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

Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW On: Markan Triplet (3:10 etc) From: Bruce If a text has an internal history, so to speak (apart from its later corruption history,
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG, WSW
      On: Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
      From: Bruce

      If a text has an internal history, so to speak (apart from its later
      corruption history, which we or the specialists among us know how to
      handle), how do we discover that history? The only way I can think of is to
      examine the text itself for signs of growth. Among these will be any places
      where the text seems to have overgrown its earlier self, where the shrub (so
      to speak) has become larger than the path which it was originally meant to
      border, but which it now blocks. If we suddenly prune back the shrub (but
      don't try it with a hemlock), we will suddenly see the shrub and the path in
      their original relationship, as they were at first intended to be. Not
      everyone will necessarily like it better, but historically speaking, we have
      recovered a past and simple state of something which we had previously known
      only in its present and evolved state. The path, such as it was, can again
      be walked on. All this has its interest for the historian, and it is the
      historian I here have in mind.

      From that point of view, I would like to consider one of the triplets in
      Mark: places which seem to be saying somewhat the same thing, though not
      necessarily at the same level of amplification. This is the triplet whose
      first member is Mk 3:10.

      FIRST ITEM

      (1) Mk 3:10 and context:

      3:9. And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the
      crowd, lest they should crush him, [10] for he had healed many, so that all
      who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him.

      What follows immediately is non sequitur, but 3:10 itself seems to follow
      smoothly on 3:9 and preceding. I take it as integral in that passage. We
      might next have had something like: [19b] Then he went home. And the crowd
      came together again, so that they could not even eat. [21] And when his
      friends heard it, they went out to seize him, for they said, He is beside
      himself. . .

      And in their defense, be it said that the enthusiastic crowd does seem to
      have gotten a little out of hand. We now move on to the:

      SECOND ITEM

      (2) Mk 6:56 and context:

      6:54. And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized
      him, [55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick
      people on their pallets to any place where they heard is was.

      6:56. And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the
      sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the
      fringe of his garment, and as many as touched it were made well.

      It will be seen that this repeats 3:10 at the beginning, but ends up much
      stronger. The result is a much more strongly magical statement than 3:10. It
      also brings the preceding material to a narrative close. What follows next
      is a bit suspect, for reasons I have earlier mentioned (and can repeat if
      desired), but if we keep on a bit, in search of what might have made a
      continuation, we come to this:

      7:32. And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in
      his speech, and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. [33] And taking
      him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears . .
      .

      Here, 7:32 could be seen as following and continuing the story in 6:55. But
      this is *only* true if we disregard 6:56, the closure statement for the 6:55
      story. Then, we are free to suspect, 6:56 may be extraneous, and 7:32 may
      originally have followed directly on 6:55. That story would then have read
      in this way:

      RESTORATION OF SECOND ITEM

      6:53. And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret, and
      moored to the shore. [54] And when they got out of the boat, immediately the
      people recognized him, [55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began
      to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.
      [7:32] And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in
      his speech, and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. [33] And taking
      him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears,
      and he spat and touched his tongue, [34] and looking up to Heaven, he
      sighed, and said Ephphratha, that is, Be opened. [35] And his ears were
      opened, and his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

      I note that this not only reads pretty well, the juxtaposition tells us
      where the "suddenly appearing" crowd was coming from (if we encounter 7:32
      in the course of reading Mark in its present condition, the crowd seems to
      suddenly appear out of nothing, a fact that has earned Mark the derision of
      many recent commentators, but perhaps it is after all a spurious fact, a
      mere artifact of some later interpolation, and not at all a characteristic
      of the original Markan narrative; maybe Mark is not such a clod as we have
      gotten used to thinking). Then the crowd had really been there all along, as
      of 7:32, and we and they had earlier been worked up to a pitch of
      expectation, an expectation which was derailed by the material now coming
      between the two parts of the story, but is met and realized if the
      intervening material is taken out of play.

      Then unlike 3:10, which seems to be part of the previous passage, 6:56 seems
      to be intrusive; it makes a sudden ending of a story which was originally
      meant to continue as above. It is not only substantively later (in
      attributing a different and stronger kind of magic to Jesus), it is also
      philologically later. The two indications coincide.

      THIRD ITEM

      The third item is the Woman With the Flow of Blood, Mk 5:24-34. I have
      discussed this previously, and won't repeat (reference on request). The
      point of the previous demonstration was to refute the Edwards "Markan
      Sandwich" theory of intentional composition in an ABA or self-interrupted
      form. The present passage, carefully considered, will not support the
      Edwards interpretation. The B section (the Woman) is intrusive into the
      surrounding narrative in a way which it is not plausible to ascribe to the
      person writing the surrounding narrative, at least not *at the moment* when
      he was writing it. Maybe later, but that is precisely what we mean by the
      word "interpolation." Here, as a reminder, is the surrounding narrative with
      the intrusion removed:

      RESTORATION OF THIRD ITEM

      5:22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and
      seeing him, he fell at his feet [23] and besought him, saying "My little
      daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that
      she may be made well, and live. [35] While he was still speaking, there
      came from the ruler's house some who said, Your daughter is dead. Why
      trouble the Teacher any further? [36] But ignoring what they said, Jesus
      said to the ruler of the synagogue, Do not fear, only believe. [37] And he
      allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of
      James. [38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw
      a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly . . .

      There is no narrative problem here.

      FINAL CONCLUSION

      I submit that these three passages are developmental, and that they
      represent the growth of an increasingly magical attribute of Jesus, realized
      in increasing detail in the present canonical Mark. The stages are
      approximately these:

      1. First, the crowds seek to get near Jesus; perfectly understandable, so
      would I have, with my bad elbow. The sentence describing this phase is
      perfectly secure in the context of the preceding narrative.

      2. In the second phase, people can be healed not by Jesus's personal
      attention, but en masse, simply by touching the hem of his garment. This
      sentence can be construed as interpolated. It also attributes a kind of
      magic to the person of Jesus which is missing in the first passage (and many
      like it): it is not the touch of Jesus, but a physical contact initiated by
      the sufferer, that works the cure.

      3. Same as #2, only realized narratively; an instance is presented right
      before the reader's eyes. Like #2, this one is interpolated in context, and
      it is therefore not part of the original narrative of Mark. It came in
      sometime later, just when and how I am not here concerned to suggest.

      HEALINGS

      Proceeding in this way, I think we can get a much sharper idea of the
      original persona of Jesus as the primitive narrative of Mark had presented
      him. That Jesus is a healer (not yet an exorcist). He heals in a climate of
      intense belief on the patient's part (and thus in his hometown he can heal
      almost nobody; they can't imagine a familiar person having these charismatic
      powers, and the charismatic powers by themselves can do little). He heals by
      touch, and sometimes also with a word, and if with a word, the word is
      likely to be in Aramaic (which is immediately translated by Mark for his
      non-Aramaic readership).

      With this pattern, we may now contrast the Woman with a Flow of Blood.
      Notice the ways in which the previous paradigm is violated. (1) There is no
      touch by Jesus, only by the woman, and without even Jesus's knowledge until
      he feels himself to have been touched. (2) There is thus no act of power on
      his part; his body and its envelope of clothing contain the power in
      question. What he notices is, so to speak, the discharge of power. The
      healing is not his act. (3) Further, and importantly, we are given an
      elaborate medical history of the woman. And why? I would suggest: A lot of
      Mark is written against opponents, those who believed wrong things, or who
      did not accept Mark's previous stories. So he or someone imitating his
      manner (but without an equal sense of concinnity) put in stuff to refute the
      disbelief. Suppose someone said, of the perfectly plausible and probably
      primitive Healing of the Deaf Man, "Oh, that was nothing, the guy just
      needed his ear wax cleaned out." (Laughter of the other parishioners). One
      remedy for this objection is to establish that the ailment in question was
      chronic and had persisted for some time. In the Woman's case, it is known
      that the ailment had defied the curative efforts of no end of expensive
      specialists. This extra information insulates the healing against claims
      that it was trivial or coincidental or hysterical. Here (in the case of the
      Woman) is a rooted medical condition, one certified as such by the entire
      baffled medical profession of the day. And Jesus cures it in an instant,
      without even knowing that he is doing so. Zow.

      To me as a reader, it is narrative overkill, but that is not the point. The
      point is that the material in Mk which can plausibly be construed as
      interpolated, can ALSO plausibly be construed as representing later
      development: medical, theological, or whatever. The case against these
      passages is thus double: by position (philology), and also by content (later
      myth). The third of the three here considered in fact takes us a good way
      down the path to the Cult of Relics, which also developed fairly early in
      the case of the Buddha - though not, according to the seemingly earliest
      account of his death, during the Buddha's lifetime.

      I think that in this way, by proceeding responsibly and carefully, a speck
      at a time, we can hope to recover at least the outlines of the growth
      history of Mark, and in the end can perhaps hope to distinguish, not only
      the later *sentences,* but the later *thought* that they embodied, and thus
      the motive that led to their addition in the first place.

      ENVOI

      The Chinese scholar Yau Ji-hvng (1647 - c1715) attended to such matters. He
      was one of several, at more or less the same time, to realize that nestling
      among the accepted canon of supposed Ancient Documents was a subset of
      spurious ones (called the Gu-wvn Shang-shu in the trade), which revealed
      themselves by their internal characteristics, and also by the fact that they
      lacked external attestation for the first few centuries of the Empire. Yau
      wrote a book on this, and he also investigated at length several other
      previously untouchable classical works. Toward the end of his life, he
      composed a short treatise on Forgeries Ancient and Modern, giving his
      judgement on 91 contested works. In the Preface to that treatise, he had
      this to say:

      "The makers of spurious books have appeared one after the other, in both
      ancient and modern times, and thus it is that spurious books have come to be
      so numerous. If scholars do not distinguish between genuine and spurious,
      can they be said to be scholars at all? To make that distinction is the
      first duty of scholarship."

      Yau himself went beyond the binary "genuine/spurious" dichotomy; he
      recognized that some works are a mixture of genuine and spurious material,
      or are genuine in their way but wrongly attributed. He was no simpleton. In
      the above note, I have also tried to go beyond a mere "early vs late" binary
      opposition and have detected instead a pattern of increasing lateness (three
      grades of lateness, as I imagine, are established in the above three
      examples. Nor is this the end; if we persist with Mark, we are going to wind
      up with more than twice that many layers of paint on the original Markan
      porch).

      But finesses or no finesses, I think that Yau Ji-hvng had the duty of the
      historian figured out about right, and I commend his paragraph to anyone
      with a historical conscience. Its content is that such persons also need to
      develop a philological conscience.

      Respectfully transmitted,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, I disagree strongly. Your reconstruction involves an unlikely scenario in which the two emissaries arrive virtually simultaneously. So unless they
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > RESTORATION OF THIRD ITEM
        >
        > 5:22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and
        > seeing him, he fell at his feet [23] and besought him, saying "My little
        > daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that
        > she may be made well, and live. [35] While he was still speaking, there
        > came from the ruler's house some who said, Your daughter is dead. Why
        > trouble the Teacher any further? [36] But ignoring what they said, Jesus
        > said to the ruler of the synagogue, Do not fear, only believe. [37] And he
        > allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of
        > James. [38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw
        > a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly . . .
        >
        > There is no narrative problem here.

        Bruce,

        I disagree strongly. Your reconstruction involves an unlikely scenario in
        which the two emissaries arrive virtually simultaneously. So unless they set
        off virtually simultaneously (which is a nonsense) the second emissary would
        have had to run faster. But this is most unlikely given the relative
        urgencies of the two messages (My daughter is on the point of death / Don't
        bother, she's already dead). The placing of the story of the woman who
        suffered from haemorrhages was a clever narrative device conceived by Mark
        precisely in order to leave a time gap between the two arrivals. Thus the
        reader of the standard text coming to "While he was still speaking ..." (Mk
        5:35) will have sensed a time gap and not be too surprised at the arrival of
        the second emissary.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce I had offered the following restoration of the Jairus miracle, eliminating the
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          Cc: GPG
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Jairus' Daughter
          From: Bruce

          I had offered the following restoration of the Jairus miracle, eliminating
          the Woman with the Flow of Blood sequence:

          RESTORATION

          5:22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and
          seeing him, he fell at his feet [23] and besought him, saying "My little
          daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that
          she may be made well, and live." [35] While he was still speaking, there
          came from the ruler's house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why
          trouble the Teacher any further?" [36] But ignoring what they said, Jesus
          said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." [37] And he
          allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of
          James. [38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw
          a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly . . ."

          We then had:

          RON: Your reconstruction involves an unlikely scenario in which the two
          emissaries arrive virtually simultaneously. So unless they set off virtually
          simultaneously (which is a nonsense) the second emissary would have had to
          run faster.

          BRUCE: They probably did move a little faster. Is there anything humanly
          improbable in that? Jairus comes, presumably in some urgency, though
          probably also with a certain dignity, to ask Jesus to heal his daughter, who
          is "on the point of death." Hardly has he found Jesus and made his request,
          than news arrives that the expected worst has happened. It is not
          unreasonable to suppose that the servants hoped to intercept their master
          before he had made his now useless request, and therefore hurried. I
          wouldn't picture them as "running," necessarily, but proceeding with
          somewhat less dignity than the master.

          This is not "simultaneously," it is "soon afterward." I would say that it
          heightens the drama of the little story, without involving any really
          improbable visualizations, and I doubt that the average hearer would feel a
          difficulty. That it is not a transcript of a real-time sequence one may
          acknowledge, but I think it works pretty well as a story. It is just a bit
          cinematic, like so much in Mark.

          RON: The placing of the story of the woman who suffered from haemorrhages
          was a clever narrative device conceived by Mark precisely in order to leave
          a time gap between the two arrivals. Thus the reader of the standard text
          coming to "While he was still speaking ..." (Mk 5:35) will have sensed a
          time gap and not be too surprised at the arrival of the second emissary.

          BRUCE: Ron is committed (as part of his own reconstruction of Mark and its
          sources) to a Markan text which, except for two small passages, is almost
          exactly the size of our present Mark. Any very extensive theory of additions
          after the primitive Mark is going to be inconsistent with that theory. So I
          guess we are in an either/or situation here (except of course that we could
          both be wrong). To keep the discussion finite, I will here consider only the
          probability that the middle section of this story was (1) original to the
          story, as Ron (more or less following Edwards) maintains, or (2) posterior
          to it, and inserted into it, and messing up its narrative sequence in the
          process, as I suggest.

          Does Mark intend to make the story more plausible by adding a gap of a
          couple minutes before the arrival of Jairus' servants? If so, that thought
          may just as easily have been in the mind of the interpolator (Mark III) as
          of the original scriptwriter (Mark I). So again we can allow Ron's point,
          but there remains the question of which of our authors it moved.

          For all this, we have only the evidence of the text to guide us. I thus rely
          on the text, either to reveal smooth or ragged joins where the Woman segment
          begins, and the Jairus segment is temporarily put on hold. If the join is
          smooth, then the one-author theory is still in play (we might also have a
          smooth interpolator; unfortunately there are such people). If the join is
          rough, then almost certainly we are dealing with a later addition.

          I would now proceed to examine that passage, except that I don't have to,
          because I already did it in Message 1428, 21 Oct 08; those who want the full
          exposition may easily retrieve it from there. The join is jagged.

          Here is the crux, lifted from that previous message:

          PREVIOUS ARGUMENT:

          "Edwards thinks that the Woman story and the Daughter story are narratively
          consistent: the product of one pen at one time. This is not correct. The
          journey to Jairus' house takes place in two ways, one with a huge crowd
          following, and one where Jesus takes only three disciples with him. The two
          journeys are incompatible. The "crowd" version is there to provide a setting
          for the Woman story."

          RESUMING PRESENT DISCUSSION

          I think it is also worth repeating that the two healings are not
          theologically equivalent; the Woman one is not of a piece with the Jairus
          one, or with the majority of standard healings in Mark (touch always, word
          often).

          Or to quote myself one more time (21 Oct 08): "We now come to the third of
          our tests of an interpolation: Is there an intelligible reason why it might
          have been added? Here, there are several possible reasons. Perhaps the most
          obvious one is that standard Jesus healings in Mark involve Jesus touching
          the sufferer; this in fact is what Jairus asks Jesus to do. In the Woman
          story, Jesus and his clothing are full of magic power, and any contact with
          them, even one of which Jesus is unaware, produces healing. The Jesus of the
          middle segment is thus nearer to a godlike being than is the Jesus of the
          surrounding Jairus story, and deification is one process that we may observe
          not only within Mark, but within the larger Trajectory of the four Gospels
          taken in sequence. So there is a perfectly intelligible motive, and one,
          moreover, which can be shown to be a general tendency in the Gospel material
          at large. We do not have to speculate as to its validity; we can observe its
          existence."

          That is, the two healings, though simultaneous in our present Mark, belong
          to different levels of development in the imputed powers of Jesus. They are
          theologically distinct.

          I still think that's cogent. gMk at present is a jumble of miracles of
          various degrees of scope and intensity. Maybe Mark just mixed them out of
          the diverse traditions available to him, with no thought of presenting a
          theologically consistent Jesus. That is the Negligent Mark, a popular view
          of the matter. Ron likes what he here calls the Clever Mark, who does
          everything in the text, and does it with full literary consciousness. This
          is certainly more polite than the other view, but I am not sure that
          politeness as such has a place in philological decisions. Also, though their
          number has sometimes been exaggerated, it seems to me hard to deny that
          there *are* some absurdities in the text as it stands. One byproduct of the
          accretion theory is that *no one successive author* of the text (several of
          whom might easily have been the same person later on; I am not committing
          myself on this point) is incoherent in what he does. He is sometimes
          inadvertently damaging in the side effects for the previous material, not by
          purpose, but because his literary mind is elsewhere at the moment.

          I think this saves both the coherent Mark person (at any given moment) and
          still recognizes the sometimes jangled and contradictory character of the
          final Mark text. And I recommend it accordingly, not in charity, but because
          it is more humanly intelligible. And textually intelligible.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an interpolation. 1. A
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an interpolation.
            1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
            2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12 years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean. According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
            3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house, where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his is, is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

            I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which this "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme that we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is purposeful, in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but I'm not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

            Dennis Dean Carpenter
            Dahlonega, Ga.



            Bruce Brooks wrote:

            > RESTORATION OF THIRD ITEM
            >
            > 5:22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and
            > seeing him, he fell at his feet [23] and besought him, saying "My little
            > daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that
            > she may be made well, and live. [35] While he was still speaking, there
            > came from the ruler's house some who said, Your daughter is dead. Why
            > trouble the Teacher any further? [36] But ignoring what they said, Jesus
            > said to the ruler of the synagogue, Do not fear, only believe. [37] And he
            > allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of
            > James. [38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw
            > a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly . . .
            >
            > There is no narrative problem here.

            Bruce,

            I disagree strongly.

            <snip>

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
            If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat upon.
               
              Perhaps someone can confirm or disconfirm this.
               
              Jeffery Hodges

              --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

              From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:50 PM

              Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of
              literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
              interpolation.
              1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
              2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12
              years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean.
              According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
              3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house,
              where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his is,
              is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

              I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which this
              "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of
              "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme that
              we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is purposeful,
              in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but I'm
              not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

              Dennis Dean Carpenter
              Dahlonega, Ga.



              Bruce Brooks wrote:

              > RESTORATION OF THIRD ITEM
              >
              > 5:22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and
              > seeing him, he fell at his feet [23] and besought him, saying "My
              little
              > daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so
              that
              > she may be made well, and live. [35] While he was still speaking, there
              > came from the ruler's house some who said, Your daughter is dead.
              Why
              > trouble the Teacher any further? [36] But ignoring what they said, Jesus
              > said to the ruler of the synagogue, Do not fear, only believe. [37] And
              he
              > allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother
              of
              > James. [38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he
              saw
              > a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly . . .
              >
              > There is no narrative problem here.

              Bruce,

              I disagree strongly.

              <snip>

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm





              [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]
            • Dennis Dean Carpenter
              You are wrong, according to Lev. 15:19. Since Mark used information from the Hebrew scriptures (LXX) as much as he did (around 160 times), he would have
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                You are wrong, according to Lev. 15:19. Since Mark used information from the Hebrew scriptures (LXX) as much as he did (around 160 times), he would have probably have known that, in his passion to use the scriptures. Note that the leader of the synagogue did not make anything of it. Therein lies the significance of placing that vignette inside the re-telling of the 1 Kings story. Within Mark we have Jesus touching a leper (unclean), eating with defiled hands, sying that what one eats is not important, touching the dead (Jarius' daughter). This, I feel, is significant to the tale Mark is weaving. I wouldn't look at this "sandwich" as having missed its meat in the original copy. This "synagogue leader" understood that life was more important than the rules of the antagonists, the temple priests, scholars and scribes. In the climate of ignorance, he was enlightened, according to the message of Mark.

                Dennis Dean Carpenter
                Dahlonega, Ga.

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:16 PM
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat upon.

                Perhaps someone can confirm or disconfirm this.

                Jeffery Hodges

                --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:50 PM

                Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of
                literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
                interpolation.
                1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
                2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12
                years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean.
                According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
                3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house,
                where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his is,
                is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

                I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which this
                "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of
                "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme that
                we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is purposeful,
                in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but I'm
                not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

                Dennis Dean Carpenter
                Dahlonega, Ga.


                Recent Activity
                a.. 1New Members
                Visit Your Group
                New web site?
                Drive traffic now.

                Get your business

                on Yahoo! search.

                Yahoo! Groups
                Do More For Cats Group

                Connect and share with

                cat owners like you

                Y! Groups blog
                the best source

                for the latest

                scoop on Groups.
                .


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce DENNIS: Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: GPG
                  In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter
                  On: Jairus' Daughter
                  From: Bruce

                  DENNIS: Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work
                  of literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
                  interpolation. / 1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus. . .

                  BRUCE: OK so far.

                  DENNIS: 2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd

                  BRUCE: No, that is not in the story. There are people around Jesus when
                  Jairus comes up asking for help (see 5:21). But they are not at that point
                  said to be a hindrance, they are just the setting. It is only in the part I
                  have suggested is an interpolation that the press of the crowd becomes a
                  factor in the story. In the outer (to me, the original) story, Jesus simply
                  takes his own entourage with him, leaves the crowd behind, and starts to
                  follow Jairus away from the crowd.

                  DENNIS: . . and someone who had been bleeding for 12 years comes in contact
                  with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean. According to the Law,
                  this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.

                  BRUCE: The writer of the story seems not to be aware of the uncleanness
                  aspect. At any rate, it draws no comment from anyone in the story, and plays
                  no detectable role in the events of the story. It may be in somebody's
                  rulebook, but if so, it seems that the author of this piece is not playing
                  by that rulebook.

                  DENNIS: 3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into
                  the house, where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually,
                  unclean as his is, is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

                  BRUCE: See? If ritual uncleanness were a hindrance in the eyes of Jesus or
                  Jairus or his household, we would know about it, the story would somehow
                  deal with it, or else the story itself would have come out differently.
                  Since it comes out the way it does, we are perhaps justified in joining the
                  author of the story in ignoring the uncleanness aspect. But that concerns
                  the author of the outside story. Please note that if the outside story (as I
                  propose) were originally the ONLY story, then there is no uncleanness issue,
                  and the outside story is therefore ritually OK as it originally stood. But
                  if the uncleanness of Jesus WERE a factor, then it is one more argument for
                  the interpolation, since on that view the inner story introduces an element
                  which conflicts with what follows in the outer story. One more inconcinnity.

                  DENNIS: I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24,
                  which this "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of "clean"
                  versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme that we find in other places
                  in Mark.

                  BRUCE: I don't know where the theme of whole-person uncleanness plays a role
                  in Mk (which does elsewhere discuss defilement by lack of hygiene). The 1
                  Kings 17:17-24 story is of Elijah bringing a definitely dead child back to
                  life by whole body contact and by prayer direct to God. The parallels to the
                  outer Jairus story in Mark do not seem to me compelling. Is there any detail
                  of the outer Mark story which can be said to be determined by the 1 Kings
                  story?

                  DENNIS: This set of "miracles" is purposeful, in my opinion, to the story...
                  Obviously, it isn't historical, but I'm not convinced that this gospel was
                  written with clarity of history in mind.

                  BRUCE: The two healings (I wouldn't class them as miracles, for which see eg
                  The Stilling of the Storm) are both healings, but not all healings in Mark
                  have the same purpose. For one thing, consider that the more typical
                  healings in Mark are done before witnesses, (the leper, the demoniac),
                  whereas the most awesome of the nature miracles (the sea miracles) are so to
                  speak private, with only the disciples as their audience. The Woman With The
                  Flow of Blood is somewhat in the latter category; she is healed, and the
                  outside story continues. There is no public sequel to her segment as such.
                  This plus the points I earlier noticed (the lack of a conscious act of
                  Jesus, the lack of a touch or a word from him) would seem to mark it as
                  typologically later.

                  The present Markan sequence, in my view, thus mixes two kinds of miracles,
                  the second one (in the mind of the one who added it) presumably enhancing
                  the magicalness of Jesus, who however then goes back to his more
                  conventional healer personality, needing the aid of touch with a bit of
                  Aramaic, to deal with the next patient. After his moment of magic, once
                  again the country doc. The very magicalness of the inner story points up the
                  conventionality of the outer story.

                  All this is typology talk. I argue that the typology suits my view of the
                  matter, but typology is a matter on which people can and do take different
                  positions. I rely at bottom of the fact that the inner story introduces a
                  narrative inconcinnity into the outer story: how many people go with Jesus
                  to Jairus' house?

                  To repeat that segment yet again:

                  5:23 "Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and
                  live."

                  ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO CROWD ALONG)

                  5:24a. And he went with him. [35] While he was still speaking, there came
                  someone . . .

                  ALTERNATIVE 2 (CROWD FOLLOWS)

                  5:24b. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. [25] And there
                  was a woman . . .

                  COMMENT

                  The crowd following Jesus to Jairus' house are purely an element of the
                  inner story ("thronged" sets up the unnoticed touch, and the disciples'
                  comments on it); they are not there in the outer story. And which of the two
                  makes better narrative sense? Answer: the edges of the Woman story are
                  another of those places, which cause commentators to split their sides with
                  laughter and roll on the floor in spasms of uncontrollable mirth, and bump
                  into furniture and break lamps and frighten pets and cause distress to
                  householders in general, where a Markan crowd materializes out of nowhere
                  for a special narrative purposes, and then vanishes again as soon as it is
                  narratively convenient for them to do so. They are clearly not there at the
                  end of the story; nothing including a request for privacy is addressed to
                  them (rather, solely to the parents), and no reaction from them is recorded.
                  They simply vanish from the screen.

                  I suggest that these Optional Crowd scenes, which are not few, are not due
                  to Mark I's stupidity or negligence, but are due instead to the carelessness
                  of (say) Mark IV, who has inserted his material in a way consistent *with
                  itself,* but which causes damage to the originally consecutive nature of
                  Mark I's tale. Is it not an advantage to be able to acquit Mark I of these
                  monumental blunders, and to ascribe even to Mark IV only carelessness as to
                  side effects, and not primary stupidity or malice?

                  I think so. And I invite others to consider the matter from that angle as
                  well.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce In response to Jeffery Hodges, Dennis had said, in part: DENNIS:
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    Cc: GPG
                    In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter
                    On: Jairus' Daughter
                    From: Bruce

                    In response to Jeffery Hodges, Dennis had said, in part:

                    DENNIS: This "synagogue leader" understood that life was more important than
                    the rules of the antagonists, the temple priests, scholars and scribes. In
                    the climate of ignorance, he was enlightened, according to the message of
                    Mark.

                    BRUCE: The trouble is that exactly nothing of this is there in the story.
                    Therefore, it is not, at this point, the "message of Mark." When Mark (aMk)
                    wants to call attention to the enlightenment of somebody (eg, the "rich
                    young ruler") or to contravene a standard rule as a precedent for his
                    followers (eg, "cleansing the outside of the cup" or "healing on the
                    Sabbath"), he is perfectly capable of doing so. Perfectly. He has not done
                    so here. The only ostensible point of the story is the reviving of the
                    comatose girl (not "dead," according to Jesus himself, and he is after all
                    the physician in charge). It is an impressive point, and the father's
                    concern is a touch with which every father worthy of the name will
                    empathize, but I think we have to stop with that.

                    In general, I don't think we are entitled to import lessons into the stories
                    of Mark. It is hard enough getting out of them what Mark seems to have
                    wanted to put into them, without adding extra porches or balconies onto the
                    Markan structure.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I m wrong? Here s Leviticus 15:19-24: If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood,
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's Leviticus 15:19-24:

                      'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                      Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt, technically, about his having been rendered unclean.
                       
                      Jeffery Hodges

                      --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                      From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:54 PM

                      You are wrong, according to Lev. 15:19. Since Mark used information from the
                      Hebrew scriptures (LXX) as much as he did (around 160 times), he would have
                      probably have known that, in his passion to use the scriptures. Note that the
                      leader of the synagogue did not make anything of it. Therein lies the
                      significance of placing that vignette inside the re-telling of the 1 Kings
                      story. Within Mark we have Jesus touching a leper (unclean), eating with defiled
                      hands, sying that what one eats is not important, touching the dead (Jarius'
                      daughter). This, I feel, is significant to the tale Mark is weaving. I
                      wouldn't look at this "sandwich" as having missed its meat in the
                      original copy. This "synagogue leader" understood that life was more
                      important than the rules of the antagonists, the temple priests, scholars and
                      scribes. In the climate of ignorance, he was enlightened, according to the
                      message of Mark.

                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                      Dahlonega, Ga.

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:16 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                      If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave
                      Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat
                      upon.

                      Perhaps someone can confirm or disconfirm this.

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                      From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:50 PM

                      Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of
                      literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
                      interpolation.
                      1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
                      2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12
                      years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean.
                      According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
                      3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house,
                      where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his
                      is,
                      is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

                      I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which
                      this
                      "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of
                      "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme
                      that
                      we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is
                      purposeful,
                      in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but
                      I'm
                      not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                      Dahlonega, Ga.


                      Recent Activity
                      a.. 1New Members
                      Visit Your Group
                      New web site?
                      Drive traffic now.

                      Get your business

                      on Yahoo! search.

                      Yahoo! Groups
                      Do More For Cats Group

                      Connect and share with

                      cat owners like you

                      Y! Groups blog
                      the best source

                      for the latest

                      scoop on Groups.
                      .


                      [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]
                    • Chuck Jones
                      Is it possible that these verses are why it is phrased so specifically--that she touched the very edge of his garment, and therefore did not touch him?   Rev.
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Is it possible that these verses are why it is phrased so specifically--that she touched the very edge of his garment, and therefore did not touch him?
                         
                        Rev. Chuck Jones
                        Atlanta, Georgia

                        ______________________________________

                        Jeffrey wrote:


                        Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's Leviticus 15:19-24:

                        'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                        Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt, technically,  about his having been rendered unclean.
                         
                        Jeffery Hodges

                        --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net> wrote:

                        From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net>
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                        To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                        Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:54 PM

                        You are wrong, according to Lev. 15:19. Since Mark used information from the
                        Hebrew scriptures (LXX) as much as he did (around 160 times), he would have
                        probably have known that, in his passion to use the scriptures. Note that the
                        leader of the synagogue did not make anything of it. Therein lies the
                        significance of placing that vignette inside the re-telling of the 1 Kings
                        story. Within Mark we have Jesus touching a leper (unclean), eating with defiled
                        hands, sying that what one eats is not important, touching the dead (Jarius'
                        daughter). This, I feel, is significant to the tale Mark is weaving. I
                        wouldn't look at this "sandwich" as having missed its meat in the
                        original copy. This "synagogue leader" understood that life was more
                        important than the rules of the antagonists, the temple priests, scholars and
                        scribes. In the climate of ignorance, he was enlightened, according to the
                        message of Mark.

                        Dennis Dean Carpenter
                        Dahlonega, Ga.

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:16 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

                        If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave
                        Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat
                        upon.

                        Perhaps someone can confirm or disconfirm this.

                        Jeffery Hodges

                        --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net> wrote:

                        From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net>
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                        To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                        Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:50 PM

                        Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of
                        literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
                        interpolation.
                        1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
                        2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12
                        years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean.
                        According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
                        3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house,
                        where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his
                        is,
                        is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

                        I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which
                        this
                        "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of
                        "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme
                        that
                        we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is
                        purposeful,
                        in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but
                        I'm
                        not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

                        Dennis Dean Carpenter
                        Dahlonega, Ga.

                        Recent Activity
                        a.. 1New Members
                        Visit Your Group
                        New web site?
                        Drive traffic now.

                        Get your business

                        on Yahoo! search.

                        Yahoo! Groups
                        Do More For Cats Group

                        Connect and share with

                        cat owners like you

                        Y! Groups blog
                        the best source

                        for the latest

                        scoop on Groups.
                        .


                        [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]
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        I suppose that I should note that my name is Jeffery -- just to keep me distinguished from the more distinguished Jeffrey Gibson.   Jeffery Hodges ... From:
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I suppose that I should note that my name is "Jeffery" -- just to keep me distinguished from the more distinguished Jeffrey Gibson.
                           
                          Jeffery Hodges

                          --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:

                          From: Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...>
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:49 PM

                          Is it possible that these verses are why it is phrased so specifically--that she
                          touched the very edge of his garment, and therefore did not touch him?
                           
                          Rev. Chuck Jones
                          Atlanta, Georgia

                          ______________________________________

                          Jeffrey wrote:


                          Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's
                          Leviticus 15:19-24:

                          'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she
                          shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until
                          evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also
                          everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash
                          his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever
                          touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and
                          be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she
                          sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies
                          with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days;
                          and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                          Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but
                          merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt,
                          technically,  about his having been rendered unclean.
                           
                          Jeffery Hodges

                          --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net> wrote:

                          From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net>
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                          Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:54 PM

                          You are wrong, according to Lev. 15:19. Since Mark used information from the
                          Hebrew scriptures (LXX) as much as he did (around 160 times), he would have
                          probably have known that, in his passion to use the scriptures. Note that the
                          leader of the synagogue did not make anything of it. Therein lies the
                          significance of placing that vignette inside the re-telling of the 1 Kings
                          story. Within Mark we have Jesus touching a leper (unclean), eating with
                          defiled
                          hands, sying that what one eats is not important, touching the dead
                          (Jarius'
                          daughter). This, I feel, is significant to the tale Mark is weaving. I
                          wouldn't look at this "sandwich" as having missed its meat in the
                          original copy. This "synagogue leader" understood that life was more
                          important than the rules of the antagonists, the temple priests, scholars and
                          scribes. In the climate of ignorance, he was enlightened, according to the
                          message of Mark.

                          Dennis Dean Carpenter
                          Dahlonega, Ga.

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:16 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

                          If I recall the law on this, the woman with a flow of blood would only leave
                          Jesus impure if she sat upon him or if he sat upon something that she had sat
                          upon.

                          Perhaps someone can confirm or disconfirm this.

                          Jeffery Hodges

                          --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net> wrote:

                          From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@alltel. net>
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
                          Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:50 PM

                          Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as a work of
                          literature, I would not consider the woman with the bleeding to be an
                          interpolation.
                          1. A "ruler of the synagogue" needs the help of Jesus.
                          2. Jesus was hindered by the crowd and someone who had been bleeding for 12
                          years comes in contact with him, healing her but making him ritually unclean.
                          According to the Law, this would render Jesus unclean for seven days.
                          3. Despite this, the synagogue leader takes the unclean Jesus into the house,
                          where the 12 year old girl is revived by Jesus, who actually, unclean as his
                          is,
                          is allowed to take the dead girl by the hand.

                          I would propose that there is no reason to re-cast 1 Kings 17:17-24, which
                          this
                          "outer" story rewrites into Mark without the theme of
                          "clean" versus "unclean" in the middle of it, a theme
                          that
                          we find in other places in Mark. This set of "miracles" is
                          purposeful,
                          in my opinion, to the story... Obviously, it isn't historical, but
                          I'm
                          not convinced that this gospel was written with clarity of history in mind.

                          Dennis Dean Carpenter
                          Dahlonega, Ga.

                          Recent Activity
                          a.. 1New Members
                          Visit Your Group
                          New web site?
                          Drive traffic now.

                          Get your business

                          on Yahoo! search.

                          Yahoo! Groups
                          Do More For Cats Group

                          Connect and share with

                          cat owners like you

                          Y! Groups blog
                          the best source

                          for the latest

                          scoop on Groups.
                          .


                          [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]


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

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





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce A propos the question of whether the Woman With the Flow of Blood defiled
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: Synoptic
                            Cc: GPG
                            In Response To: Chuck Jones
                            On: Jairus' Daughter
                            From: Bruce

                            A propos the question of whether the Woman With the Flow of Blood defiled
                            Jesus, Chuck had suggested:

                            CHUCK: Is it possible that these verses are why it is phrased so
                            specifically--that she touched the very edge of his garment, and therefore
                            did not touch him?

                            BRUCE: Surely possible, and well thought of. What it doesn't seem to fit
                            with, though, is the triplet pattern which I called attention to a bit ago.
                            The first two members of the triplet were:

                            (1) Mk 3:10 and context:

                            3:9. And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the
                            crowd, lest they should crush him, [10] for he had healed many, so that all
                            who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him.

                            (2) Mk 6:56 and context:

                            6:54. And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized
                            him, [55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick
                            people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.

                            6:56. And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the
                            sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the
                            fringe of his garment, and as many as touched it were made well.

                            [Notice the escalation here: first the people pushing to touch Jesus, second
                            their hoping to touch even the fringe of his garment, AND those who
                            succeeded in doing so were all healed. I consider the Woman with the Flow of
                            Blood to be a dramatic expansion of this second claim, and thus the third of
                            the series, developmentally speaking. It doesn't seem to me that the
                            "uncleanness" motif can reasonably be seen in 6:56. I don't think that Mark
                            IV (or whatever; I am making up that number) had it in his mind either. He
                            was just handed 6:56 by the director, and told to have a shooting script
                            ready by the following morning.

                            Bruce

                            E Bruce Brooks
                            Warring States Project
                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                            [Let me repeat to those distant presiding spirits, the List Managers, that I
                            continue to appreciate the convenience of being able to reply to Synoptic
                            messages with the REPLY button on my computer].
                          • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                            Bruce, I think we are not going anywhere with this. I was preparing a reply to your other post and saw the one that began, In response to Jeffery Hodges,
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Bruce, I think we are not going anywhere with this. I was preparing a reply to your other post and saw the one that began, "In response to Jeffery Hodges, Dennis had said, in part..." You seemed to be trying to look at individual parts to determine some kind of early versus late construction of parts of Mark. In lieu of an autograph, I'd need more. I'm looking at the gospel as a whole, thematically. I'm looking to see if those pieces fit. They do. The onus on you is to show how they don't fit within the basic book, within the themes found in the book. To consider them as interpolations because they don't seem logical to you doesn't mean they are interpolated.

                              Let's use this interpolation logic in the Markan story of the fig tree. He curses it, then he leaves to have a temple incident, then he comes back and it has withered. A logic of interpolation would have the temple incident as an interpolation. Of course, I don't know of anyone who believes that. We look at it symbolically.

                              We have a ruler of a synagogue with a dying 12 year old daughter. On his way to heal her, he is touched by a woman with a 12 year discharge. She is healed. The daughter has died. Jesus touches her and she is now alive. He tells them to feed her. We have the number twelve, we have touching of the unclean, we have healing in both stories. More importantly, we have a synagogue ruler who wasn't concerned about ritual purity. We have a Jewish believer who is a "ruler." That is indeed not that common. Maybe this part was interpolated. How often are the priests and scholars dealt with favorably in Mark? No, it seems to me that this whole section, as a block, was an example of the enlightenment of the believers (Jairus and the woman).

                              Actually, there is another way to present your case, if you look at the Greek in the block. There seems to be an important difference, though I'm just beginning my Greek "voyage."

                              Dennis Dean Carpenter
                              Dahlonega, Ga.



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                              For goodness sakes! The unclean woman drained his power from him! What do you think! :) Dennis Dean Carpenter Dahlonega, Ga. ... From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                For goodness sakes! The unclean woman drained his power from him! What do you think! :)
                                Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                Dahlonega, Ga.



                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:39 PM
                                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                                Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's Leviticus 15:19-24:

                                'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                                Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt, technically, about his having been rendered unclean.

                                Jeffery Hodges

                                --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:


                                Recent Activity
                                a.. 1New Members
                                Visit Your Group
                                New business?
                                Get new customers.

                                List your web site

                                in Yahoo! Search.

                                Y! Groups blog
                                the best source

                                for the latest

                                scoop on Groups.

                                Special K Group
                                on Yahoo! Groups

                                Join the challenge

                                and lose weight.
                                .


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                That s the dynamic power of holiness that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus having as the Holy One of God -- as the title given him in Mark. I wouldn t say
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  That's the dynamic power of holiness that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus having as the Holy One of God -- as the title given him in Mark. I wouldn't say that he's being 'drained', by the way, merely that he notices the flow of power.
                                   
                                  Both holiness and impurity are dynamic powers, and they are in dynamic opposition to each other, and the holy power within Jesus is being shown as more powerful than the impurity within the woman.
                                   
                                  At least, that's what I think is going on in Mark's Gospel as a whole -- given encounters with the unclean spirits, for example.
                                   
                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                  --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                  From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 4:38 PM

                                  For goodness sakes! The unclean woman drained his power from him! What do you
                                  think! :)
                                  Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                  Dahlonega, Ga.



                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:39 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                                  Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's
                                  Leviticus 15:19-24:

                                  'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood,
                                  she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean
                                  until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean;
                                  also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall
                                  wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever
                                  touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and
                                  be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she
                                  sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies
                                  with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days;
                                  and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                                  Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but
                                  merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt,
                                  technically, about his having been rendered unclean.

                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                  --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:


                                  Recent Activity
                                  a.. 1New Members
                                  Visit Your Group
                                  New business?
                                  Get new customers.

                                  List your web site

                                  in Yahoo! Search.

                                  Y! Groups blog
                                  the best source

                                  for the latest

                                  scoop on Groups.

                                  Special K Group
                                  on Yahoo! Groups

                                  Join the challenge

                                  and lose weight.
                                  .


                                  [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]
                                • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                  But the author of Mark said that the power had left him. I wasn t exaggerating... His energizer bunny ran down. I meant that was one mighty touch the author
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    But the author of Mark said that the power had left him. I wasn't exaggerating... His energizer bunny ran down. I meant that was one mighty touch the author has her making! I think Morton Smith said something about this, but I'm too busy to grab the book and look for it.
                                    Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                    Dahlonega, Ga.

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:48 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                                    That's the dynamic power of holiness that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus having as the Holy One of God -- as the title given him in Mark. I wouldn't say that he's being 'drained', by the way, merely that he notices the flow of power.

                                    Both holiness and impurity are dynamic powers, and they are in dynamic opposition to each other, and the holy power within Jesus is being shown as more powerful than the impurity within the woman.

                                    At least, that's what I think is going on in Mark's Gospel as a whole -- given encounters with the unclean spirits, for example.

                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                    From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                    Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 4:38 PM

                                    For goodness sakes! The unclean woman drained his power from him! What do you
                                    think! :)
                                    Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                    Dahlonega, Ga.

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:39 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

                                    Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's
                                    Leviticus 15:19-24:

                                    'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood,
                                    she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean
                                    until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean;
                                    also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall
                                    wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever
                                    touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and
                                    be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she
                                    sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies
                                    with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days;
                                    and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                                    Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but
                                    merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some doubt,
                                    technically, about his having been rendered unclean.

                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                    Recent Activity
                                    a.. 1New Members
                                    Visit Your Group
                                    New business?
                                    Get new customers.

                                    List your web site

                                    in Yahoo! Search.

                                    Y! Groups blog
                                    the best source

                                    for the latest

                                    scoop on Groups.

                                    Special K Group
                                    on Yahoo! Groups

                                    Join the challenge

                                    and lose weight.
                                    .


                                    [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]
                                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    I am working from memory, but as far as I recall, he felt the power go out of him, but we should be cautious about the Gospel of Mark implying that Jesus had
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I am working from memory, but as far as I recall, he felt the power go out of him, but we should be cautious about the Gospel of Mark implying that Jesus had less power afterwards.

                                      Jeffery Hodges

                                      --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                      From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 5:22 PM

                                      But the author of Mark said that the power had left him. I wasn't
                                      exaggerating... His energizer bunny ran down. I meant that was one mighty touch
                                      the author has her making! I think Morton Smith said something about this, but
                                      I'm too busy to grab the book and look for it.
                                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                      Dahlonega, Ga.

                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:48 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                                      That's the dynamic power of holiness that the Gospel of Mark portrays
                                      Jesus having as the Holy One of God -- as the title given him in Mark. I
                                      wouldn't say that he's being 'drained', by the way, merely that
                                      he notices the flow of power.

                                      Both holiness and impurity are dynamic powers, and they are in dynamic
                                      opposition to each other, and the holy power within Jesus is being shown as more
                                      powerful than the impurity within the woman.

                                      At least, that's what I think is going on in Mark's Gospel as a whole
                                      -- given encounters with the unclean spirits, for example.

                                      Jeffery Hodges

                                      --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                      From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 4:38 PM

                                      For goodness sakes! The unclean woman drained his power from him! What do you
                                      think! :)
                                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                      Dahlonega, Ga.

                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:39 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

                                      Thanks for the citation, but are you certain that I'm wrong? Here's
                                      Leviticus 15:19-24:

                                      'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood,
                                      she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean
                                      until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be
                                      unclean;
                                      also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed
                                      shall
                                      wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And
                                      whoever
                                      touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water,
                                      and
                                      be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which
                                      she
                                      sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man
                                      lies
                                      with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven
                                      days;
                                      and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.'
                                      Jesus doesn't touch the woman, and she doesn't directly touch him but
                                      merely the hem of his garment. So . . . I'd say that there's some
                                      doubt,
                                      technically, about his having been rendered unclean.

                                      Jeffery Hodges

                                      --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                      Recent Activity
                                      a.. 1New Members
                                      Visit Your Group
                                      New business?
                                      Get new customers.

                                      List your web site

                                      in Yahoo! Search.

                                      Y! Groups blog
                                      the best source

                                      for the latest

                                      scoop on Groups.

                                      Special K Group
                                      on Yahoo! Groups

                                      Join the challenge

                                      and lose weight.
                                      .


                                      [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]


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

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





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • E Bruce Brooks
                                      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce DENNIS: Bruce, I think we are not going anywhere with this. I was
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 12, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        To: Synoptic
                                        Cc: GPG
                                        In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                        On: Jairus' Daughter
                                        From: Bruce

                                        DENNIS: Bruce, I think we are not going anywhere with this. I was preparing
                                        a reply to your other post and saw the one that began, "In response to
                                        Jeffery Hodges, Dennis had said, in part..." You seemed to be trying to
                                        look at individual parts to determine some kind of early versus late
                                        construction of parts of Mark.

                                        BRUCE: I am looking at the text to see what it up to. One of the signs I try
                                        to be alert to, in Mark or in any other text, is incongruity of content or
                                        doctrine. That is no great stretch; to take only the most prominent and
                                        worrisome instance, many commentators have pointed out that the Christology
                                        of Mark is inconsistent; that no one theme can represent it. Another sign,
                                        independent of the first, is indications of narrative inconcinnity. Such
                                        places deserve attention to see if an insertion hypothesis will account for
                                        the difficulty. The classic cases of interpolation are probably the ones Ron
                                        Price agrees with me (and with scores of earlier commentators) in
                                        recognizing, namely Mk 14:28 and 16:7. To repeat the former case yet again:

                                        14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written, I
                                        will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.

                                        14:28. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

                                        14:29. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not. . .

                                        The point here is that the very remarkable assurance of Jesus in 14:28 is
                                        utterly ignored by Peter; instead, he responds with indignation to the
                                        prediction in 14:27. He behaves as though 14:28 were simply not there, and
                                        the implication is that when this passage was written, it was in fact not
                                        there, but was added later, presumably to give extra point to the
                                        Resurrection, and to show that it, like the Denials, was known in advance.
                                        That is the pattern that interpolated texts have, in any language. They
                                        interrupt the context, the context takes no note of them, and the context is
                                        made more consecutive when they are removed. Exactly the same pattern is
                                        found in 16:7, try it and see. Of course it is something of a clincher that
                                        16:7 *refers* to 14:28; the implication is that these two short passages
                                        were planted in the previous text at the same time, and for the same
                                        purpose.

                                        DENNIS: In lieu of an autograph, I'd need more.

                                        BRUCE: Assuming that our good friends the textual critics have done their
                                        work well, the autograph would look exactly like the archetype, and both
                                        would be indistinguishable from the thing in front of us. It is only
                                        reasonable to suppose that Mark VI (like me after making corrections on my
                                        conference paper) would make a clean copy before declaring the job done.
                                        What we have is that clean copy, and all we have to go on are not Mark VI's
                                        marginalia notes (they have been incorporated into the text), but simply the
                                        indications in the substance of the text.

                                        DENNIS: I'm looking at the gospel as a whole, thematically. I'm looking to
                                        see if those pieces fit. They do.

                                        BRUCE: If we take the many themes in Mark, and grant them equal standing as
                                        legitimating authorities, then any given passage will probably be
                                        reconcilable with one or another of them, and thus will be certified as part
                                        of Mark. But this evades the prior question. The prior question is whether
                                        the themes themselves fit each other. Do the Son of Man passages really
                                        cohere with the Son of God passages? That question and similar ones have
                                        been argued repeatedly, and at book length. I take those books as a symptom
                                        that there is something there to discuss.

                                        The (almost) two thousand years of intense hermeneutic attention to Mark
                                        have produced various results which are satisfactory to many. It would be
                                        surprising if they hadn't. Harmonization is the typical task of a commentary
                                        literature, in all cultures of which I have any experience. It's just that
                                        the efforts to harmonize and rationalize Mark haven't convinced all of us
                                        that there is no problem there in the first place. The evidence of
                                        inconcinnity and inconsistency in the text continues to weigh with some of
                                        us.

                                        And theoretically, what right have we to look at any text "as a whole"
                                        before we determine that it really IS a whole? The kind of philological
                                        tests I am proposing are how one makes that determination. To proceed
                                        without that step is what Yau Ji-hvng (recently quoted) disapproved of. We
                                        can't know how to make use of a text until we know what sort of text it is,
                                        and whether it is in one layer or in several. The job of making that
                                        determination cannot be referred to interpretation; that comes later. The
                                        preparatory work of seeing whether we have one text or seven, or no text at
                                        all (in the case of a mediaeval forgery), belongs not to history but to what
                                        I have called philology. It is a separate step, a necessary if admittedly a
                                        humble one.

                                        Take an example from the other end of the Mediterranean. Are the carmina of
                                        Horace "a whole?" He certainly regarded them as such, as witness his
                                        peroration at the end of Book III. But then he came back to the job, after
                                        ten years and a little pressure from Augustus, and wrote more poetry, our
                                        Book IV. This we know because we know it (the correspondence of Augustus was
                                        supposedly preserved). But suppose we didn't? Could we still detect anything
                                        from the text alone? I think we could get at least a hint of the situation,
                                        starting with the manifest overridden ending that once closed Book III
                                        (exegi monumentum aere perennius), and continuing, at the deep analysis
                                        level, with a slightly different way with the Sapphic meter in Book IV than
                                        is seen in Books I-III. These are not impressions, and not prior agendas,
                                        they are facts about the text that anyone can rediscover for themselves with
                                        sufficient application. Those observational facts tend to suggest what, in
                                        this case, we know from outside evidence to be true.

                                        DENNIS: The onus on you is to show how they don't fit within the basic book,
                                        within the themes found in the book. To consider them as interpolations
                                        because they don't seem logical to you doesn't mean they are interpolated.

                                        BRUCE: Sorry, that's not how I proceed. If we're going to talk, let's at
                                        least be talking about the same thing. For what I actually do, please go
                                        back to the above.

                                        The nature miracles in Mark don't seem to me "logical," meaning that I
                                        consider them impossible. That's my personal judgement. But it has nothing
                                        to do with how the author of Mark regarded them, and it is Mark's take on
                                        them that I am interested in recovering, to the extent possible. I already
                                        know what *I* think. What I don't know is what *Mark* thinks (or the several
                                        Marks successively think).

                                        But I am working on it.

                                        Bruce

                                        E Bruce Brooks
                                        Warring States Project
                                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                      • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                        14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. 14:28. But after I am
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          "14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written, I
                                          will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.

                                          14:28. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

                                          14:29. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not. . .

                                          The point here is that the very remarkable assurance of Jesus in 14:28 is
                                          utterly ignored by Peter; instead, he responds with indignation to the
                                          prediction in 14:27. He behaves as though 14:28 were simply not there, and
                                          the implication is that when this passage was written, it was in fact not
                                          there, but was added later, presumably to give extra point to the
                                          Resurrection, and to show that it, like the Denials, was known in advance.
                                          That is the pattern that interpolated texts have, in any language. They
                                          interrupt the context, the context takes no note of them, and the context is
                                          made more consecutive when they are removed."

                                          Dennis: Not necessarily interpolated, if one looks at the attitude of the author toward Peter. (8:32-33, 9:5, 10:28, 14:37, 14:66-72). Then, we have the youth sitting at the tomb, having to remind the women to "tell the disciples, including Prock, he is going ahead of you to Galilee!" In the Gospel of Mark, the author's opinion of Peter is negative - he is portrayed among other things as rather stupid and forgetful. (I think that's the main reason he is nicknamed "Rock," as in "thick as a brick." Is 14:27-29 within the scope of the author's portrayal of this "sidekick?" I believe it is. While it may be an interpolation, Peter's behavior, forgetting what was just said, is very much characteristic of Peter, and pretty much the disciples as a group. Remember, after the first story of the feeding the multitudes, the author portrays them as having forgotten that the protagonist has already magically made the bread and fish multiply. So why is it odd that Peter doesn't "get it?" He rarely does.

                                          Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                          Dahlonega, Ga. .





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • David Cavanagh
                                          ... My understanding of this and related issues is slightly different. I think we find it all too easy to see the disciples as foolish and slow of
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dennis Dean Carpenter wrote:
                                            >
                                            > "14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is
                                            > written, I
                                            > will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.
                                            >
                                            > 14:28. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.
                                            >
                                            > 14:29. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not. . .
                                            >
                                            > The point here is that the very remarkable assurance of Jesus in 14:28 is
                                            > utterly ignored by Peter; instead, he responds with indignation to the
                                            > prediction in 14:27. He behaves as though 14:28 were simply not
                                            > there...........
                                            >











                                            My understanding of this and related issues is slightly different. I
                                            think we find it all too easy to see the disciples as foolish and slow
                                            of understanding. In doing so, we forget that Jesus was essentially
                                            speaking in "code" or that we have the benefit of hindsight. The Passion
                                            and Resurrection predictions have undoubtedly been sharpened in the
                                            light of Easter. When Jesus spoke of the "Son of Man" it would not have
                                            been clear to the disciples that he was speaking of himself, and in this
                                            instance it should be remembered that resurrection was expected at the
                                            end of time......so Peter might have taken Jesus' statement as the
                                            equivalent of the modern "one day God will set things to rights"
                                            (expecting that day to still be a long way off). Simplistic? Maybe.......

                                            David Cavanagh
                                            Major (The Salvation Army)
                                            Florence (Italy)



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                            Dennis, you state, In the Gospel of Mark, the author s opinion of Peter is negative -- he is portrayed among other things as rather stupid and forgetful, and
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dennis, you state, "In the Gospel of Mark, the author's opinion of Peter is negative -- he is portrayed among other things as rather stupid and forgetful," and you add, "I think that's the main reason he is nicknamed 'Rock,' as in 'thick as a brick'."
                                               
                                              It's true that Peter doesn't give a very good impression in the Gospel of Mark, but that gospel gives no account of him receiving the nickname "Rock," and as you also note, his thickheadedness characterizes "pretty much the disciples as a group." In Matthew, of course, Peter is called "Rock" for a different reason than the one that you give.
                                               
                                              At any rate, do you have some evidence for your speculation about the nickname in Mark? Did the nickname "Rock" carry the implication in first-century Judaism that you suggest?
                                               
                                              Jeffery Hodges
                                               

                                              --- On Thu, 11/13/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                              From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                              Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 11:16 AM

                                              "14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written,
                                              I
                                              will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.

                                              14:28. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

                                              14:29. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not. . .

                                              The point here is that the very remarkable assurance of Jesus in 14:28 is
                                              utterly ignored by Peter; instead, he responds with indignation to the
                                              prediction in 14:27. He behaves as though 14:28 were simply not there, and
                                              the implication is that when this passage was written, it was in fact not
                                              there, but was added later, presumably to give extra point to the
                                              Resurrection, and to show that it, like the Denials, was known in advance.
                                              That is the pattern that interpolated texts have, in any language. They
                                              interrupt the context, the context takes no note of them, and the context is
                                              made more consecutive when they are removed."

                                              Dennis: Not necessarily interpolated, if one looks at the attitude of the
                                              author toward Peter. (8:32-33, 9:5, 10:28, 14:37, 14:66-72). Then, we have the
                                              youth sitting at the tomb, having to remind the women to "tell the
                                              disciples, including Prock, he is going ahead of you to Galilee!" In the
                                              Gospel of Mark, the author's opinion of Peter is negative - he is portrayed
                                              among other things as rather stupid and forgetful. (I think that's the main
                                              reason he is nicknamed "Rock," as in "thick as a brick." Is
                                              14:27-29 within the scope of the author's portrayal of this
                                              "sidekick?" I believe it is. While it may be an interpolation,
                                              Peter's behavior, forgetting what was just said, is very much characteristic
                                              of Peter, and pretty much the disciples as a group. Remember, after the first
                                              story of the feeding the multitudes, the author portrays them as having
                                              forgotten that the protagonist has already magically made the bread and fish
                                              multiply. So why is it odd that Peter doesn't "get it?" He rarely
                                              does.

                                              Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                              Dahlonega, Ga. .





                                              [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]
                                            • E Bruce Brooks
                                              To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter On: Mk 14:28 From: Bruce Dennis, you are not engaging my point. Instead, you are explaining the
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                To: Synoptic
                                                Cc: GPG
                                                In Response To: Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                                On: Mk 14:28
                                                From: Bruce

                                                Dennis, you are not engaging my point. Instead, you are explaining the
                                                passage by reference to a holistic interpretation.

                                                Which is fine with me. You have previously indicated that you are satisfied
                                                with your holistic view of Mark, and it's not my intention to disturb
                                                anyone's equanimity. Those who are satisfied with Mark are perfectly
                                                welcome, as far as I am concerned, to go on being satisfied with Mark. These
                                                little notes of mine meant only for those who think that Mark may contain
                                                difficulties of one sort or another which have not so far been
                                                satisfactorily resolved by previous scholarship. Others are warmly
                                                encouraged to ignore them.

                                                I reply below pro forma, in case any Markanly dissatisfied persons on the
                                                list may be interested.

                                                Bruce

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

                                                I will do the rest of this as a Q and A on my immediately previous diagram
                                                of Mk 14:28 in context.

                                                Q: Not necessarily interpolated, if one looks at the attitude of the author
                                                toward Peter. (8:32-33, 9:5, 10:28, 14:37, 14:66-72).

                                                A: The interpolation is signaled simply by the fact that Peter in 14:29 does
                                                not respond to 14:28 (the promise of Resurrection, which one would expect
                                                might engage his attention) but rather to 14:27. He ignores 14:28.

                                                As for the position of Peter in the text of Mark, it is sometimes very
                                                positive (as at 8:30, where Peter is the only one to recognize Jesus as the
                                                Messiah) and sometimes very negative (as at 8:33, where Jesus calls him
                                                "Satan"). Peter in Mark runs the gamut from +10 to -10. Can't the author of
                                                this text, assuming the text to be a unitary production and thus to *have* a
                                                single author, can't that author make up his mind whether Peter is a good
                                                guy or a bad guy?

                                                Nor is Peter the only hard case for Markan consistency. Take Herod. We hear
                                                in Mark fulminations against the Herodians, and warnings about "the leaven
                                                of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod," and what this means we don't
                                                know, but obviously it is bad. Herod killed John, and he has his agents
                                                watching Jesus; and the Pharisees are conspiring with the Herodians how to
                                                kill Jesus. So far, we have no trouble identifying the guys in the bad hats.
                                                But then in addition to all this, we have an extended narrative of John in
                                                prison, and Herod in that narrative is portrayed this way: "for Herod feared
                                                John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When
                                                he heard him, he was much perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly." (Mk
                                                6:20). Reminds me (doesn't it you?) of the appearances of Paul before
                                                various sympathetic governors, who as the story has it, would have released
                                                him, or been converted by him, save for the opposition of this or that
                                                discontented and hostile party.

                                                Anyway, here is Herod, the confused but willing listener to the Gospel. Does
                                                Mark know which side he is on, or does he not? Is he a blithering idiot, or
                                                is something else going on here? I have seen enough of the world not to rule
                                                out the Blithering Idiot option incontinently, but perhaps the other
                                                possibility deserves exploration first. I have been trying to conduct just
                                                that sort of exploration.

                                                Q: Then, we have the youth sitting at the tomb, having to remind the women
                                                to "tell the disciples, including Prock, he is going ahead of you to
                                                Galilee!"

                                                A: I don't know about "having to." The youth, appearing miraculously, and
                                                being supernaturally well informed about what Jesus has previously said (in
                                                14:28!) to his disciples, tells the women that Jesus has risen, and then he
                                                goes on to add that they should let the disciples and Peter know that Jesus
                                                will be waiting for them in Galilee. To this second bit of rather remarkably
                                                good news, they respond not with joy (unless you go with the Matthean
                                                rewrite, which I do not recommend, but with fear and awe, at the evidence
                                                and the confirming report that Jesus has risen from the dead, and is no
                                                longer in the realm of the dead. That is, they react to the youth's words
                                                *up to and including 16:6.* With the 16:7 Galilee detail, as has been
                                                repeatedly mentioned and endlessly hashed over, they do nothing. This may be
                                                their stupidity, though nothing in the previous narrative makes them
                                                anything other than solicitous and devoted, or it may be that the 16:7
                                                comment about Galilee was never made to them, in the narrative in which they
                                                originally figured.

                                                Suppose we elect to try out the latter option, just as a mental exercise.
                                                Then there immediately vanishes, dare I suggest, the old problem of the
                                                women's "disobedience." The women, on that assumption, are not disobedient.
                                                They react perfectly appropriately to the cosmic event which they have just
                                                come up against.

                                                Q: In the Gospel of Mark, the author's opinion of Peter is negative - he is
                                                portrayed among other things as rather stupid and forgetful. (I think that's
                                                the main reason he is nicknamed "Rock," as in "thick as a brick." Is
                                                14:27-29 within the scope of the author's portrayal of this "sidekick?" I
                                                believe it is.

                                                A: No. See next.

                                                Q: While it may be an interpolation, Peter's behavior, forgetting what was
                                                just said, is very much characteristic of Peter, . . .

                                                A: Unfortunately, not all the time (see above). The portrait of Peter in
                                                Mark is radically inconsistent. Where he is seen as stupid, we may be
                                                reminded of his other stupid moments. Where is is insightful, we may be
                                                reminded of his general leadership among the group. In general, I think it
                                                is methodologically unsound to use an inconsistent whole to justify the
                                                inconsistent details. As to this particular detail (to repeat once again),
                                                the problem with Peter and 14:28 is not that he misunderstands it, it is
                                                that he does not react to it at all. It is not a source of confusion to him,
                                                it simply doesn't exist for him.

                                                Q: . . . and pretty much the disciples as a group.

                                                A: We have now changed the subject, but I am willing to admit that the
                                                disciples as a group also have consistency problems.

                                                Q: Remember, after the first story of the feeding the multitudes, the
                                                author portrays them as having forgotten that the protagonist has already
                                                magically made the bread and fish multiply.

                                                A: That particular passage gets us into the famous "doublet" problem with
                                                the Two Feedings (not to mention the Two Spit Healings, and other seeming
                                                duplications that cluster in this part of the text. It would be a long
                                                digression to take up that problem now, and I ask leave to defer it to a
                                                separate message. Instead, let's return to Peter.

                                                Q: So why is it odd that Peter doesn't "get it?" He rarely does.

                                                A: The point of 14:28 is not that Peter does not understand about the
                                                Appearance in Galilee, but that he does not even hear the sentence in which
                                                that Appearance is announced. The narrative fails to connect with itself.
                                                This is what folks mean by the word "inconcinnity."

                                                When the striking 14:28 (which Peter does not misunderstand, but simply
                                                ignores) is removed, we have a perfectly coherent and consecutive narrative,
                                                in which Peter *does* respond to what Jesus says, and with a rather likeable
                                                indignation at the prediction of his later defection. That restored
                                                narrative goes like this:

                                                RESTORATION
                                                And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written, I will
                                                strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. Peter said to him,
                                                Even though they all fall away, I will not. And Jesus said to him, Truly, I
                                                say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me
                                                three times. But he said vehemently, If I must die with you, I will not deny
                                                you. And they all said the same.

                                                Isn't that simple, dramatic, effective, and narratively consistent? Wouldn't
                                                it be nice if all the Markan story were this straightforward and coherent?

                                                Well, maybe it was, at one time, before some of these interruptions and
                                                insertions and geographically haywire meanderings were stuck into the text.

                                                It is that possibility that I am pursuing with this series of notes. For
                                                those who may be interested. To the others, my apology for the interruption,
                                                and my best wishes of the season.

                                                Bruce

                                                E Bruce Brooks
                                                Warring States Project
                                                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                              • Chuck Jones
                                                I m not sure how this fits in, but I would like to point out that the two miracles we are discussing are numbers 2 and 3 in a set of 4 miracles that Mark
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I'm not sure how this fits in, but I would like to point out that the two miracles we are discussing are numbers 2 and 3 in a set of 4 miracles that Mark has placed within a single day.
                                                   
                                                  In Mk, chs 4 and 5 create "A Day in the Life of Jesus," starting with an entire day of teaching.  Jesus wants to get away and rest, but is interrupted 4 times.  First, he stops a sea storm, second, he is confronted with a legion of demons, third a multi-decade chronic illness, and, fourth, death itself.
                                                   
                                                  This is a series of power encounters against the great fears and uncontrollables of the pre-modern world in which Jesus prevails in every case.  (The construct of a single day ends with the begining of ch. 6.  Jesus never did get to rest.)
                                                   
                                                  Rev. Chuck Jones
                                                  Atlanta, Georgia

                                                  --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)
                                                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 5:31 PM






                                                  Bruce, I think we are not going anywhere with this. I was preparing a reply to your other post and saw the one that began, "In response to Jeffery Hodges, Dennis had said, in part..." You seemed to be trying to look at individual parts to determine some kind of early versus late construction of parts of Mark. In lieu of an autograph, I'd need more. I'm looking at the gospel as a whole, thematically. I'm looking to see if those pieces fit. They do. The onus on you is to show how they don't fit within the basic book, within the themes found in the book. To consider them as interpolations because they don't seem logical to you doesn't mean they are interpolated.

                                                  Let's use this interpolation logic in the Markan story of the fig tree. He curses it, then he leaves to have a temple incident, then he comes back and it has withered. A logic of interpolation would have the temple incident as an interpolation. Of course, I don't know of anyone who believes that. We look at it symbolically.

                                                  We have a ruler of a synagogue with a dying 12 year old daughter. On his way to heal her, he is touched by a woman with a 12 year discharge. She is healed. The daughter has died. Jesus touches her and she is now alive. He tells them to feed her. We have the number twelve, we have touching of the unclean, we have healing in both stories. More importantly, we have a synagogue ruler who wasn't concerned about ritual purity. We have a Jewish believer who is a "ruler." That is indeed not that common. Maybe this part was interpolated. How often are the priests and scholars dealt with favorably in Mark? No, it seems to me that this whole section, as a block, was an example of the enlightenment of the believers (Jairus and the woman).

                                                  Actually, there is another way to present your case, if you look at the Greek in the block. There seems to be an important difference, though I'm just beginning my Greek "voyage."

                                                  Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                                  Dahlonega, Ga.



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


















                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                                  Yeah, and in the section just before four, he can not even get a bite to eat. Interpolation or another one of those darned interruptions! Dennis Dean
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Yeah, and in the section just before four, he can not even get a bite to eat. Interpolation or another one of those darned interruptions!
                                                    Dennis Dean Carpenter


                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: Chuck Jones
                                                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:37 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)


                                                    I'm not sure how this fits in, but I would like to point out that the two miracles we are discussing are numbers 2 and 3 in a set of 4 miracles that Mark has placed within a single day.

                                                    In Mk, chs 4 and 5 create "A Day in the Life of Jesus," starting with an entire day of teaching. Jesus wants to get away and rest, but is interrupted 4 times. First, he stops a sea storm, second, he is confronted with a legion of demons, third a multi-decade chronic illness, and, fourth, death itself.

                                                    This is a series of power encounters against the great fears and uncontrollables of the pre-modern world in which Jesus prevails in every case. (The construct of a single day ends with the begining of ch. 6. Jesus never did get to rest.)

                                                    Rev. Chuck Jones
                                                    Atlanta, Georgia


                                                    Recent Activity
                                                    a.. 1New Members
                                                    Visit Your Group
                                                    Y! Groups blog
                                                    The place to go

                                                    to stay informed

                                                    on Groups news!

                                                    Yahoo! Groups
                                                    Going Green Zone

                                                    Learn to go green.

                                                    Save energy. Save the planet.

                                                    All-Bran
                                                    10 Day Challenge

                                                    Join the club and

                                                    feel the benefits.
                                                    .


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • E Bruce Brooks
                                                    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; WSW Not Quite In Response To: Chuck Jones From: Bruce I am not going to interlineate this one (for which nevertheless thanks); I am going
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Nov 13, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      To: Synoptic
                                                      Cc: GPG; WSW
                                                      Not Quite In Response To: Chuck Jones
                                                      From: Bruce

                                                      I am not going to interlineate this one (for which nevertheless thanks); I
                                                      am going to repeat it and then reflect on it. Here is what Chuck said:

                                                      "I'm not sure how this fits in, but I would like to point out that the two
                                                      miracles we are discussing are numbers 2 and 3 in a set of 4 miracles that
                                                      Mark has placed within a single day. / In Mk, chs 4 and 5 create "A Day in
                                                      the Life of Jesus," starting with an entire day of teaching. Jesus wants to
                                                      get away and rest, but is interrupted 4 times. First, he stops a sea storm,
                                                      second, he is confronted with a legion of demons, third a multi-decade
                                                      chronic illness, and, fourth, death itself. / This is a series of power
                                                      encounters against the great fears and uncontrollables of the pre-modern
                                                      world in which Jesus prevails in every case. (The construct of a single day
                                                      ends with the beginning of ch. 6. Jesus never did get to rest)."

                                                      MEDITATION I

                                                      There is a classical Chinese book called Jwangdz; fans of Thomas Merton and
                                                      perhaps some others will have heard of it. It is very funny, very
                                                      antigovernmental, very agreeable in parts to certain aspects of our modern
                                                      sensibility. The prevailing view is that the lower-numbered chapters are
                                                      earlier, and the higher-numbered ones later, maybe even Han Dynasty (the
                                                      Empire; the postclassical period). So what parts of it do the Han literary
                                                      folks like, and thus regard as unquestionably authentic? The lower-numbered
                                                      chapters? Not in a million years. Rather: the higher-numbered chapters. The
                                                      ones closest to them in time, and thus the ones closest to their own
                                                      philosophical sensibilities. The ones that speak most directly to their
                                                      concerns and condition.

                                                      It is very natural, once you think of it. The most recent thing, the most
                                                      evolved, is what most appeals to posterity, whether proximal or remote. I
                                                      don't quite want to make it a rule, but it is at least a regularity, one
                                                      that we should not be surprised to meet again.

                                                      I seem to meet it again in Chuck's appreciation of the miracles in Mk 4-5,
                                                      and his disinterest in the Sermon By The Sea parables. And why? My a priori
                                                      suspicion (coming out of a good deal of watching texts and readers at work
                                                      together, in different parts of the world) would be: Maybe because the
                                                      miracles are later than the parables. That is Suspicion 1, not yet a proof,
                                                      but perhaps actionable as a suspicion. Let us entertain it, and see what
                                                      happens. We can always go back and push the UNDO button and return to the
                                                      status quo ante, if we find it gets us nowhere.

                                                      MEDITATION II

                                                      Suspicion 2 is that in the Four Gospels taken together, we can see a process
                                                      of progressive divinization of Jesus, through the miraculous birth of
                                                      Matthew and Luke to the cosmic identity of John. There is thus a perfectly
                                                      visible and verifiable tendency, over time, for the Jesus community to
                                                      promote Jesus into the top position. Suspicion 2a is that this process may
                                                      apply, not just *between* the Four Gospels, but *within* the Earliest
                                                      Gospel, namely Mark. The accretional theory of Mark, on which I seem to have
                                                      a copyright as well as sole possession, is also a theory that Mark, the
                                                      text, was progressively upgraded so as to keep pace with developing ideas in
                                                      the community to which that text was somehow responsive. (Just like
                                                      Microsoft automatically upgraded my antivirus software last night, while I
                                                      wasn't looking, to keep pace with the bad people who think up the viruses.
                                                      Our modern version of Controversy Stories).

                                                      I look at those miracles in Mk 4-5, and I see a conspicuous mixture. There
                                                      are rather humble healings (with mutterings in Aramaic, and a personal
                                                      touch, and advice to the parents to see that the patient gets something to
                                                      eat). There are also grand exorcisms, where Jesus is not besought, but
                                                      actually worshipped (Mk 5:6) by the sufferer, and where the possession is
                                                      not by one demon, no, that would be piddling, but by Two Thousand Demons,
                                                      who after a fully reported contest of wills are sent into an equal number of
                                                      pigs, and are ironically drowned in the sea. Here Jesus is not picking the
                                                      wax out of some hard of hearing person's ear, he is mastering supernatural
                                                      beings with his own superior supernatural power. And that is not enough to
                                                      wow the audience? Very good, we can improve on it. Over here is Jesus
                                                      speaking words of rebuke, not to demons, but to Nature Itself, and Nature
                                                      Itself meekly obeying, so that the dazzled disciples ask, What sort of a guy
                                                      IS this, anyways?

                                                      I trust that the steady ratcheting up of the power level will be obvious. If
                                                      Jesus can command Nature, what is he doing in the same chapter bringing
                                                      little girls out of comas, when a command to Nature will so much more
                                                      dazzlingly make his point? Let him call down fire and rain, or if they are
                                                      already there, let him bid them cease. Never mind this aches and pains
                                                      stuff. Answer, he would NOT be doing so, any more than the Dean of the
                                                      Medical School still takes Saturdays off from his job to prescribe aspirins
                                                      for the neighborhood children. No, the human probability is that we are here
                                                      confronted with several additive (but haphazardly placed) layers of
                                                      successively more grandiose persona construction.

                                                      MEDITATION III

                                                      People seem not to get the hang of the idea of using textual signs of
                                                      interpolation as a guide to layering in a text. 100 years ago, it would have
                                                      been second nature for anyone humanistically educated, but apparently it is
                                                      no longer 100 years ago. Tsk. Julius Wellhausen, thou shouldst be living at
                                                      this hour. We therefore have no empirical, fine-grained evidence to support
                                                      our previous suspicions, or at least no empirical, fine-grained evidence
                                                      that is evident to all parties. There, as it might be, is the end of our
                                                      imaginings.

                                                      But wait: sooner or later it is going to occur to somebody with an hour and
                                                      a half and a pencil on their hands (say, in the airport, in these ever more
                                                      difficult days) to ask, What if we separate out on paper all the Really
                                                      Cosmic Miracles, and on another sheet the Masterful Exorcisms, and on still
                                                      another the Country Doc Healings? Would each of those three bodies of
                                                      material, thus arbitrarily defined, have ANY OTHER DISTINCTIVE FEATURES? CAN
                                                      THEY BE CODEFINED?

                                                      They would. They can. But I am not saying how. Not until Monday the 24th, at
                                                      7 AM in the Sheridan Conference Room. See you there, and bring your sheets
                                                      of airport paper with you. AND your pencil.

                                                      MEDITATION IV

                                                      Meanwhile, as a final note of sympathy for the working man: If we take out
                                                      the aggrandizing additions to these two chapters, does Jesus have a more
                                                      nearly normal day? The very question assumes that Mark meant to represent it
                                                      as a day, and I think this may be doubted. Look at the end of the Sermon By
                                                      The Sea, 4:33 "With many such parables he spoke the Word to them, as they
                                                      were able to hear it." I think this suggests that the foregoing parables are
                                                      after all not a transcript of a single sermon, but a sample of Jesus's
                                                      preaching, conveniently collected into one place. As though to say, "Here is
                                                      the kind of thing Jesus used to say tpo the crowds when he was speaking to
                                                      them." Mark likes to group things: teaching parables, conflict stories, and
                                                      the like. It is this characteristic, I suspect, which gets people like
                                                      Papias down on him for having no real time sequence, over much of his
                                                      Gospel, just a sort of arrangement of material classified by type.
                                                      Convenient, and usable, but without narrative force.

                                                      Papias, as I understand from Eusebius, was one of history's all-time
                                                      weirdos, but not even weirdos are wrong all the time. Some of them have a
                                                      rather developed, even an acute, literary sense. Their hints are thus
                                                      sometimes worth taking, just like everybody else's.

                                                      Bruce

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