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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mk 8:11-12

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson On: Triumphalism From: Bruce Of my earlier notes on why I found Jeffrey s explanation of MK 8:11f unconvincing, he
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
      On: Triumphalism
      From: Bruce

      Of my earlier notes on why I found Jeffrey's explanation of MK 8:11f
      unconvincing, he has replied:

      Jeffrey: You have misrepresented (or misunderstood) what I deemed
      "triumphalism".

      Bruce. Mustn't have that. Let's see. I look for that word, and here it is:

      p55 "Mark has Jesus refuse this demand for a sign because for Jesus to do
      otherwise would be nothing less than to advocate, initiate, and engage in
      triumphalism - a type of activity that, according to Mark, was forbidden to
      Jesus if he wished to remain faithful to the exigencies of his divine
      commission."

      n80 continues: "This is especially clear in Mk 8:27-9:1 . . . but it is a
      theme which permeates Mark's Gospel."

      Mk 8:27-9:1 contains three distinct segments.

      In the first *8:27-30), Jesus asks his disciples who people think he is, and
      accepts Peter's definition of him as the Messiah. I think there is little
      philological doubt that this is part of the earliest layer of Mark (see my
      note to Jack Kilmon; too much in Mark survives to testify to a Messianic
      self-concept, for it to be all some sort of slip of the pen).

      In the second (8:31-34), Jesus announces that he must die and be raised
      after three days, and Peter protests. Well he might, since this idea
      drastically contradicts the previous one. This is the Suffering Servant
      concept of Jesus, an interpretation of his death that can only have arisen
      after his death. That it is late in Mark is shown not only by its
      incompatibility with the preceding, and not only by Peter's violent
      rejection of it (the same Peter who was comfortable with the Messianic
      Jesus, only moments before), but by the fact that when all these Passion
      Predictions are collated and compared, one of them turns out to be clearly
      interpolated, and if one, then all. Peter's reaction is then emblematic of
      the fact that the original disciples did not accept the Resurrection theory,
      and had to be energetically convinced of it. Certain the huge Apostolic
      literature, down to and including the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies,
      shows this same Peter preaching endlessly, chapter after chapter and volume
      after volume, without ever mentioning the Resurrection. There was then a
      type of Christianity which was not based on the Resurrection, and this huge
      literature is witness to it. So are early passages in Mark, like the openly
      Messianic Mk 8:27-30.

      In the third (8:34-9:1), Jesus sets bearing a personal cross as the
      condition of discipleship. This means accepting suffering and persecution
      and death without recanting, without denying Jesus. This would seem to
      reflect a situation still later in the life of the posthumous Jesus
      community, when it was in fact subjected to persecutions of this extreme
      sort. Theologically, it is compatible with the preceding Resurrection piece,
      and makes a logical development from it, given worsening external
      conditions.

      So far the passage supposed to exemplify Jesus's rejection of triumphalism.
      The word does not occur, and this reader is at a loss as to how it should be
      applied. What Jesus accepts in the second passage is his fate to be
      crucified, along with his insistence that he will also be resurrected. In
      the Gethsemane scene, he is tempted to avoid that fate, but accepts God's
      seeming wish that he undergo it. The two might be related; they both at any
      rate imply acceptance of the Crucifixion.

      I leave it to Jeffrey to fill in the dots if he cares to. But if these
      passages are what he has in mind, I still have the impression that they
      relate only tenuously to the Refusal to the Pharisees, with which we began.
      And I would deny that they show Mark at his most consistent. Given the late
      nature of the Resurrection material, I would think they rather show Mark at
      his most faithful as a chronicler of evolving ideas of Jesus in his
      posthumous movement. It is in this fidelity to a changing reality and a
      changing theological response to it, and not in the details of his picture,
      which being accretional is also of necessity internally contradictive, that
      the consistency of Mark resides.

      So it looks from here.

      As to what other material in Mk the puzzling 8:11f most closely relates,
      that question seems still open.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Dennis Goffin
      I cannot quote chapter and verse at the moment, but it is clear to me that the attitude to Sabbath observance in Galilee was a lot less punctilious than among
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I cannot quote chapter and verse at the moment, but it is clear to me that the attitude to Sabbath observance in Galilee was a lot less punctilious than among the Pharisees who were strongest in Jerusalem. Jesus' attitude is consistently to emphasise the spirit of an action over the empty observance and that is true of the Sabbth as well. To define Jesus as having a definite overall attitude towards the Decalogue from the haphazard quotation of various commandments, or, in the case of defrauding, their expansion as is found elsewhere in the Jwish writings, is in my view a step too far, insuffiently warranted by the available evidence.
        Dennis















        To: Synoptic

        In Response To: Dennis Goffin

        From: Bruce



        I had remarked in passing that Jesus accepted only part of the Decalogue. Or

        as Dennis quotes me,



        Bruce: Jesus taught a reduced version of the Decalogue,



        Dennis: I contest this. The above statement depends on the argument from

        silence in my opinion.



        Bruce: Not quite ex silentio. The positive part of Jesus' preaching about

        the Law seems to be contained in Mk 10:19, addressed to the rich young man,

        and I quote, "You know the commandments: Do not kill, Do not commit

        adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor

        your father and mother."



        That makes six, of which one, Do not defraud, is not in the Decalogue as

        usually cited; it is an innovation of Jesus (albeit one with a scriptural

        precedent). Both Mt and Lk omit the extra "fraud" commandment, presumably as

        a pedantic correction. Mt adds "Love your neighbor as yourself," which comes

        from a different part of Mark, and represents a summary, not a commandment.

        Given the temptation to complete the whole list of Ten, it is noteworthy

        that neither Mt nor Lk do any such thing. They correct Jesus in one detail,

        and Mt adds a summary from elsewhere, but they do not fill in what is

        conventionally called the First Table of the Decalogue: the commandments

        dealing with worship and the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Decalogue as far

        as Jesus acknowledges it concerns man's duty to man, not man's duty to God.



        So far the argument from absence, supplemented by two arguments of failure

        to correct the absence, in writers who have otherwise shown themselves, in

        this passage, quite willing to amend Jesus. By my count, that makes two

        arguments.



        The third argument is positive. Did Jesus simply forget to mention Sabbath

        piety, or did he in fact no preach its observance. On this I should think

        the Markan evidence is overwhelming: there are frequent stories of Jesus and

        his disciples healing, or exorcising, or traveling, or eating, on the

        Sabbath, and in each case Jesus defends these actions as overridden, not by

        a higher God piety, but by a higher human need.



        Evidence that Jesus preached observance of the commandment to observe the

        Sabbath seems monumentally lacking. Am I missing something?



        Bruce



        E Bruce Brooks

        Warring States Project

        University of Massachusetts at Amherst


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Chuck Jones
        Bruce, In Mark, Jesus motive for healing is compassion.  The reason there was a feeding of the 5,000 is that [a]s [Jesus] went ashore, he saw a great crowd;
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce,

          In Mark, Jesus' motive for healing is compassion.  The reason there was a feeding of the 5,000 is that "[a]s [Jesus] went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things."  He usually tells the healed not to tell anyone about what happened.  All of this is consistent with Jesus refusing to produce a sign, seems to me.

          Chuck 

          Rev. Chuck Jones
          Atlanta, Georgia


          ________________________________
          From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:48 PM
          Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Mk 8:11-12


           
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
          On: Mk 8:11-12
          From: Bruce

          First, let me be plain: I think Goguel is wrong. I think the passage in
          question is late, not early, and that its understanding will best proceed
          from that probability.

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

          Jeffrey calls attention to his 1990 JSNT article, as a solution to the
          problem of Mk 8:11f. The problem of Mk 8:11, as I see it, is that it refuses
          a sign, not only to the Pharisees who ask one, but to the entire generation.
          This seems to contradict the fact that in Mark, including the passage
          immediately preceding, Jesus is continually doing things that would seem to
          count as signs of his Divine power or approval, from healings to mass
          feedings to walkings on water. His refusal in this case seems to contradict
          his own practice, and in the case of the ban on the entire generation, to
          exceed what is required. Therefore it attracts attention.

          Jeffrey, as I understand it, distinguishes between two senses of "sign," and
          on that basis finds consistency in Mark, and intelligibility in this one
          passage. For reasons previously stated, I think that the goal of finding
          consistency in Mark is illusory in the first place, but there is always room
          for another view.

          The specific word "sign" occurs in Mk in just three passages: (1) this one,
          (2) the Mk 13 apocalypse, where the disciples ask what will be the sign of
          the end, and Jesus answers, warning them at the same time that imposters
          will also produce "signs and wonders" (13:22), and (3) the spurious ending,
          which we need not further consider. It is interesting that both (1) and (2)
          are "verily" passages, where Jesus seems to be giving extra assurance that
          what he says is true. It is also interesting that the denial of a sign to
          "this generation" in 8:11f directly contradicts Jesus' assurance in 13:30
          that "this generation will not pass away" before these things, doubtless
          including the signs that precede them, will occur (cf 9:1). The sign asked
          by the Pharisees is specifically a "sign from Heaven," but so, one would
          think, are the signs described in Mk 13 as preceding the end. If not from
          Heaven, whence?

          Jeffrey argues (p43-45), with more use of Luke than I should have thought
          advisable, since Luke may have his own idea of heavenly validation, that a
          special sense attaches to "sign from heaven," namely "most likely a
          phenomenon which embodied Salvation." I am not convinced that the Septuagint
          examples prove this, or that the context of 8:11 suggests it. It seems to me
          that all signs in Mk, whether or not called that, are events beyond the
          ordinary, which prove that Jesus is speaking and acting with authority that
          is more than human. The Healing of the Paralytic, cited by Jeffrey and
          certainly relevant, is a passage which is more easily understood once it is
          realized that the "forgiveness of sins" bit is interpolated into the rest,
          an original story of healing. In any case, it is the healing, not the
          forgiveness of sins whether or not interpolated, which provokes the
          amazement of the crowd. They glorify God (who they seem to assume is the
          source of this remarkable occurrence), and say, We never saw anything like
          this. A deed of power that carries convincement.

          Another relevant passage, since it brings together the several elements
          already mentioned (including Jesus' impatience with this generation), is the
          disciples' failure to heal the epileptic boy. It is typical of Mark that
          Jesus only works wonders (the nature miracles, I think, alone excepted) in a
          climate of belief that he can in fact do so; his failure at Nazareth is the
          converse that demonstrates the rule, as Mark carefully explains (surely we
          have here Mark's understanding of the miracle process). With the epileptic,
          it is the father who insists that he believes (as the condition for the cure
          of his son), and then says, rather remarkably, "Help thou mine unbelief."
          Jesus proceeds to heal the boy. With what power? The story actually tells us
          this, since the interns, the disciples, ask why they could not do so, and
          Jesus says that this was a particularly tough demon, which could not be
          expelled by anything save prayer. Prayer is Jesus's way of establishing
          contact with God, and again, as with the paralytic, we have the God
          connection made explicit, this time by Jesus and not by the crowd.

          As for the anger against the sinful and adulterous generation (9:19), how is
          that to be explained? I ask because I do not know, save for the sense (the
          opposite of Goguel's sense) that it arises long after Jesus' death, in a
          context of lessening communal belief. The third case of this motif in Mark
          is 8:38 (Whoever is ashamed of Jesus in this adulterous and sinful
          generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of in time to come). What links
          the three seems to be lack of faith, whether of the Pharisees, the father of
          the epileptic (who does his best, however), and the indeterminate faithless,
          who have abandoned Jesus, in 8:38. It is the 8:38 case that perhaps most
          strongly suggests a time well removed from the time of Jesus, when some had
          fallen away, or succumbed to persecution. Mk 13 can also be read that way,
          since its whole reason for being is disciple uncertainty about the date of
          this much expected event. This gives, I like to think, the beginning of an
          explanation, but to my mind it still leaves Mk 8:11f somewhat eccentric, a
          little off the lines which Mark otherwise seems to follow. It is that
          eccentricity which puzzles me, and which I don't find that Jeffrey's
          explanation quite resolves.

          The Pharisees are of course not merely an unbelieving, but a hostile,
          public. The other miracle or sign or remarkable action demanded of Jesus by
          such a public and not supplied by him, if I remember correctly, is the
          demand of the hostile crowd that Jesus come down from the cross. That would
          indeed be a supernatural feat. Jesus does not perform the feat, and it may
          be relevant that not long afterward, Jesus laments that God has forsaken
          him. The language in which Mark reports this is Psalmic, and he surely
          intends a second message by phrasing it that way, but the event itself seems
          to be consistent. Signs of power require not only the belief, as it were
          the psychological cooperation of the beholders, but also the granting of
          power by God. In the Crucifixion scene, both seem to be lacking.

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

          Jeffrey comes out with "triumphalism" as the key to what Jesus will not do,
          and will refuse to do when asked (p55). The final paragraph (p56) reads:

          "It would seem, then, that the reason the Marcan Jesus refuses to produce a
          'sign' when the Pharisees demand one of him is not because he is, according
          to Mark, opposed to the enterprise of producing 'signs.' Rather, given
          Mark's assumptions concerning the type of 'sign' demanded in this instance
          and what this 'sign' would activate once manifested, it is because in
          producing such a 'sign' Jesus would involve himself in the sort of
          triumphalistic, imperious activities that throughout Mark's Gospel he
          condemns and sets himself against."

          That explanation reaches outside Mark for a definition of Mark's term. I
          have already suggested why I think the distinction is too fine-drawn.

          As for Jesus' dislike of triumphalism, what of his stilling of the storm,
          which prompts the disciples (4:41) to ask what manner of man he may be? What
          of his prediction of himself in Mk 13:26, coming on the clouds with much
          power and splendor, to send out messengers to gather the elect from the four
          corners of the earth? Or if this be thought a slip of the Markan pen, what
          of Jesus' response to the High Priest, "I am, and you will see the Son of
          Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven
          (14:62)."

          If this be modesty, scoop me a double helping of it. And I will be ready
          when the call comes, however suddenly; I have my list of the Elect all
          prepared. No scurrying around at the last moment.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Greg Crawford
          The language of “sign”, σημεῖον, is interesting in Mark’s Gospel and might be more at home in John’s Gospel. If John is correct in associating
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            The language of “sign”, σημεῖον, is interesting in Mark’s Gospel and might be more at home in John’s Gospel. If John is correct in associating this narrative with the story of Moses and the manna from heaven in the wilderness, the Pharisees’ request for a sign might simply be a request that the sign of the feeding continue day after day, as it did in Moses’ case. First century Jewish peasants may have had as much interest in daily food handouts as did starving people in the desert. If the traditional narrative could not be fully accommodated to Mark’s themes, it may stand out for that reason.



            Greg Crawford



            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jones
            Sent: Monday, 10 September 2012 10:42 PM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 8:11-12





            Bruce,

            In Mark, Jesus' motive for healing is compassion. The reason there was a feeding of the 5,000 is that "[a]s [Jesus] went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things." He usually tells the healed not to tell anyone about what happened. All of this is consistent with Jesus refusing to produce a sign, seems to me.

            Chuck

            Rev. Chuck Jones
            Atlanta, Georgia

            ________________________________
            From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@... <mailto:brooks%40asianlan.umass.edu> >
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:48 PM
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Mk 8:11-12



            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
            On: Mk 8:11-12
            From: Bruce

            First, let me be plain: I think Goguel is wrong. I think the passage in
            question is late, not early, and that its understanding will best proceed
            from that probability.

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

            Jeffrey calls attention to his 1990 JSNT article, as a solution to the
            problem of Mk 8:11f. The problem of Mk 8:11, as I see it, is that it refuses
            a sign, not only to the Pharisees who ask one, but to the entire generation.
            This seems to contradict the fact that in Mark, including the passage
            immediately preceding, Jesus is continually doing things that would seem to
            count as signs of his Divine power or approval, from healings to mass
            feedings to walkings on water. His refusal in this case seems to contradict
            his own practice, and in the case of the ban on the entire generation, to
            exceed what is required. Therefore it attracts attention.

            Jeffrey, as I understand it, distinguishes between two senses of "sign," and
            on that basis finds consistency in Mark, and intelligibility in this one
            passage. For reasons previously stated, I think that the goal of finding
            consistency in Mark is illusory in the first place, but there is always room
            for another view.

            The specific word "sign" occurs in Mk in just three passages: (1) this one,
            (2) the Mk 13 apocalypse, where the disciples ask what will be the sign of
            the end, and Jesus answers, warning them at the same time that imposters
            will also produce "signs and wonders" (13:22), and (3) the spurious ending,
            which we need not further consider. It is interesting that both (1) and (2)
            are "verily" passages, where Jesus seems to be giving extra assurance that
            what he says is true. It is also interesting that the denial of a sign to
            "this generation" in 8:11f directly contradicts Jesus' assurance in 13:30
            that "this generation will not pass away" before these things, doubtless
            including the signs that precede them, will occur (cf 9:1). The sign asked
            by the Pharisees is specifically a "sign from Heaven," but so, one would
            think, are the signs described in Mk 13 as preceding the end. If not from
            Heaven, whence?

            Jeffrey argues (p43-45), with more use of Luke than I should have thought
            advisable, since Luke may have his own idea of heavenly validation, that a
            special sense attaches to "sign from heaven," namely "most likely a
            phenomenon which embodied Salvation." I am not convinced that the Septuagint
            examples prove this, or that the context of 8:11 suggests it. It seems to me
            that all signs in Mk, whether or not called that, are events beyond the
            ordinary, which prove that Jesus is speaking and acting with authority that
            is more than human. The Healing of the Paralytic, cited by Jeffrey and
            certainly relevant, is a passage which is more easily understood once it is
            realized that the "forgiveness of sins" bit is interpolated into the rest,
            an original story of healing. In any case, it is the healing, not the
            forgiveness of sins whether or not interpolated, which provokes the
            amazement of the crowd. They glorify God (who they seem to assume is the
            source of this remarkable occurrence), and say, We never saw anything like
            this. A deed of power that carries convincement.

            Another relevant passage, since it brings together the several elements
            already mentioned (including Jesus' impatience with this generation), is the
            disciples' failure to heal the epileptic boy. It is typical of Mark that
            Jesus only works wonders (the nature miracles, I think, alone excepted) in a
            climate of belief that he can in fact do so; his failure at Nazareth is the
            converse that demonstrates the rule, as Mark carefully explains (surely we
            have here Mark's understanding of the miracle process). With the epileptic,
            it is the father who insists that he believes (as the condition for the cure
            of his son), and then says, rather remarkably, "Help thou mine unbelief."
            Jesus proceeds to heal the boy. With what power? The story actually tells us
            this, since the interns, the disciples, ask why they could not do so, and
            Jesus says that this was a particularly tough demon, which could not be
            expelled by anything save prayer. Prayer is Jesus's way of establishing
            contact with God, and again, as with the paralytic, we have the God
            connection made explicit, this time by Jesus and not by the crowd.

            As for the anger against the sinful and adulterous generation (9:19), how is
            that to be explained? I ask because I do not know, save for the sense (the
            opposite of Goguel's sense) that it arises long after Jesus' death, in a
            context of lessening communal belief. The third case of this motif in Mark
            is 8:38 (Whoever is ashamed of Jesus in this adulterous and sinful
            generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of in time to come). What links
            the three seems to be lack of faith, whether of the Pharisees, the father of
            the epileptic (who does his best, however), and the indeterminate faithless,
            who have abandoned Jesus, in 8:38. It is the 8:38 case that perhaps most
            strongly suggests a time well removed from the time of Jesus, when some had
            fallen away, or succumbed to persecution. Mk 13 can also be read that way,
            since its whole reason for being is disciple uncertainty about the date of
            this much expected event. This gives, I like to think, the beginning of an
            explanation, but to my mind it still leaves Mk 8:11f somewhat eccentric, a
            little off the lines which Mark otherwise seems to follow. It is that
            eccentricity which puzzles me, and which I don't find that Jeffrey's
            explanation quite resolves.

            The Pharisees are of course not merely an unbelieving, but a hostile,
            public. The other miracle or sign or remarkable action demanded of Jesus by
            such a public and not supplied by him, if I remember correctly, is the
            demand of the hostile crowd that Jesus come down from the cross. That would
            indeed be a supernatural feat. Jesus does not perform the feat, and it may
            be relevant that not long afterward, Jesus laments that God has forsaken
            him. The language in which Mark reports this is Psalmic, and he surely
            intends a second message by phrasing it that way, but the event itself seems
            to be consistent. Signs of power require not only the belief, as it were
            the psychological cooperation of the beholders, but also the granting of
            power by God. In the Crucifixion scene, both seem to be lacking.

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

            Jeffrey comes out with "triumphalism" as the key to what Jesus will not do,
            and will refuse to do when asked (p55). The final paragraph (p56) reads:

            "It would seem, then, that the reason the Marcan Jesus refuses to produce a
            'sign' when the Pharisees demand one of him is not because he is, according
            to Mark, opposed to the enterprise of producing 'signs.' Rather, given
            Mark's assumptions concerning the type of 'sign' demanded in this instance
            and what this 'sign' would activate once manifested, it is because in
            producing such a 'sign' Jesus would involve himself in the sort of
            triumphalistic, imperious activities that throughout Mark's Gospel he
            condemns and sets himself against."

            That explanation reaches outside Mark for a definition of Mark's term. I
            have already suggested why I think the distinction is too fine-drawn.

            As for Jesus' dislike of triumphalism, what of his stilling of the storm,
            which prompts the disciples (4:41) to ask what manner of man he may be? What
            of his prediction of himself in Mk 13:26, coming on the clouds with much
            power and splendor, to send out messengers to gather the elect from the four
            corners of the earth? Or if this be thought a slip of the Markan pen, what
            of Jesus' response to the High Priest, "I am, and you will see the Son of
            Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven
            (14:62)."

            If this be modesty, scoop me a double helping of it. And I will be ready
            when the call comes, however suddenly; I have my list of the Elect all
            prepared. No scurrying around at the last moment.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst

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





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jgibson
            ... If this is the case, and I an extremely doubtful that it is, why would Jesus refuse the request? And how would such a request be something that probes
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 10, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On 9/10/2012 9:01 AM, Greg Crawford wrote:
              > The language of “sign”, σημεῖον, is interesting in Mark’s Gospel and might be more at home in John’s Gospel. If John is correct in associating this narrative with the story of Moses and the manna from heaven in the wilderness, the Pharisees’ request for a sign might simply be a request that the sign of the feeding continue day after day, as it did in Moses’ case. First century Jewish peasants may have had as much interest in daily food handouts as did starving people in the desert. If the traditional narrative could not be fully accommodated to Mark’s themes, it may stand out for that reason.

              If this is the case, and I an extremely doubtful that it is, why
              would Jesus refuse the request? And how would such a request be
              something that probes and examines Jesus' faithfulness as Mark says it
              does? Why would Jesus label the request as something that exhibits the
              faithlessness of the wilderness generation faithlessness, since a
              request to keep on giving manna is the exact opposite of the grumbling
              against manna that the wilderness generation engaged in?

              Leaving aside the fact that the language of "sign" in Mark is not the
              same as it is in John, I don't think you've thought your claim through.



              Jeffrey


              --
              ___

              Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. (Oxon.)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Chicago, Il 606s6
              jgibson000@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.