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

RE: [Synoptic-L] The Davidic Entry into Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson On: Objections to Healing From: Bruce I had suggested a distinction between Jesus s healings and his
    Message 1 of 50 , Nov 7, 2011
      To: Synoptic (GPG)
      In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
      On: Objections to Healing
      From: Bruce

      I had suggested a distinction between Jesus's healings and his exorcisms,
      and remarked:

      BRUCE: Did the Gospel writers make a distinction between healing and
      exorcism? On the way to an opinion of our own, we might want to notice that
      Jesus's healings in Mark provoke no opposition from anybody,

      JEFFREY: Umm ... Mk 3:6?

      BRUCE: Mk 3:6 indeed. What is it that the evil Pharisees object to (and so
      much that they conspire to bring about Jesus's death) in 3:6. Is it his
      healing? Or is it his healing on the Sabbath? In view of Mk 3:2, which reads
      "And they watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that
      they might accuse him," I would suspect that it is the Sabbath component,
      not the healing component, which the evil Pharisees (they are evil in Mark,
      and I am borrowing his viewpoint) find to be a capital offense.

      We can of course check this. Are there other Sabbath moments, where Jesus
      breaks the conventions appertaining to the Sabbath, and the evil Pharisees
      or their equivalent object? I would suggest looking half a page back in the
      second-best Bible, where we have Mk 2:23f, "One Sabbath, he was going
      through the grainfields . . ."

      It might be noticed also that what the evil scribes object to in the (quite
      thinkably interpolated) Mk 2:5b-10 is Jesus's claim of a divine power: the
      power to forgive sins. This may well be analogous to his exerting of what
      the evil Pharisees construe as a supernatural power (one which the demons,
      at any rate, attribute to Jesus's being, and I quote, the Son of God) when
      he exorcises demons.

      So far, at any rate, I think my previous statement will hold, and may (such
      things have been) even be susceptible of expansion.

      EXCURSUS ON YELLOW

      But I did make one infelicitous suggestion to Chuck. It was to use a yellow
      highlighter on the second-best Bible. Yellow is an excellent choice for
      highlighting, but it is also a color without favorable associations. A guy
      in my town is running for Mayor with yellow lettering on his lawn signs, and
      I guarantee he will lose. So I suggest that, for present purposes, we
      construe the yellow as gold, a highly honorable and even divine color (there
      are Buddhist sutras whose words are traced in gold, and very pretty they
      look that way, I assure you). Rather than a red-letter Bible, where the
      words of Jesus are printed in red, I suggest accordingly that the industry
      (or in a pinch it can be the industry of an individual with a little time to
      spare) turn out a Bible in which the passages in which Jesus exercises, or
      claims, supernatural powers, are printed in gold. There would be some point
      in that, analytically speaking, or so it seems to me.

      One thing that analysis might help to highlight is the outcome of the above
      opposition passages. What is their outcome? Heavens, how should I know? But
      one imaginable possibility is that it comes at Mk 14:61, where Jesus is
      accused of claiming to be precisely what the demons had acknowledged him to
      be: the Son of God, and is immediately judged to be guilty of blasphemy, and
      deserving of death.

      That passage too should be printed in gold, and why? Because Jesus's answer
      makes the same claim.

      Not to knock individual enterprise, far from it, but I await proposals for
      the Gold Letter Bible from the relevant publishers. Perhaps something in the
      nature of a percentage can be worked out.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ronald Price
      ... Jeff, Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders, though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which
      Message 50 of 50 , Nov 10, 2011
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > ..... while Paul doesn't mention signs
        > and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
        > apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:18–19; 2 Cor 12:12).

        Jeff,

        Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders,
        though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which is
        Paul's strongest statement on the subject, that the context is his desperate
        desire to present himself as a true apostle. Also he was somewhat agitated
        (2 Cor 12:11).

        But unfortunately none of the four claims to deeds of power (your two plus 1
        Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 2:4) are accompanied by details. Consequently we can't
        be sure what Paul meant, and there is at least the possibility that he was
        referring to the drama of mass conversions which this persuasive missionary
        no doubt initiated.

        > It wouldn't be a great leap to suppose that Paul had heard reports from
        > Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....

        But this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
        depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
        miracle worker.

        So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
        worker is the gospel of Mark.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.