul, which
   ostensibly is pre-gospels).

   mark



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
> Chuck:
>
> Have you read Hurtado's various books (notably Lord Jesus Christ).  He argues
that there is more here to Paul than you might suggest.
>
> Of course the Philippians Christ hymn presumes some kind of pre-existence.
The real question is what was  pre existence language used to assert?
Was it something about ontology or significance?.  When you look at what
it was in Judaism that was considered to have "pre-existed"  (Moses!),
it doesn't seem to be the former.
>   Some consider Colossians Pauline (of course this is contested).
>
> But I also think the issue of divinization need not only be equated with
pre-existence.  Does it?  After all, the Romans divinized their emperors, but
never considered them to be pre-existent.  Need we conflate the two issues?
>
We also need to be clear what we mean by "divinization" as well as what
the substance of "being a god" was thought to be among Romans and Jews
and early Christians.  Do we actually know what we are talking about
when we speak of  anyone being "divinized.  Would such a declaration
have meant exactly the same thing for Christians and Jews and Romans?

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...

Mark,
 
The question of conflating pre-existence with divinity is an insightful one.  If
we think of "divinization" as something that followers do to their "lord" after
his death (a la the Caesars) then we are looking at something very, very
different from orthodox Christianit, and in particualr the Trinity.  (Heck,
different even from John 1.)
 
I've done a good bit of work on genuine Paul (yes, excluding Colossians) and my
recollection is that the hymn in Philippians is the only passage that can
support a Christology that is something like where Nicea ended up.
 
Great thoughts.  Thanks for sharing them.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Matson, Mark (Academic) <MAMatson@...> wrote:

From: Matson, Mark (Academic) <MAMatson@...>
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] the trajectory towards divinization [was: Jesus and
disciples]
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 4:09 PM






Chuck:

Have you read Hurtado's various books (notably Lord Jesus Christ). He argues
that there is more here to Paul than you might suggest.

Of course the Philippians Christ hymn presumes some kind of pre-existence. Some
consider Colossians Pauline (of course this is contested).

But I also think the issue of divinization need not only be equated with
pre-existence. Does it? After all, the Romans divinized their emperors, but
never considered them to be pre-existent. Need we conflate the two issues?

> Chuck Jones wrote:
>
>
> Adam,
>
> It is often pointed out that with only a single, arguable exception,
> authentic Paul never describes Christ as a pre-existent,
> incarnate god.  He takes what we might call an adoptionist view--that
> god made Jesus his son at the resurrection.  If we believe Paul wrote
> 20 years earlier than the synopticists, that's part of the argument.
>


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't think so, Chuck, do you? I don't have the impression that Mark is
concerned with a christology in his sources?that is already too high for him,
and that he wishes therefore to stress Jesus' humanity. At least I don't see
that as the main reason for his?frequent references to the emotions of Jesus. As
you well point out in another post, however, I spoke too fast when I suggested
that only Jesus shows emotions in the Gospel of Mark. Since the primary function
of these emotions is to heighten the dramatic effect of the story, it is not
surprising that they are found not only in Jesus himself but in others as well,
especially as they relate to Jesus. What is interesting in this case is the
number of times emotions in others than Jesus are found in Mark and not in the
triple-tradition parallels. It is difficult to make the argument here for the
absence of the expressions in Matt and Lk having anything to do with a supposed
Christological trajectory. For instance, why does Mark alone speak of Pilate
(15:44) as being "amazed" that Jesus was already dead (a text that you?missed in
your list)? The case of 16:5 and 8 is similar, as is that of the chief priests
and scribes "fearing him" in 11:18, or even more to the point,?Mk 10:24, etc.
These are cases where emotions in the story heighten the Christological drama,
by comparison to Matt and Lk, and are a possible?indication of a late Mark.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John?XXIII National?Seminary
Weston, MA


-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:40 am
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples



Leonard,
?
Might the theological point be that Jesus was an ordinary person who felt human
emotions?
?
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
______________________________

Dennis had written: "...it does not surprise me that Mark's gospel should be
much fuller of ordinary human reactions than the later ones."

Leonard wrorte: "Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in
Mark's Gospel behaves this way. The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a
theological significance. Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark,
like so many other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition."





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What no
one including Leonard has ever explained is why (on the assumption that Mk
was later than Mt/Lk) there should be, in the Markan community or any other,
a strong tendency toward (a) less divinization of Jesus, and in particular
(b) a seemingly adoptionist rather then literally inborn scenario for
Jesus's divine power, (c) less respect for Jesus's family, including his
mother, (d) a less obsequiously subordinate John the Baptist, who seems in
Mk to have been Jesus's guru, and about half a dozen others.

I have dealt multiple times?with each of the points listed?above, and shown that
they don't require explanation because they are merely tendentious,
interpretative judgments about the text of Mark,?which Bruce apparently thinks
gain cogency through repetition. They don't, actually. Only facts require
explanation.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA


-----Original Message-----
From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Cc: GPG <gpg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples



To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Several
On: Jesus and Disciples
From: Bruce

DENNIS (Responding to Keith): . . . Given that Mark is the earliest gospel
and the subsequent trajectory is towards divinization, it does not surprise
me that Mark's gospel should be much fuller of ordinary human reactions than
the later ones.

LEONARD: Nope. They are not ordinary human reactions. No one else in Mark's
Gospel behaves this way.

BRUCE: Non sequitur. We were discussing the emotions of Jesus, not the lack
of those emotions in anybody else in the story. And as far as I can see, the
emotions explicitly attributed to Jesus by aMk are perfectly recognizable by
Mark's human audience as things they might have felt themselves: compassion,
impatience, anger. Nothing out of the terrestrial order here.

As far as other persons in Mark are concerned, it would be interesting to
list, not only the emotions actually attributed by aMk to Jesus, as we have
been doing, but the emotions attributed by aMk to everybody else in the
story. My guess, in advance of actual work, is that Peter would come out to
be the most fully emotionally realized of aMk's characters. Of course that
perception would need to be complicated if in fact (as I have been
suggesting) there is more than one aMk. But a complication is not yet a
refutation, and it would be fun to see how that comes out. Has anybody got a
ready-made list they can contribute?

LEONARD: The reactions are proper to Jesus and have a theological
significance.

BRUCE: That they occur with Jesus is given. That they occur with no one else
has yet to be demonstrated. However that might be, the *theological
significance* of the emotions attributed to Jesus escapes me. Some of his
*actions* are not those of a mere mortal being (stilling the waves), and
those actions surely have the theological significance of directly attesting
Jesus as a more than mortal being, or at any rate as wielding more than
mortal power. Some of the words also. No problem yet. But the emotions??
Ex
plications welcome.

LEONARD: Clearly a late feature added to the tradition by Mark, like so many
other dramatic traits found only in Mark in the triple tradition.

BRUCE: The evolution here is complex. Middle Synoptic tradition likes, and
documents, the Nice Jesus. This is a Jesus to which humans more readily
relate than to the rather austere one earlier encountered (ie, in Mk). Lambs
and children and flowers in the grass. One sees why it was done. But the
large trajectory is also for increasing divinization. The middle Synoptics
insist alike on Jesus's physical humanity and on his divinity, leading to
famous if not always universally convincing theological solutions. What no
one including Leonard has ever explained is why (on the assumption that Mk
was later than Mt/Lk) there should be, in the Markan community or any other,
a strong tendency toward (a) less divinization of Jesus, and in particular
(b) a seemingly adoptionist rather then literally inborn scenario for
Jesus's divine power, (c) less respect for Jesus's family, including his
mother, (d) a less obsequiously subordinate John the Baptist, who seems in
Mk to have been Jesus's guru, and about half a dozen others.

Some have claimed that Mark is anti-Semitic. Personally, I think that needs
to be tempered a good deal (for my money, "anti-Semitic" is a term too
redolent of contemporary events to be very useful in the analysis of ancient
situations). But on the above account, by the things Mark does for the first
time on the Mt/Lk > Mk scenario, we would also have to say that Mark was
anti-Christian. I have a really hard time with that proposal.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst



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

Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links

     (Yahoo! ID required)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce,

I don't understand why you can't make sense of the 'anger' reading.  Jesus is
not "gruffly rebuking" the man to be healed, he is expressing anger at the
leprosy (demon) inside him.  The anger reading makes sense of later omissions.

Stephanie Fisher
Nottingham University
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: E Bruce Brooks
   To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
   Cc: GPG ; WSW
   Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:53 PM
   Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples


   To: Synoptic
   Cc: GPG, WSW
   In Response To: Keith Yoder
   On: Jesus's Emotions in Mk
   From: Bruce

   ABSTRACT: Thanks to Keith for his list; I here dispute a few, and add some
   notes. Warning to the casual: there are fourteen of them, and although I
   argue for a somewhat shorter list (* marks the passages I would exclude),
   that argument itself takes up space. Bracketed at the end of each passage
   discussion, for the amusement of those interested, is the layer to which
   that passage is assigned in the present state of the still in-progress
   Accretional Mark reconstruction. In the concluding Analysis, I find that
   there is an interesting progression within Mark, and I agree also, though
   more strongly, to the progression which Keith notes here and there as
   possible in the larger Mk > Mt/Lk sequence. I see no sign anywhere that
   would suggest that Mark is secondary to Mt/Lk.

   (1) Mk 1:41-43. Cleansing of the Leper. I can't make sense, emotional or
   theological, of the "anger" reading, and conclude that "compassion" is all
   that works. I could if pressed explain the change, or so I think, but this
   is not the place to get into it. Anyway, here we have an explicit Markan
   naming of an emotion which the story reports Jesus as having, not merely a
   scene which invites its readers to draw that inference. Compare passim
   below. [1]

   (2) Mk 3:5. Healing on the Sabbath. Jesus's anger/grief is here also
   explicit. I note that it is directed not at the person being healed, but at
   those who would object to the healing. [5]

   *(3) Mk 3:9-10. Healing by the Sea. There is no actual healing, and there is
   no explicit emotion reported by Mk. As far as the text tells us, and that is
   as far as I care to go here, Jesus is simply taking precautions against
   being mobbed, and finding a practical way to address the crowd. I thus don't
   think this belongs on the "emotion" list. I don't think that Jesus anywhere
   in Mark is impatient or angry at his crowds. [1]

   *(4) Mk 3:21. Jesus's Associates. The embarrassment scenario, as Keith
   notes, will well account for the omission of this line in Mt/Lk, but I would
   add that no emotion is here attributed to Jesus, just other people's
   opinions about his mental equilibrium. You or I might be annoyed, but the
   point is that Mark doesn't tell us what Jesus felt, and that is the whole
   point here. Should accordingly be omitted. [1]

   *(5) Mk 4:13. Interpreting the Sower Parable. Jesus questions his disciples'
   not understanding the parable, but the scene to me falls well short of
   Keith's description "berates." The passage is still interesting. It is one
   of the famously interpolated pieces in Mk (see my previous arguments). It
   arises because the later movement wanted to attribute, to these originally
   Messianic messages, a meaning more appropriate to the Apostolic Age. So, to
   answer Keith's question, a later Mark added it to the earlier Mark (we have
   no outside interpolations in Mark, just improvements made by the custodians
   of the text, whoever they were, and for present purposes it doesn't matter).
   [4]

   *(6) Mk 5:30-32). Woman With an Issue of Blood. Probably not a hemorrhage,
   which would have been fatal long before twelve years' time, but more likely
   menorrhagia. Anyway, another very famous interpolation; it is perhaps not
   without interest that this insert, minus the older surrounding narrative,
   appears in the Epistle of the Apostles; that is, it proved to be a viable
   story in itself. Like the Episode at Kusinara (a fairly early interpolation
   in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta; it appears intact at the beginning of the
   Maha-Sudassana Sutta, which further develops it), it has proved
   portability. In the case of Mk, the Woman episode develops, with cinematic
   realism, a hint in the earlier passage 6:56 (itself the second stage of a
   triplet, as I noted earlier on this list). As to Jesus, he is portrayed in
   great detail, but does Mark specifically attribute emotion to him? We may so
   imagine, but if we do, I think we are reading into Mark more than he is
   reading out to us. I would not include this passage with the "emotion" ones.
   [3]

   (7) Mk 6:6. Rejection in Nazareth. "He marveled because of their unbelief."
   Note that this is not an anger reaction as such, just surprise approaching
   astonishment. I think we are entitled to say that Mark shows us a Jesus
   expecting a strong reception in his home town, and not getting it. Luke, who
   for reasons of his own places this episode at the beginning of Jesus's
   Galilee period, makes the whole thing more confrontational. For that matter,
   Luke makes the entire story of Jesus more consistently confrontational, from
   beginning to end. [1]

   (8) Mk 8:12). Pharisees Seek a Sign. Jesus "sighed deeply in his spirit,"
   and went on to complain of the entire generation, saying that no sign would
   be given to it. For a guy who has been scattering signs of healing and other
   forms of power all up and down Galilee, this is a remarkable attitude. To me
   it speaks of Apostolic impatience with those who were awaiting some sign of
   the Last Days; Mk 13 in my view was added to the text as a more extended way
   of addressing this impatience of the believing public. Anyway, there is no
   doubt that Mk is here reporting Jesus's feelings. [5]

   *(9) Mk 8:17, 21. Leaven of the Pharisees. Jesus directs to the disciples a
   whole series of questions, including whether their "hearts are hardened."
   Impatience and even exasperation are strongly implied, but they are not
   stated (compare preceding; Mk is perfectly capable of naming a feeling when
   he cares to; for a closely parallel case compare #5 above]. I am interested
   in cases where Mark himself notes the emotion, and on that narrower ground I
   would be inclined to exclude this passage from the list. In the end,
   everything is part of the story, and it all has to fit in. I am just trying
   to keep the inventory precise. [5]

   *(10) Mk 9:19. The Epileptic Boy. "O faithless generation!" (cf #8 above).
   Strongly implied, but not named. If we were asked to say, in Greek, what the
   emotion here expressed is called, we would not be able to answer by pointing
   to the text of Mk. I would tentatively exclude, though as with all the
   others, it has its place in the final accounting for Mark. [5]

   (11) Mk 10:14. Jesus was "indignant" at the disciples' exclusion of
   children. Again, the feeling is directed toward those who would interfere,
   not to the person or persons whom he would address or heal. [5]

   (12) 10:21. The "Rich Young Ruler" (neither rich nor young, but the label is
   now traditional). "And Jesus, looking on him, loved him." I agree with Keith
   that this one is unique. [5]

   *(13) Mk 10:32. Amazement of Jesus' Followers. I share Keith's thought that
   this does not belong on the list, since it attributes an emotion not to
   Jesus, but to his followers. It thus belongs to the class of things which
   Timothy Dwyer treats in his book The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark.
   I gave that motif considerable space in my SBL/NE paper last year, which I
   won't here attempt to duplicate; the gist is that to my eye the book
   combines too many things, but that if carefully separated, we get a
   preponderance of that motif in the early layers of Mark. Anyway, let's leave
   it out of account for present purposes, but put it in a different data set
   for future purposes. [2]

   *(14) Mk 11:14, 21. Cursing the Fig Tree. The action is certainly hostile,
   but again, Mk does not name the emotion involved. If we are going to include
   hostile actions, the overturning of the moneychangers' tables in the Temple
   surely ought to be included, and so on. I think things will be easier to
   understand if we do not expand the inventory in that direction. [5]

   ANALYSIS: CATEGORIZED INVENTORY
   By number as above. * indicates exclusions

   Emotions of Jesus:
   Positive:
   Compassion: 1 [1]
   Surprise at Unbelief: 7 [1]
   Affection: 12 [5]
   No Specified Emotion: *3 [1], *4 [1], *6 [5]
   Negative:
   Against those who Interfere: 2 [5], 11 [5]
   Impatience with Disciples: *5 [4], *9 [5]
   Against the Age: 8 [5], *10 [5], *14 [5]
   Excluded as Not Applying to Jesus:
   Awe of Followers: *13 [2]

   To me, that breakdown is interesting at several points. First, the emotions
   which Mark specifies as those of Jesus (as distinct from our empathetic
   responses), that is the unstarred items above, are on the whole positive
   early in Mark, and negative late in Mark. (The great exception was and
   remains the Rich Young Ruler). This is to me one of the facts that indicate
   a slightly different authorial strategy, and perhaps even a different author
   (many of the Markan signature style traits are rare or missing in the very
   late material) for the last couple layers of Mark.

   The positive awe of Jesus's followers also comes in here (#13, also
   relatively early).

   I would say, to speak to some of Keith's directionality questions, that the
   course of Synoptic evolution, including the several strata of it which are
   subtended by our Gospel of Mark, begins with an essentially positive
   portrait of Jesus, and becomes both more realistic and also more sour as it
   proceeds. Both types of emotion are then largely filtered out by the Second
   Tier Evangelists, presumably because *any* too human emotion was
   increasingly felt to be inappropriate for a being who was being
   theologically upgraded to divine status at that time. That is, the greater
   realism of the middle and late Markan writer was surely effective in
   engaging the human-interest sympathies of his intended audience, but it
   worked against the agenda of the following age. (And by the time we get to
   John, Jesus is so attenuated that he becomes virtually a shadow presence in
   his own story; here is another of the Trajectory arguments: the Human >
   Divine > Cosmological Jesus).

   One could go on, up to and including book length, but I guess I should leave
   it there. Thanks to Keith for the occasion, and I hope some of this will be
   of some use to the Synoptic regulars or irregulars.

   Bruce

   E Bruce Brooks
   Warring States Project
   University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG.
   Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 21/02/2009
3:36 p.m.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Mark Matson
On: Divinization
From: Bruce

MARK: Basically Hurtado shows, I think pretty effectively, that worship of
Jesus occurred very early. And thus the move to "divinization" was already
apparent at the earliest strata (and certainly in Paul, which
ostensibly is pre-gospels).

BRUCE: That Paul is pre-Gospel is the common view. I hold with those who
find that Mark, alone of the Gospels, is early, its latest material being
from the early 40s. (Bacon's argument, with support from Streeter, that
Matthew is based not only on Mark, but on a Mark that had had a long history
of prior use and haggada development in his community, tends in the same
direction: That is, when Matthew wrote, Mark was not itself recent, *but
already old.* Which, though Bacon does not point it out, is one reason
nobody could replace the missing ending).

According to this argument, or at any rate according to my version of it,
the end of Mark is close in time to the beginning of the public or
post-Antioch part of Paul's career as Acts presents it to us. The "worship"
of Jesus is something that could take many forms. I think we see signs of
several of them in the various layers of Mark, though not necessarily in the
earliest of those layers. That is to say, my placement of Mark does not
challenge Hurtado's conclusion in the form in which it is here quoted
(Hurtado himself sometimes slips between "very early" and "earliest" in a
way that I find questionable). On the contrary. And more generally, if it
can be sustained, this would change the context in which we read Paul's
extant letters, and also the value that can be attributed to Mark as a
source relatively close to the Historical Jesus.

I don't want to clutter up too much bandwidth with these possibilities, but
I must say that I myself find them promising. If anyone else is interested
in pursuing them, I again invite them to get in touch with me off-list.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
39 Hillside Road
Northampton MA 01060

Leonard,
 
I fielded a brief, failed effort to suggest to the group that Mk used sources
rather than wrote from scratch (I kept waiting for you to weigh in!).
 
I agree with you that Mk is the dramatist, the playwrite of the group.  He
presents fewer total scenes, but his scenes are usually longer than their
parallels, enlivened with almost cinematic details:  "he took her hand and
helped her up,"  "he looked around at them in anger, etc."
 
I believe this is a result of Mk's editorial/authorial choices and goals, just
as I believe the shorter (blander) scenes in Mt and Lk are the result of their
decisions (gotta make room for more of those teaching passages!).
 
So I do not believe that this particular stylistic difference suggests
directionality among the three, in any direction.  Directionality clues are to
be found elsewhere.  Seems to me.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
________________________________
 
Leonard wrote:

Since the primary function of these emotions [attributed to Jesus and others in
Mk] is to heighten the dramatic effect of the story, it is not surprising that
they are found not only in Jesus himself but in others as well, especially as
they relate to Jesus. What is interesting in this case is the number of times
emotions in others than Jesus are found in Mark and not in the triple-tradition
parallels. It is difficult to make the argument here for the absence of the
expressions in Matt and Lk having anything to do with a supposed Christological
trajectory. For instance, why does Mark alone speak of Pilate (15:44) as being
"amazed" that Jesus was already dead (a text that you?missed in your list)? The
case of 16:5 and 8 is similar, as is that of the chief priests and scribes
"fearing him" in 11:18, or even more to the point,?Mk 10:24, etc. These are
cases where emotions in the story heighten the Christological drama, by
comparison to Matt and Lk, and are
  a possible?indication of a late Mark.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do we assume all communities thought the same thing at the same time about these
matters?  That they evolved at the same pace?  That no community rejected
theological developments occuring in other communities, or remained unaware of
them?
 
It seems to me that with the difficulty of travel, we should expect a variety of
views to have developed among communities, especially prior to the wide
distribution of a small number of documents accepted generally as authoritative.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
______________________________
 
Bruce wrote:

What no
one including Leonard has ever explained is why (on the assumption that Mk
was later than Mt/Lk) there should be, in the Markan community or any other,
a strong tendency toward (a) less divinization of Jesus, and in particular
(b) a seemingly adoptionist rather then literally inborn scenario for
Jesus's divine power, (c) less respect for Jesus's family, including his
mother, (d) a less obsequiously subordinate John the Baptist, who seems in
Mk to have been Jesus's guru, and about half a dozen others.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truer words were never spoken, Chuck. I might add, but you might disagree, just
because a document was accepted as authoratative doesn't say anything about
whether 'tis historical. It was one the "winners" chose.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Chuck Jones
   To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:44 AM
   Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus and disciples


   Do we assume all communities thought the same thing at the same time about
these matters?  That they evolved at the same pace?  That no community rejected
theological developments occuring in other communities, or remained unaware of
them?

   It seems to me that with the difficulty of travel, we should expect a variety
of views to have developed among communities, especially prior to the wide
distribution of a small number of documents accepted generally as authoritative.

   Rev. Chuck Jones
   Atlanta, Georgia
   ______________________________

   Bruce wrote:

   What no
   one including Leonard has ever explained is why (on the assumption that Mk
   was later than Mt/Lk) there should be, in the Markan community or any other,
   a strong tendency toward (a) less divinization of Jesus, and in particular
   (b) a seemingly adoptionist rather then literally inborn scenario for
   Jesus's divine power, (c) less respect for Jesus's family, including his
   mother, (d) a less obsequiously subordinate John the Baptist, who seems in
   Mk to have been Jesus's guru, and about half a dozen others.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I totally agree.  The rise of authoritative documents led to consolidation of
interpretation.  That doesn't necessarily mean it was consolidation around the
"right" intepretation.
 
Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia
____________________________

Dennis Carpenter wrote:

Truer words were never spoken, Chuck. I might add, but you might disagree, just
because a document was accepted as authoratative doesn't say anything about
whether 'tis historical. It was one the "winners" chose.
 
Chuck had written:

Do we assume all communities thought the same thing at the same time about these
matters? That they evolved at the same pace? That no community rejected
theological developments occuring in other communities, or remained unaware of
them?

It seems to me that with the difficulty of travel, we should expect a variety of
views to have developed among communities, especially prior to the wide
distribution of a small number of documents accepted generally as authoritative.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
In Response To: Chuck Jones
On: Varieties of Christianity
From: Bruce

That Christians in general developed increasing respect for Jesus and his
family, and increasingly marginalized John the Baptist, and a few more
things of like intrinsic plausibility, doesn't seem to me a fantastic
proposition. It seems to me like a very solid proposition. Rumors like the
one retained in Matthew (Mary was pregnant out of wedlock), and direct
reportage like that of Mark (Jesus rejected his mother and his brothers)
don't seem to me like a viable agenda for any book appearing after Luke had
hit the stands.

This still leaves room for considerable local variety, and (for instance)
people who try to locate the Gospel of Matthew do so in part by assessing
the theological as well as the geographical affinities, as well as they can.

CHUCK: Do we assume all communities thought the same thing at the same time
about these matters? That they evolved at the same pace? That no community
rejected theological developments occurring in other communities, or
remained unaware of them?

BRUCE: Not me. I have been saying for years (with good support from one Saul
of Tarsus) that varieties in Jesus theory were widespread in early times.
One key difference was in what the early believers made of the death of
Jesus. I can easily think of at least four options, all of which get into
the record:

(1) Nothing. Those who heard Jesus during his life will have been impressed
by what he said, and will have continued to be impressed after his death.
His death, for them, marks the *end* of his teaching, but does not undermine
the *validity* of his teaching. What was the content of that teaching? Mark,
who is focused on the politically Messianic aspect of the program, doesn't
give that question much room, he tends to think that his readers know that
already, but there are hints here and there. Obviously (though not to aJn, I
guess), Jesus cannot go around preaching the importance of his own death
during his lifetime.

(2) Interruption. For these people Jesus's career has been interrupted, but
not terminated. He is in Heaven, but will return from there to finish his
task, and to preside over a different kind of Last Day (this is the
Apocalyptic version) than his movement during his lifetime had envisioned
(Messianic; a Davidic restoration of Israel). This is the Glorified Jesus
who is reflected in several early hymns, including that in Philippians,
which (as Fitzmyer and others before him have noticed) does not mention, let
alone theologize, Jesus's Death. I have called this Alpha Christianity, and
I still think that this is a useful distinction. Alpha Christianity is much
more widespread in the early documents than is generally recognized, meaning
that Jesus's teachings were very influential, and in places far from
Capernaum, in his lifetime. Alpha Christianity, as I currently see it, is a
glorified version of the preceding variant.

(3) Proof of Resurrection. This is the "first fruits" argument: God has
wrought a miracle in raising Jesus (very few early sources make this a deed
of Jesus himself), and by that sign we can be confident that God will raise
us too, when the time comes (exact timetable much disputed, but this is the
idea). Our salvation will be miraculous, but we are guaranteed that miracle
by the one that raised Jesus. Let's continue to call this Beta Christianity.

I now make a further distinction not previously suggested.

(4) Atonement. Jesus by his death has paid the debt of our sins, and has
thus made it theologically possible (according to some understandings) for
us to be forgiven, and thus saved. This is drastically opposed, at least in
theory, to the Johannine and early Jesuine idea, which is that repentance
earns forgiveness. Let us call this Gamma Christianity. It is distinctive of
Paul (who is also firmly in the Beta camp; Gamma is a further, if drastic,
development of Beta). But it is not all that prominent in the Gospels, which
in other ways also belong to a different line of thought than the Pauline
literature. There is one phrase in Mark, and maybe one in Luke, that
acknowledge this idea, but it is not developed in those Gospels. And many
commentators to Luke have openly observed that Luke is pretty distant from
the whole idea of vicarious atonement. Paul makes much of it, and I think it
is here that his opposition of faith/works really arises. What saves us? Our
belief in the redeeming death of Jesus? Or our own repentance? The Epistle
of James takes one side, Paul the other, Luke sort of sits it out on the
sidelines, not wishing to antagonize the Paulines in his midst, but not
really buying it either. As far as I can see.

Is the atonement doctrine (the Gamma doctrine) not in some way a reversion
to early Jewish concepts? And may it not have been Paul's encounter with
Gamma Christianity that produced his about-face as to the value of
Christianity? The idea of Jesus as miraculously raised was, as some early
witnesses tell us, offensive to orthodox Jews, such as Paul apparently was.
But Paul's particular kind of logical mind might have been intrigued by the
new idea, which plugged Jesus back into Jewish thought, albeit in a
different way. He could have found in the atonement concept a whole new way
of approaching Jesus, and one which not only made Jesus acceptable to Jewish
thinkers of a certain logical cast of mind, but which voided traditional
Jewish concepts of Jewish law, in the process of fulfilling certain others.
It universalized Jesus, and Paul as a man of the Diaspora will also have
been sensitive to that possibility. I can see how it might have clicked with
him.

That would be the response of a very drastic personality, but by all the
evidence he himself has left us, Paul was indeed one of the most drastic of
personalities.

Just a thought, but I haven't seen many thoughts on the psychological reason
for Paul's change of heart, and so I offer this one faute de mieux.

In sum, I think that progressive veneration of Jesus (and his family, and a
few political facts like acceptance of the supremacy of Jerusalem in the
later days of the early Church, and so on) are very reasonable developments,
to which it would be surprising to find any radical exceptions. But respect
and veneration for Jesus can take many forms, and my suggestion has always
been that it did in fact take many forms.

(And that the one which eventually became orthodox was not necessarily the
oldest one).

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: GPG
Cc: Synoptic; WSW
On: Authorial Luke [L3]
From: Bruce

CONVENTIONS: K = many links to Mark (k = few); T/t ditto Matthew; B/b ditto
Both; X/x all. L = no other Synoptic parallel save Luke himself.

[This is the first chapter where possible comparisons with Mk exist. A
certain interest therefore attaches to whether Lk can be shown unambiguously
to have used Mk; that is, if there are passages highlighted by Farmer in
green. We previously found that Lk could be construed as making creative use
of Mt. That impression turns out to continue to be suggested by the Lk 3
material. / EBB].

LUKE 3

3:1 . . . . . (L). . . . . Synchronism
3:2-3. . . .(Ltkb) . . Introduction of John
3:4-6 . . . (Ltkb). . .Isaiah prophecy
3:7-9. . . .(T) . . . . .Preaching of John
3:10-15 . (L) . . . . .Further Preaching of John
3:16-18 . (Tk) . . . .Prediction of Jesus
3:19-20 . (Lb) . . . .But Herod . . .
3:21-22 . (Ltb) . . . Genealogy of Jesus
3:23-38 . (Lt) . . . . Remainder of Genealogy of Jesus

DIRECTIONALITY

The Teaching of John at one point is simply taken over from Mt. Lk then
expands on this core with further material of his own.

The Genealogy is also part of the Trajectory basis: Luke extends Matthew's
genealogy (with many changes of format and detail) back from Abraham
(exclusively Jewish) to God (universal). This is compatible with Lukan
behavior elsewhere: extending the validity of the Jesus mission beyond the
Jews.

See further directionality notes under GOULDER, below.

SCENARIO

Some adoption from Mt, some free composition to develop the Mt precedent,
and a high-handed redo of the ethnically limited Mt genealogy. There are
only a few passages where words or phrases are unmistakably drawn from Mk,
but these compel us to conclude that in addition to following Mt with a
respectful but free pen, Lk was also simultaneously aware of Mk. In this
section, there can be no question of putting down one Vorlage and picking up
another. Either Mt predominates, or the two are blended.

In fact, we get in Lk 3 no extended passage which can be said to be based
solely on Mk. Mt is the main precedent.

Not to be coy about it, but is there a segment in Farmer which is either
green (Mk parallel only) or blue (ambiguous result as to Mt/Lk), but no
fuchsia (unambiguously Mt)? Not everybody has their very own Farmer
Synopticon (my copy formerly belonged to C S Mann), so perhaps it is fair
for me to peek ahead.

One passage of this sort is the Capernaum Demoniac, Lk 4:33-37. (No Matthean
parallel).

Another is Lk 8:26-39, the long story of the Demoniac. Much in this Lukan
story is ambiguously common to Mk/Mt, but a good deal also can only have
been derived from Mk (green). The only word in the whole passage which has a
parallel only in Mt is EMBAS "having embarked" [Mt 9:1]. It might be thought
that this could have been supplied by Lk's own sense of the narrative
requirements. But the story continues in Mt [9:2f] with the Healing of the
Paralytic, which has its own disjunct parallel in Lk 5:17f. I think that
here Farmer has been more sensitive to the parallels than have
Huck/Throckmorton. It may thus be better to see Lk as following Mt also at
this point, even if Mk is largely guiding the Lukan pen at this point.

Another is Lk 9:49-50, the Strange Exorcist. Not long, but pure green.

So yes, the color Synopsis does give us a sense of these things, and on
these examples, a reasonably careful and precise sense.

GOULDER

Note (1/270) on Lk's alternation of sources, and his concentration here on
Mt. As far as Lk 3 goes (and on the Farmer evidence), there is no doubt that
Mt is the major source, but it is also unmistakable that there are
smatterings of Markan wording as well. The text of Lk is drawing
simultaneously, and not sequentially, on both. This does not conflict with
the idea of *major* attention to one or the other, but it does qualify it.

Goulder (1/271) is good on the slight transpositions made by Lk in his Mt
precedent, and these amount to a directionality confirmation Mt > Lk. That
is, Lukan motives for the changes are readily available.

Goulder (1/275) justly observes the reluctance of earlier commentators (and
some modern ones) to assume that Lk is at any point original. This is an
outdated perception: Lk is clearly original at points; he has his own
version of the story, and his own interpretation of the traditions available
to him, and it is that recasting and reinterpretation that he is giving us.
Multiplication of "sources" was necessary on the old understanding of Lk as
simply a scribe, copying what was before him with his nose half an inch
above the page. That understanding is obsolete.

Goulder (1/279) notes the rearrangement of material in Lk so as to "close
off" the Baptist's career from that of Jesus. Exactly so. Lk's
rearrangements, both minor and major, are always motivated, and always
intelligibly motivated. Goulder (1/281) notes some "clumsy" phrasing which
arises as a consequence of certain of these rearrangements. Again, sound and
convincing.

The only departure from Goulder here is the idea of successive sources; we
find Lk easier to explain on the basis of simultaneous use of Mt and Lk,
along with a generous helping of Lk's own creative imagination and
historiographical agenda.

Bruce

[E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst]