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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Triplet (3:10 etc)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.