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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.