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: Dennis Dean Carpenter On: Jairus Daughter From: Bruce DENNIS: Looking at the third item in terms of the Gospel of Mark as
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.