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

RE: [XTalk] Miracles, magic and healing

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... David, This is a good point with regard to this particular pericope. It is all the better because it fits in with Matthew s editorial tendencies (see,
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 3, 2001
      At 11:34 AM 2/3/01 -0500, David C. Hindley wrote:
      >Bob,
      >
      >You said >>I think it is a mistake to conceive of the healing miracles
      >as some kind of magic.<< Yet earlier in your post you quoted Matt
      >8:8-9
      >
      > >>8 The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come
      >under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.
      >9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I
      >say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes,
      >and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it."<<
      >
      >This is a classic picture of 1st century beliefs on the subject of
      >angelology/demonology. Angels (and demons) are organized in strict
      >military hierarchies. Individual angels/demons may have unique
      >"personalities" or tasks assigned to them, but they all obey commands
      >from superiors.

      David,
      This is a good point with regard to this particular pericope. It is all the
      better because it fits in with Matthew's editorial tendencies (see, e.g.,
      Mt. 12:24-27). Therefore in this case, the incident is colored by Matthew's
      magical editorial interpretation. It was not a good example for my case.

      >...You mention Stevan Davies _Jesus the Healer_. Like Daniel, I have only
      >encountered the web page synopsis at
      ><http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/summaryone.htm,>http://www.miser
      >i.edu/users/davies/thomas/summaryone.htm, but I too am
      >not convinced by his reasoning. He is critical of >>the prevailing
      >view [i.e., which he calls the "Jesus the Teacher" model] that one
      >should approach the question of the historical Jesus by analyzing what
      >we can know of what he said so as to discover his message and
      >ideology<<, and concludes with the statement >>I do not think it has
      >succeeded very well.<<
      >
      >Yet in the same paragraph he says >>The very multiplicity of ...
      >[interpretive] constructions and their generally equivalent competence
      >in making use of the same body of evidence indicates to me that the
      >view that Jesus should be understood principally to have been a
      >teacher is a flawed paradigm.<< Does this not imply that there is
      >something about Jesus' sayings that may not reflect Jesus' actual
      >teachings?

      That is one solution. The alternative is Davies' solution, that Jesus was
      not *primarily* a teacher.
      I have some quibbles with Stevan myself about this, but I think your
      "question" has problems of its own.

      >I do not think he is implying that we can never know a
      >person's opinion/position on matters on the basis of statements
      >attributed to him. That depends on whether the statements are
      >authentic as well as accurate.

      I agree.

      >Unfortunately, rather than investigate the question of the
      >authenticity (and hence accuracy) of the statements ..., Davies
      >changes the focus to look at Jesus as "an embodiment of the spirit of
      >God" who realizes eschatological expectations by means of social acts.
      >The problem of the authenticity of the gospel accounts of Jesus
      >sayings/actions, and how this effects our ability to reconstruct his
      >own agenda, is still there.

      It is a different problem from the sayings/teachings, however, because the
      healing incidents seldom involve any significant speech. In the Acts of
      Jesus, the Jesus Seminar comes to a number of conclusions in this regard:
      1. Jesus drove out what were thought to be demons (p.61, 171)
      2. Jesus cured some sick people (p.171)

      This thread suggests a little research project that would address your
      concerns: Using The Acts of Jesus and a tabulation of the healing miracles,
      which types of healing miracles does the JSem consider most reliable?

      >If this is the real issue, then Davies' solution suffers from the same
      >defect as those who adhere to the "Jesus as Teacher" paradigm. Both
      >paradigms will tell us more about the agendas of the authors of the
      >gospels (through the manner they chose to depict him) that they will
      >about Jesus' personal agenda.

      I don't think so. The "teachings" and the "healings" form two different
      types of literary evidence.
      Besides, my point was not necessarily that Davies interpretation of the
      healing miracles is correct, but that if one wants to consider the role of
      Jesus as healer seriously, then one needs to become familiar with the kind
      of evidence that he compiles, rather than merely conducting thought
      experiments based on our own preconceptions of healing.

      Bob


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gil Page
      ... My own recollection of reading Mr. Davies book is that there is considerably more there than another failed paradigm. I would hope that you would read the
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 4, 2001
        on 2/3/01 11:34 AM, David C. Hindley at dhindley@... wrote:


        > You mention Stevan Davies _Jesus the Healer_. Like Daniel, I have only
        > encountered the web page synopsis at
        > http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/summaryone.htm, but I too am
        > not convinced by his reasoning. . . .

        > If this is the real issue, then Davies' solution suffers from the same
        > defect as those who adhere to the "Jesus as Teacher" paradigm. Both
        > paradigms will tell us more about the agendas of the authors of the
        > gospels (through the manner they chose to depict him) that they will
        > about Jesus' personal agenda.

        My own recollection of reading Mr. Davies' book is that there is
        considerably more there than another failed paradigm. I would hope that you
        would read the book before taking the author to task for not meeting your
        expectations of what you think his argument should be.
        --
        Regards,

        Gil Page
        kestrel@...
      • David C. Hindley
        ... considerably more there than another failed paradigm. I would hope that you would read the book before taking the author to task for not meeting your
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 4, 2001
          Gil Page said:

          >>My own recollection of reading Mr. Davies' book is that there is
          considerably more there than another failed paradigm. I would hope
          that you would read the book before taking the author to task for not
          meeting your expectations of what you think his argument should be.<<

          Please do not think that it was my intention to "take to task" Prof.
          Davies. His case may be as well developed as the "Jesus as Teacher"
          model, maybe even more so. However, my feeling is that the "Jesus as
          Healer" model will (or has?) result in the same inconsistent results
          as the Jesus as Teacher model, as it appears to me to not really be a
          model at all but a conclusion to which the stories can be more or less
          successfully reconciled. I went by the author's own synopsis of the
          theme of his book and not just a review, so I sincerely hope it fairly
          represented his own argument.

          That opinion of mine does not mean I will not read it at some point in
          time. It may prove to be very illuminating in spite of what I think of
          the central premise, in that I may well gain valuable insight as to
          what gospel writers thought Jesus did (or wanted to believe he did, or
          wanted readers to think he did).

          Regards,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • Sukie Curtis
          Bob, Gordon, Daniel, and others, My silence has been due to busy-ness, not disinterest, and even now I have only a sliver of time. But I ve enjoyed catching
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 4, 2001
            Bob, Gordon, Daniel, and others,

            My silence has been due to busy-ness, not disinterest, and even now I have
            only a sliver of time. But I've enjoyed catching up on parts of this
            thread.

            Daniel wrote:
            > BTW what is FWIW.
            >

            "For what it's worth!"

            Daniel, citing me:

            > And those kinds
            > of acts were profoundly healing acts, precipitating stories or at least
            > the claim that Jesus did deeds of power not unlike Elijah or Elisha.>
            >
            > Why? How? I think we are getting to bunked down into the cultural context
            > so that we are ignoring the more universal aspects. Why do people tell
            > miracle stories in general? There are tons of popular lore in newly
            > emerged religious communities that are in nature no different than the
            > what we find in the gospels.

            I don't know why people tell miracle stories "in general." And I think
            staying close to the biblical tradition of miracle stories makes more sense
            here than wandering into general miracle world. I'm sure there are plenty
            of stories in "newly emerged" traditions, but for stories/literature
            emerging from an existing religious tradition, even if from a newly-emerging
            sub-set, appeals to traditional models/types make very good sense, don't
            they?

            >
            > Actually I would say that faced with these two options I would rather
            > think that the central point was that "Jesus is a figure like
            > Elijah-Elisha."

            I'm happy with that.

            Thanks again.

            Sukie Curtis
            Cumberland Foreside, Maine
          • Daniel Grolin
            Dear Sukie, Thank you for emerging shortly to reply:
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 5, 2001
              Dear Sukie,

              Thank you for emerging shortly to reply:

              <I don't know why people tell miracle stories "in general." And I think
              staying close to the biblical tradition of miracle stories makes more
              sense here than wandering into general miracle world.>

              The problem is that we are so distant from the setting and the people that
              told (or, as Gordon would have it, constructed) these stories that we are
              very hard pressed for the details necessary to develop an explanatory
              model. Looking at contemporary cases presents the best way of developing
              solid models.

              < I'm sure there are plenty of stories in "newly emerged" traditions, but
              for stories/literature emerging from an existing religious tradition, even
              if from a newly-emerging sub-set, appeals to traditional models/types make
              very good sense, don't they?>

              Yes, it does. Now we need more specifics.

              Regards,

              Daniel
            • Karel Hanhart
              ... Dear Sukie and Gordon, In the span of a week some 13 exegetes contributed to the topic of healings and exorcisms in the Gospel. It demonstrates its
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 13, 2001
                Sukie Curtis wrote:

                > Welcome, Gordon! This is response is to both Gordon and Daniel.

                Dear Sukie and Gordon,

                In the span of a week some 13 exegetes contributed to the topic of healings and
                exorcisms in the Gospel. It demonstrates its importance for the interpretation.
                Perhaps Paul van Buren's remark that with the Gospel we are reading "someone
                else's mail" should be emphasized even more strongly. These miracle stories are
                told and read by people grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures that ruled their
                lives.
                I quite agree with Gordon that by distinguishing between nature wonders and
                healing wonders one circumvents the problem of authorial intent. The authors
                never warn the reader, for instance, that the healing of a leper should be
                taken literally and the rebuke of the storm wind and the commanding the sea,
                "Peace. Be still" be taken metaphorically. Every stupendous and contra-natural
                event is described as if it were self evident: a matter of course. Doesn't that
                indicate that all 'miracles' should be taken metaphorically while still grounded
                in history? The Gospels were written primarily for first century Jews (I name
                them Christians Judeans - ioudaioi; I believe that in exegesis one should
                choose an idiom matching the contemporary situation as much as possible). They
                were also written for baptized Gentiles or so-called Godfearers to meet their
                needs and thus reflect their historical circumstances. So may I offer some
                belated remarks?

                > >(Daniel) I think the definition that Crossan uses for miracle is excellent.
                > Now I
                > > want to emphasis that when I use the term miracle in historical discourse
                > > I am not the one who perceives the transcendental, but I do point out that
                > > the source does have this perspective.
                >
                > Yes, I see that. But I also see that a modern historian might reasonably
                > have two or three legitimate areas of exploration: 1) determining the
                > perspective of the source, 2) using social science/cross-cultural
                > anthropology, etc. to best reconstruct what the healing processes might have
                > included in that kind of setting (i.e., knowing Jesus hadn't been to med
                > school),

                I am in support of 1), but I wonder about "the med. school" in 2). For using the
                latter phrase
                one appears to assume that such stories deal with actual physical changes
                witnessed by the bystanders as amazing, contra-natural healings considered to be
                supernatural. Should the
                historical grounding really be based on a literal, stupendous healing that
                defied the laws of nature?
                Would the author in that case have described them in such a brief, matter of
                fact way on a par with walking on water?
                I quite agree with Gordon that by distinguishing between nature wonders and
                healing wonders one circumvents the problem of authorial intent. The authors
                never warn the reader that healing a leper
                (did the sores disappear forthwith?) should be taken literally and rebuking the
                storm wind and commanding the sea, "Peace. Be still" metaphorically. Every
                stupendous and contra-natural event occurs in the Gospel as being self-evident:
                a matter of course. This is true for a "very large stone" that was rolled away
                from a monumental tomb without human hands as for a lame man whom Jesus got back
                on his feet again.
                Most of us are more or less strangers to non-christian Jewish studies but
                many of us would readily agree, I think, that these riddlesome miracle stories
                could best be explained through midrash. For the Gospel writers indeed "went to
                the Hebrew Scriptures". I would also subscribe to Crossan's definition: "a
                miracle is a marvel that someone interprets as a transcendental action or
                manifestation". It is a social act (in its widest sense) attributed to divine
                power. That holds true for the so called impossible deed of Jesus' crossing the
                ":sea" (note that Mark doesn't use the Gr limne = lake) One should ask,
                therefore, to what Scripture this midrash refers. Gordon suggests Gen. 1, but
                why not the 'crossing of the sea of reeds? What is the historical context of the
                story?
                I would suggest that first of all we approach these riddlesome stories
                through 'controlled mudrash'. The exegesis should pass the controls of source-
                and redaction criticism and of rhetorical analysis and of the other hermeneutic
                disciplines. For instance, the exegesis of crossing the sea into Gentile
                territory should reflect, I think, the post-70 circumstances of the adressees.
                The crossing of the sea story is embedded in the structure of Mark's entire
                Gospel beginning with preparing the way of Adonay and ending with going ahead
                into the Galil (ha-goyim). It is a Passover haggadah.
                Because of the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent, complete Roman domination
                of their homeland, the story would assure the reader in the ecclesia, I think,
                that Jesus Messiah is able to be with them in the Spirit even though he too had
                to succumb to a brutal death by the Romans. Thus the Way of Adonay will continue
                although secular reality gave the appearance of having created an impassable
                barrier for such a belief. Thus faith in the resurrection is expressed by means
                of a vivid narrative. It is grounded in history for it reflects the historical
                situation of the author and his addressees Walking on a stormy sea into Gentile
                territory and there healing a demon possessed soldier named Legion has become
                the model for the ecclesia that has just read the Exodus story.
                By using the Gr thalassa the author thus retrojects the post-30
                experiences of the early Christians into the lifetime of Jesus and his
                disciples. The story has thus a double layer - one referring to Jesus' own
                teachings and acts around Lake Kinneret [Sea of Galilee] and the teachings and
                acts of his followers in the diaspora around the Mediterranean Sea. They also
                were called to exorcise evil spirits. Would not the storm be a metaphor for the
                turbulent historical circumstances, that these first readers went through. One
                could paint the scene with two huge fires in the background.. In the winter of
                64-65 a great fire devastated large sections of the city of Rome. The crazy
                caesar Nero found the sect of the Christians guilty, as a kind of scapegoat.
                They were bitterly persecuted. If indeed John Mark had been in Rome at the time
                that event. it must have colored his message. The second fire was the burning
                down of the temple in Jerusalem, centre of learning, culture, and religion. And
                this would have been foremost in his mind. Was perhaps the great appeal, which
                the Gospel apparently had among Judeans and non-Judeans as well, due to the
                longing of many for a humane society and was this longing perhaps grounded in
                their faith in divine justice and mercy?.
                The crossing of the "sea" story would on the one hand reflect the divine
                salvation (a narrow escape from death) of the Exodus story, the addresses had
                read paired with the sure promise of the divine presence in their own future.
                This interpretation would match the story of "Legio", a Graecised Latin word
                for a Roman legion, (which incidentally had their camp in the Decapolis ) and
                the story of the daughter of Jaïrus on this side of "the sea". Read as midrash,
                the name Jaïrus in the latter subsequent story refers the reader to Yaïr of
                ancient days, one of the lesser known judges. The "villages of Yaïr" (f.i. 1 Ki
                4,13) were situated in the region West of Lake Kinneret, as the map of ancient
                geography tells us. The towns were actually called the "villages of Yaïr" and
                that name would be familiar to any Judean from the area, just as in our days
                local people take pride in one of their heroes of the past. The towns were the
                Judean counterparts of the Hellenic Dekapolis.

                > and 3) reconstructing the path of the narrative's creation, as
                > Gordon has done with his imagining the use of Hebrew scriptures, Elijah,
                > Elisha, etc. in the shape and contours of the stories of Jesus' healings. I
                > imagine something like that process Gordon describes to be at work in at
                > least some of the stories and perhaps generally so in all of them. I don't
                > imagine oral stories (if by that you mean oral reports of this or that
                > healing springing from an actual event) being behind the stories we have.
                > But reflecting patterns of "typical healings" I'm more willing to imagine
                > than Gordon.

                Were not - what you call - "typical healings" in reality haggadot illustrating
                prophecies such as in
                Isa 42,18; 43,8; 61,1?

                > > <If social acts can be in some way (and most likely more so than we're apt
                > > to think) healing, esp. of illness and sickness with a social dimension,
                > > and if social acts were probably a significant part of Jesus' activity,
                > > why wouldn't there be a connection between those social acts and healing
                > > stories?>
                > >
                > > I guess what I am missing is a well-monitored example in which we see how
                > > a specific social act (or specific set of social acts) is recounted as a
                > > miracle story. What I am looking for is something analogous to what Esler
                > > does with speaking in tongues in "The First Christians in their Social
                > > Worlds" combined with some oral transmission theory that again has some
                > > empirical studies behind it. What makes a person who sees social action
                > > tell miracle stories? If someone is afflicted with, say, blindness, and
                > > Jesus' teaching of mercy requires the Christian community to take care of
                > > blind (thus socially alleviating the illness) does the community start
                > > telling stories in which the blind becomes seeing? Mark's story about
                > > Bartimaeus is an example of a synthesis of both social aspect and powerful
                > > act.

                The Judean background of these stories (haggadot) could be illustrated with the
                story of
                Bartimaeus. I found the key to the story in the name itself. "Timaios" is not a
                Hebrew, but a Greek name; and Mark's readers, by now used to his ironic style,
                must have registered a signal by the author because this Greek name is prefaced
                by the Aramaic "bar-". Moreover, every intelligent Roman citizen would be
                familiar with Timaios, the title of one of Platos's major works. It is well
                known that Jews like to play with names. So also in the Gospel as in Saul-Paul -
                Cephas-Peter etc Thus the starting point for exegesis (its historical
                grounding) might well be that to Mark certain Judeans, seeking their salvation
                in vain in Greek philosophy, should learn to go the way of the cross. Bartimaeus
                is said to have "followed Jesus on the way" {to the cross}.
                Incidentally, I was struck by the fact that a colleague, the late Bas van
                Iersel, had independently come to the same conclusion about the odd name of
                Bartimaeus. A hypothesis is strengthened by a coincidence of that kind.
                Now the daughter of Jaïrus/Yaïr and bar-Timaeus are the only named persons
                'healed' by Jesus. That personal touch made me think for a long time that some
                kind of physical healing must have been at the historical bottom of the story.
                Midrash taught me otherwise. These very names, that make the story so vivid and
                concrete, turn out to be metaphors for a different historical situation which
                Mark sought to describe in which the Gospel proved to become a 'redeeming'
                factor, a dunamis that altered their lives.
                One last remark. Jesus was not, I think, an exorcist in the dictionary sense of
                the word.
                Mark clearly distinguishes between unclean spirits and demons. He is
                distinguishing, I think,
                between a 'not kosher' way of life causing an unhealthy spirit, not in accord
                with the Torah. and
                a phenomenon in Greek culture that in some sense might be equivalent to the
                biblical
                unclean spirit , namely daimon. One notices his continual battle with words
                trying to find
                a Greek equivalent for expressions in the Hebrew Bible. But the most significant
                aspect
                of the exorcist stories is the fact that Mark defines them as "a teaching":
                "They were all amazed...
                "What is this? A new teaching!" (1,28). He is making clear that he isn't trying
                to portray Jesus as an
                exorcist but is choosing that vocabulary to illustrate the effect of Jesus'
                teaching.

                yours cordially,

                Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...

                >

                >
                >
                > The healing of the leper in Mk. 1 seems to me a good example of a "social
                > act," that is, touching a not-to-be-touched leper, that effects healing.
                > It's even more clearly a socio/religio/political act, as there's the
                > suggestion of a sign against the priests (that this healing happened apart
                > from them). I don't think Jesus' social acts were as simple as teaching
                > mercy/taking care of the blind, as you put it; but ignoring or deliberately
                > crossing social/religious boundaries to touch, include, draw into his
                > community those on the outside. Or even simply to gather folks, who might
                > not normally eat together, to share food at someone's table. And those
                > kinds of acts were profoundly healing acts, precipitating stories or at
                > least the claim that Jesus did deeds of power not unlike Elijah or Elisha.
                >
                > > Except that what I see the evangelist doing is to allegorise the
                > > stories. The point of the stories in their oral stage must (like
                > > parables) be one pointed. The point is "Jesus can help you out of your
                > > current distress".
                >
                > That I don't agree with, neither that a parable must always be one-pointed,
                > not that the healing stories had to be. If they had one point, I'd say it
                > was: "Jesus is a doer of "deeds of power", and as Gordon suggests, if the
                > narrative echoes of Elijah help to make the point, so much the better.
                > [much snipped]
                >
                > >
                > > <"Dunamis" does not ONLY mean miracle, but much more frequently means
                > > simply "power," does it not?>
                > >
                > > I don't know that it is used "much more" as meaning power (I actually
                > > think less, but I haven't checked), however, "power" is certainly within
                > > its semantic field.
                >
                > Well, the concordance I have at home (Young's, keyed to the KJV) lists
                > dunamis used 77 times in the NT (about 25 in the synoptics and Acts) as
                > "power" and only 7 or 8 as "miracle" and another 7 or 8 as "mighty work>"
                >
                > [snipped]
                > >
                > > Yes I would. I don't think aretological narrative is the best genre to
                > > convey Jesus' social activity.
                > >
                > What's "aretological narrative"???
                >
                > Sukie Curtis
                > Cumberland Foreside, Maine
                >
                >
                > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
                >
                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >
                > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
              • tomkirbel@aol.com.au
                I found Karel Hanhart s treatment of the walking on water, the healing of Jairus daughter and the healing of Bartimaus very interesting. On closer
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 14, 2001
                  I found Karel Hanhart's treatment of the walking on water, the healing of
                  Jairus' daughter and the healing of Bartimaus very interesting. On closer
                  examination, however, I think they illustrate exactly the problems I have
                  with "midrash" interpretations in general, and lack of methodological
                  transparency in particular. I hope a brief discussion of why I think this is
                  so can help illustrate my point. Very briefly, my problem with the treatment
                  of the Jairus and Bartimaus stories is that the refferences are too obscure
                  for the treatment to be convincing. On the assumption that "Mark" intended
                  to be understood in "creating" these stories, refferences ought to be easily
                  understandible for his intended audience. The Jairus/villages of Jair
                  refference is unlikely to have been understood outside of Galilee even if
                  Karel's otherwise unsubtantiated speculation that that designation of the
                  villages surrounding Gallilee was used in the 1st century is correct.
                  Likewise, the refference to Plato's dialogue from Bartimaus is too obscure.
                  If "Mark" was inventing a name, why choose the name of that dialogue? Why
                  not some other dialogue, or better yet, some philosopher? Had the blindness
                  of Barsocrates been healed, the exegesis would have been far clearer, both in
                  "Mark"s time and in ours.

                  This does not mean Karel's exigesis is wrong, only that as it stands it is ad
                  hoc and unsubstantiated. The exigesis will remain ad hoc unless Karel can
                  show us evidence of 1st century geographical refferences to the villages of
                  Jair, or patristic commentaries drawing the allegorical interpretation
                  regarding the following of greek philosophy that Karel finds in the Bartimaus
                  story (indirect evidence that "Mark"s intended interpretation was understood
                  in his time), or other related evidence. Until that time, the naive
                  interpretation of these two passages would remain the simplest of the two,
                  and therefore the preffered interpretation on general methodological grounds.

                  Turning to the walking on water, Karel's interpretation is (I think) better
                  subsantiated than Gordon's. At least it has some slight extended parallels
                  in that both Jesus' and Moses' crossing the of the sea are preceded by meals,
                  and both are succeded by an authoritative giving of/ interpretation of the
                  law. But this is the extent of the parallels (that I can determine in
                  english translation). If "Mark" was making a midrash on that theme we would
                  expect the theme to be more thoroughly interwoven into the related passages.
                  Stronger parrallels between passover and the feeding of the five thousand
                  would be drawn (perhaps by a meal of loaves and roast lamb?). The law theme
                  would have been more dominant in uncleaness dispute. Further lexical
                  parralells would also be in evidence (and may be in the original languages
                  for all I know). We would also have expected "Matthew", surely amongst
                  "Marks" intended audience, to have picked up the theme and more appropriatly
                  located the pericope given his known organisational principles.

                  The point of all this is that in this story the midrashic interpretation is
                  again ad hoc. It is not predicted by general theoretical considerations, and
                  generates no new predictions about editorial or lexical features of the text.
                  All that it "explains" are the slight parrallels that suggested the
                  hypothesis in the first place. So again, the naive interpretation, because
                  simpler, is better supported by the textual evidence.

                  In contrast, the story of Jesus calming the sea seems on textual evidence to
                  be a "midrash". The close parrallels between "Mark"s account of this
                  incident and the equivalent story in Jonah are remarkable. The naive
                  interpretation (that the events happened as described, and that "Mark"
                  recorded them without refference to the Jonah story) is in consequence a
                  non-starter because it fails to explain the close parrallels in the accounts.
                  Three other theories might be considered: that the events happened
                  approximatly as recorded and "Mark" relied on Jonah to help structure his
                  story; that the events happened approximately as described, but that Jesus
                  told the disciples (not the waves) to calm down, with the sea calming shortly
                  after by conincidence, and the event was retold as recorded because of
                  exaggeration and the use of Jonah to flesh out details; or no such event
                  happened, but "Mark" (or source) invented the story based on Jonah to tell a
                  theological point.

                  Of these three theories I think the last is better supported by textual
                  evidence. This is primarily (again) on the basis of simplicity because it
                  posits one source (Jonah) whilst the other two posit two sources (an event
                  and Jonah). If we accept the third theory, however, we should incline
                  against the view that "Mark" invented the story. Expected parrallels in
                  bracketing stories do not exist. This suggests that "Mark" found the
                  pericope as an intact story from an earlier period (AD 50-60?). This, in
                  turn, given that Jesus fills the roles of both Jonah and of God in this
                  pericope has interesting implications on the development on christology.

                  None of the three theories is contradicted by, or unreasonable in the face
                  of, the textual evidence in this pericope, so any might be preffered for
                  reasons beyond that textual evidence. We ought, however, to distinguish
                  between the immediate evidence and the more general considerations that
                  persuade us so that those who disagree with us on those more general
                  considerations can still find our research in the particular case usefull.

                  Regards,

                  Tom Curtis



                  In a message dated 2/14/01 11:13:32 E. Australia Standard Time,
                  K.Hanhart@... writes:

                  << Sukie Curtis wrote:

                  > Welcome, Gordon! This is response is to both Gordon and Daniel.

                  Dear Sukie and Gordon,

                  In the span of a week some 13 exegetes contributed to the topic of healings
                  and
                  exorcisms in the Gospel. It demonstrates its importance for the
                  interpretation.
                  Perhaps Paul van Buren's remark that with the Gospel we are reading "someone
                  else's mail" should be emphasized even more strongly. These miracle stories
                  are
                  told and read by people grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures that ruled their
                  lives.
                  I quite agree with Gordon that by distinguishing between nature wonders
                  and
                  healing wonders one circumvents the problem of authorial intent. The authors
                  never warn the reader, for instance, that the healing of a leper should be
                  taken literally and the rebuke of the storm wind and the commanding the sea,
                  "Peace. Be still" be taken metaphorically. Every stupendous and
                  contra-natural
                  event is described as if it were self evident: a matter of course. Doesn't
                  that
                  indicate that all 'miracles' should be taken metaphorically while still
                  grounded
                  in history? The Gospels were written primarily for first century Jews (I
                  name
                  them Christians Judeans - ioudaioi; I believe that in exegesis one should
                  choose an idiom matching the contemporary situation as much as possible).
                  They
                  were also written for baptized Gentiles or so-called Godfearers to meet their
                  needs and thus reflect their historical circumstances. So may I offer some
                  belated remarks?

                  > >(Daniel) I think the definition that Crossan uses for miracle is
                  excellent.
                  > Now I
                  > > want to emphasis that when I use the term miracle in historical discourse
                  > > I am not the one who perceives the transcendental, but I do point out
                  that
                  > > the source does have this perspective.
                  >
                  > Yes, I see that. But I also see that a modern historian might reasonably
                  > have two or three legitimate areas of exploration: 1) determining the
                  > perspective of the source, 2) using social science/cross-cultural
                  > anthropology, etc. to best reconstruct what the healing processes might
                  have
                  > included in that kind of setting (i.e., knowing Jesus hadn't been to med
                  > school),

                  I am in support of 1), but I wonder about "the med. school" in 2). For using
                  the
                  latter phrase
                  one appears to assume that such stories deal with actual physical changes
                  witnessed by the bystanders as amazing, contra-natural healings considered
                  to be
                  supernatural. Should the
                  historical grounding really be based on a literal, stupendous healing that
                  defied the laws of nature?
                  Would the author in that case have described them in such a brief, matter of
                  fact way on a par with walking on water?
                  I quite agree with Gordon that by distinguishing between nature wonders and
                  healing wonders one circumvents the problem of authorial intent. The authors
                  never warn the reader that healing a leper
                  (did the sores disappear forthwith?) should be taken literally and rebuking
                  the
                  storm wind and commanding the sea, "Peace. Be still" metaphorically. Every
                  stupendous and contra-natural event occurs in the Gospel as being
                  self-evident:
                  a matter of course. This is true for a "very large stone" that was rolled
                  away
                  from a monumental tomb without human hands as for a lame man whom Jesus got
                  back
                  on his feet again.
                  Most of us are more or less strangers to non-christian Jewish studies but
                  many of us would readily agree, I think, that these riddlesome miracle
                  stories
                  could best be explained through midrash. For the Gospel writers indeed "went
                  to
                  the Hebrew Scriptures". I would also subscribe to Crossan's definition: "a
                  miracle is a marvel that someone interprets as a transcendental action or
                  manifestation". It is a social act (in its widest sense) attributed to divine
                  power. That holds true for the so called impossible deed of Jesus' crossing
                  the
                  ":sea" (note that Mark doesn't use the Gr limne = lake) One should ask,
                  therefore, to what Scripture this midrash refers. Gordon suggests Gen. 1, but
                  why not the 'crossing of the sea of reeds? What is the historical context of
                  the
                  story?
                  I would suggest that first of all we approach these riddlesome stories
                  through 'controlled mudrash'. The exegesis should pass the controls of
                  source-
                  and redaction criticism and of rhetorical analysis and of the other
                  hermeneutic
                  disciplines. For instance, the exegesis of crossing the sea into Gentile
                  territory should reflect, I think, the post-70 circumstances of the
                  adressees.
                  The crossing of the sea story is embedded in the structure of Mark's entire
                  Gospel beginning with preparing the way of Adonay and ending with going
                  ahead
                  into the Galil (ha-goyim). It is a Passover haggadah.
                  Because of the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent, complete Roman
                  domination
                  of their homeland, the story would assure the reader in the ecclesia, I
                  think,
                  that Jesus Messiah is able to be with them in the Spirit even though he too
                  had
                  to succumb to a brutal death by the Romans. Thus the Way of Adonay will
                  continue
                  although secular reality gave the appearance of having created an impassable
                  barrier for such a belief. Thus faith in the resurrection is expressed by
                  means
                  of a vivid narrative. It is grounded in history for it reflects the
                  historical
                  situation of the author and his addressees Walking on a stormy sea into
                  Gentile
                  territory and there healing a demon possessed soldier named Legion has become
                  the model for the ecclesia that has just read the Exodus story.
                  By using the Gr thalassa the author thus retrojects the post-30
                  experiences of the early Christians into the lifetime of Jesus and his
                  disciples. The story has thus a double layer - one referring to Jesus' own
                  teachings and acts around Lake Kinneret [Sea of Galilee] and the teachings
                  and
                  acts of his followers in the diaspora around the Mediterranean Sea. They also
                  were called to exorcise evil spirits. Would not the storm be a metaphor for
                  the
                  turbulent historical circumstances, that these first readers went through.
                  One
                  could paint the scene with two huge fires in the background.. In the winter
                  of
                  64-65 a great fire devastated large sections of the city of Rome. The crazy
                  caesar Nero found the sect of the Christians guilty, as a kind of scapegoat.
                  They were bitterly persecuted. If indeed John Mark had been in Rome at the
                  time
                  that event. it must have colored his message. The second fire was the burning
                  down of the temple in Jerusalem, centre of learning, culture, and religion.
                  And
                  this would have been foremost in his mind. Was perhaps the great appeal,
                  which
                  the Gospel apparently had among Judeans and non-Judeans as well, due to the
                  longing of many for a humane society and was this longing perhaps grounded in
                  their faith in divine justice and mercy?.
                  The crossing of the "sea" story would on the one hand reflect the divine
                  salvation (a narrow escape from death) of the Exodus story, the addresses had
                  read paired with the sure promise of the divine presence in their own
                  future.
                  This interpretation would match the story of "Legio", a Graecised Latin
                  word
                  for a Roman legion, (which incidentally had their camp in the Decapolis ) and
                  the story of the daughter of Jaïrus on this side of "the sea". Read as
                  midrash,
                  the name Jaïrus in the latter subsequent story refers the reader to Yaïr of
                  ancient days, one of the lesser known judges. The "villages of Yaïr" (f.i. 1
                  Ki
                  4,13) were situated in the region West of Lake Kinneret, as the map of
                  ancient
                  geography tells us. The towns were actually called the "villages of Yaïr" and
                  that name would be familiar to any Judean from the area, just as in our days
                  local people take pride in one of their heroes of the past. The towns were
                  the
                  Judean counterparts of the Hellenic Dekapolis.

                  > and 3) reconstructing the path of the narrative's creation, as
                  > Gordon has done with his imagining the use of Hebrew scriptures, Elijah,
                  > Elisha, etc. in the shape and contours of the stories of Jesus' healings.
                  I
                  > imagine something like that process Gordon describes to be at work in at
                  > least some of the stories and perhaps generally so in all of them. I don't
                  > imagine oral stories (if by that you mean oral reports of this or that
                  > healing springing from an actual event) being behind the stories we have.
                  > But reflecting patterns of "typical healings" I'm more willing to imagine
                  > than Gordon.

                  Were not - what you call - "typical healings" in reality haggadot
                  illustrating
                  prophecies such as in
                  Isa 42,18; 43,8; 61,1?

                  > > <If social acts can be in some way (and most likely more so than we're
                  apt
                  > > to think) healing, esp. of illness and sickness with a social dimension,
                  > > and if social acts were probably a significant part of Jesus' activity,
                  > > why wouldn't there be a connection between those social acts and healing
                  > > stories?>
                  > >
                  > > I guess what I am missing is a well-monitored example in which we see how
                  > > a specific social act (or specific set of social acts) is recounted as a
                  > > miracle story. What I am looking for is something analogous to what Esler
                  > > does with speaking in tongues in "The First Christians in their Social
                  > > Worlds" combined with some oral transmission theory that again has some
                  > > empirical studies behind it. What makes a person who sees social action
                  > > tell miracle stories? If someone is afflicted with, say, blindness, and
                  > > Jesus' teaching of mercy requires the Christian community to take care of
                  > > blind (thus socially alleviating the illness) does the community start
                  > > telling stories in which the blind becomes seeing? Mark's story about
                  > > Bartimaeus is an example of a synthesis of both social aspect and
                  powerful
                  > > act.

                  The Judean background of these stories (haggadot) could be illustrated with
                  the
                  story of
                  Bartimaeus. I found the key to the story in the name itself. "Timaios" is
                  not a
                  Hebrew, but a Greek name; and Mark's readers, by now used to his ironic
                  style,
                  must have registered a signal by the author because this Greek name is
                  prefaced
                  by the Aramaic "bar-". Moreover, every intelligent Roman citizen would be
                  familiar with Timaios, the title of one of Platos's major works. It is well
                  known that Jews like to play with names. So also in the Gospel as in
                  Saul-Paul -
                  Cephas-Peter etc Thus the starting point for exegesis (its historical
                  grounding) might well be that to Mark certain Judeans, seeking their
                  salvation
                  in vain in Greek philosophy, should learn to go the way of the cross.
                  Bartimaeus
                  is said to have "followed Jesus on the way" {to the cross}.
                  Incide
                • Karel Hanhart
                  Dear Tom, Thank you for your reply. Let me preface your comments by stating that I recently joined X-talk but contributed to the L-Synoptic list. I referred
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 15, 2001
                    Dear Tom,

                    Thank you for your reply. Let me preface your comments by stating that I recently
                    joined
                    X-talk but contributed to the L-Synoptic list. I referred there to my study of
                    Mark, The Open Tomb - a New Approach. Mark's Passover Haggadah (± 72 CE),
                    Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN
                    USA. Re: my methodology I would refer you to that publication.

                    tomkirbel@... wrote:

                    > I found Karel Hanhart's treatment of the walking on water, the healing of
                    > Jairus' daughter and the healing of Bartimaus very interesting. On closer
                    > examination, however, I think they illustrate exactly the problems I have
                    > with "midrash" interpretations in general, and lack of methodological
                    > transparency in particular.

                    You are quite right. One must first study the phenomenon of midrash
                    in order to try to apply this kind of approach to Scripture. I also would
                    like to repeat that we should pursue "controlled midrash". The exegesis should
                    pass the controls of
                    source- and redaction criticism and of rhetorical analysis and of the other
                    hermeneutic methods to revover the original meaning in as far as that is possible.

                    > Very briefly, my problem with the treatment
                    > of the Jairus and Bartimaus stories is that the refferences are too obscure
                    > for the treatment to be convincing.

                    Why obscure? The religious, cultural and political situation of these small
                    Judean
                    towns and villages in the region with the biblical name "villages of Yaïr" was
                    precarious surrounded as they were by the Ten Cities in which Hellenic culture
                    where 'foreign' religions were practiced and enemy forces were encamped.

                    > On the assumption that "Mark" intended to be understood in "creating" these

                    > stories, refferences ought to be easily
                    > understandible for his intended audience.

                    It is my assumption that Mark did not write for the general public but for
                    the celebration of Pesach by the early Christians. The stories were read
                    for the worshipers, children and adults, the uneducated and the literate.
                    Like all the stories in Scriptures they were told in a vivid manner that children
                    could easily understand. But the local presbyter would be the person to
                    interpret the metaphors in the stories. Names like Jaïrus and Bartimaeus
                    signaled the educated reader to search for the deeper meaning of the
                    story.

                    The Jairus/villages of Jair

                    > refference is unlikely to have been understood outside of Galilee even if
                    > Karel's otherwise unsubtantiated speculation that that designation of the
                    > villages surrounding Gallilee was used in the 1st century is correct.

                    One rule I followed is that in midrash one searches first of all for a reference
                    to the
                    Hebrew Scripture that would apply to the text. In this case the "villages of Yaïr"

                    would fit the requirement of the name (Gr Iaïros) would match the Hebrew Yaïr
                    the two regions would match and a Roman legion was indeed located in the
                    Decapolis.

                    > Likewise, the refference to Plato's dialogue from Bartimaus is too obscure.
                    > If "Mark" was inventing a name, why choose the name of that dialogue?

                    The "Timaios" was a well known, much debated and authoritative work by Plato.
                    Both the author of Mark and at least some of his bi-lingual readers were educated
                    in the Greek language and in rhetoric. Plato's works were read and studied in
                    the grammar schools.

                    > Turning to the walking on water, Karel's interpretation is (I think) better
                    > subsantiated than Gordon's. At least it has some slight extended parallels
                    > in that both Jesus' and Moses' crossing the of the sea are preceded by meals,
                    > and both are succeded by an authoritative giving of/ interpretation of the
                    > law.

                    In your reply you do allow for midrashic references to Scripture; to the
                    Exodus story and to Jonah. I wonder if you still want differentiate between
                    healings with at its core should be taken literally and so-called nature
                    miracles which alone may .be interpreted as metaphors?.

                    > But this is the extent of the parallels (that I can determine in
                    > english translation). If "Mark" was making a midrash on that theme we would
                    > expect the theme to be more thoroughly interwoven into the related passages.
                    > Stronger parrallels between passover and the feeding of the five thousand
                    > would be drawn (perhaps by a meal of loaves and roast lamb?). The law theme
                    > would have been more dominant in uncleaness dispute. Further lexical
                    > parralells would also be in evidence (and may be in the original languages
                    > for all I know). We would also have expected "Matthew", surely amongst
                    > "Marks" intended audience, to have picked up the theme and more appropriatly
                    > located the pericope given his known organisational principles.
                    >
                    > The point of all this is that in this story the midrashic interpretation is
                    > again ad hoc. It is not predicted by general theoretical considerations, and
                    > generates no new predictions about editorial or lexical features of the text.
                    > All that it "explains" are the slight parrallels that suggested the
                    > hypothesis in the first place. So again, the naive interpretation, because
                    > simpler, is better supported by the textual evidence.

                    The stories appear naive because they were intended also and first of
                    all for the children in the congregation. As such they can still
                    validly be taught to children. Our problem is the interpretation and application
                    by adults.

                    I hope this has clarified my exegesis somewhat.

                    your
                    Karel K.Hanhart@...
                  • tomkirbel@aol.com.au
                    Karel, thankyou also for your reply. Obviously I am unable to make detailed comment on your theory until I have read your book (which unfortunatly I will not
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 15, 2001
                      Karel, thankyou also for your reply. Obviously I am unable to make detailed
                      comment on your theory until I have read your book (which unfortunatly I will
                      not be able to do in the near future). I commented on your interpretation
                      not to specificly criticise it, but to use it as an example of how I think
                      research ought to be done on methodological grounds. I did this as part of
                      my debate with Antonio Jerez. Though I reffered to your interpretations as
                      ad hoc, obviously I do not know without reading your book whether that is a
                      fair description.

                      For the record, I also do not think there are goood grounds in method for
                      treating healing and nature miracles distinctly. Given the possibility of
                      "psycho-somatic cures" there may be good ground in fact, but we should find
                      evidence of that in our sources without introducing it as a methodological
                      assumption. Of course, and this is the nub of my debate with Antonio, I
                      don't think we should exclude the possibility of miracles happening as a
                      methodological assumption. We should instead find the evidence in our
                      sources that they did not (or, if that is the case, that they did).

                      I am debating Antonio on this point because I think that using methodological
                      naturalism: 1) can result in a failure to properly test theories against
                      evidence; 2) alienates from the debate people who have a legitimate interest
                      in that debate; and 3) for those (such as myself) for whom theism is still a
                      live option, it precludes the evidence generated from being used as a test of
                      theism.

                      With regard to your theory, a test I would very like to see is the extent to
                      which your midrashes survive (as allegorical interpretations) in commentaries
                      by the early church fathers. Your theory, if I understand you, posits a
                      tradition amongst presbyters which allows them to supply the "adult"
                      interpretation. Such a tradition would, all else being equal, survive and be
                      transmuted into allegorical interpretation, and the survival of such a
                      tradition can be tested for. If you have already examined this possibility,
                      I would be very interested to know the results.

                      Thankyou again,

                      Tom Curtis
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      ... As an ecumenically oriented pastor/theologian I am also approaching the Gospel from a faith perspective I believe the haggadot (stories) in the Hebrew
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 20, 2001
                        tomkirbel@... wrote:

                        > Karel, thankyou also for your reply. Obviously I am unable to make detailed
                        > comment on your theory until I have read your book (which unfortunatly I will
                        > not be able to do in the near future). I commented on your interpretation
                        > not to specificly criticise it, but to use it as an example of how I think
                        > research ought to be done on methodological grounds. I did this as part of
                        > my debate with Antonio Jerez. Though I reffered to your interpretations as
                        > ad hoc, obviously I do not know without reading your book whether that is a
                        > fair description.
                        >
                        > For the record, I also do not think there are goood grounds in method for
                        > treating healing and nature miracles distinctly. Given the possibility of
                        > "psycho-somatic cures" there may be good ground in fact, but we should find
                        > evidence of that in our sources without introducing it as a methodological
                        > assumption. Of course, and this is the nub of my debate with Antonio, I
                        > don't think we should exclude the possibility of miracles happening as a
                        > methodological assumption. We should instead find the evidence in our
                        > sources that they did not (or, if that is the case, that they did).
                        >
                        > I am debating Antonio on this point because I think that using methodological
                        > naturalism: 1) can result in a failure to properly test theories against
                        > evidence; 2) alienates from the debate people who have a legitimate interest
                        > in that debate; and 3) for those (such as myself) for whom theism is still a
                        > live option, it precludes the evidence generated from being used as a test of
                        > theism.

                        As an ecumenically oriented pastor/theologian I am also approaching the Gospel
                        from a faith perspective I believe the haggadot (stories) in the Hebrew Bible
                        and in the Gospels
                        are meant to point to the working of the Spirit through a surprising and
                        arresting 'miraculous' narrative which the author didnot intend to be taken
                        literally. He rather would want his readers to awaken their faith in the working
                        of the Spirit (in the case of the Gospels through Jesus).in certain situations
                        (e.g. the relation of Judeans and Samaritans).
                        Risking a modern modern example: I would regard a sudden peaceful solution to the
                        conflict in the
                        Middle East to be a miracle; but I would not regard a story about a sudden and
                        mysterious rebuilding of the Temple on Mt Zion or the sudden appearance of
                        Mohammed on that site to be a miracle story.
                        .

                        > With regard to your theory, a test I would very like to see is the extent to
                        > which your midrashes survive (as allegorical interpretations) in commentaries
                        > by the early church fathers.

                        An allegory is something quite different from a midrash even though a midrash can
                        be an allegory.
                        The 'changing from water into wine' f.i. is in my view both a midrash and an
                        allegory.

                        The problem with the evidence from the Fathers is the fact that they were not
                        Jews. By then the
                        fall of Jerusalem was approached in an anti-judaic manner, as punishment by God.
                        To John Mark
                        and his Judean readers. The Roman conquest and the destruction of the temple was
                        a disaster that had come over them as over all Judeans that cried out for a
                        theodice. The open tomb ending was Mark's answer. To the Fathers the destruction
                        of the temple did not touch them existentially. To them it was 'simply' a divine
                        confirmation of their christology and ecclesiology, which was denied in the
                        synagogue. The anti-judaism of the Church Fathers has come to the fore in many
                        publications and need not be repeated here. In my book I demonstrated
                        confirmation of my midrashic exegesis of the open tomb in the Epistle of
                        Barnabas..
                        yours cordially,


                        Karel
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... Now, to be sure, Anderson and Stark are referring to the hoi polloi, not the Fathers. Nevertheless, it seems to me like you have turned significant border
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 20, 2001
                          At 04:26 PM 2/20/01 +0100, Karel Hanhart wrote:

                          >...The problem with the evidence from the Fathers is the fact that they
                          >were not Jews. By then the fall of Jerusalem was approached in an
                          >anti-judaic manner, as punishment by God. To John Mark and his Judean
                          >readers. The Roman conquest and the destruction of the temple was a
                          >disaster that had come over them as over all Judeans that cried out for a
                          >theodice. The open tomb ending was Mark's answer. To the Fathers the
                          >destruction of the temple did not touch them existentially. To them it was
                          >'simply' a divine
                          >confirmation of their christology and ecclesiology, which was denied in
                          >the synagogue. The anti-judaism of the Church Fathers has come to the fore
                          >in many publications and need not be repeated here. ...

                          Well, I'm not so sure. Richard Anderson wrote on another list:

                          >In my paper Rodney Stark and the Ending of Acts, available on my web page,
                          >I stated:
                          >Rodney Stark, using his solid background in the sociology of religion, has
                          >shown that the mission to the Jews probably succeeded.(3) Furthermore, the
                          >principle of cultural continuity and the principle that 'Social movement
                          >grow much faster when they spread through social network'(4) does provide a
                          >partial explanation for the explosive growth of Christianity. The network
                          >growth rate exhibited by Christianity has been confirmed by the Mormon
                          >example.(5) Stark has shown that 'Christianity offered twice as much
                          >cultural continuity to the Hellenized Jews as to Gentiles.'(6) Stark stated,
                          >and his conclusion is well documented, 'that not only was it the Jews of the
                          >diaspora who provided the initial basis for the church growth during the
                          >first and early second centuries, but that Jews continued as a significant
                          >source of Christian converts until at least as late as the fourth century
                          >and that Jewish Christianity was still significant in the fifth century.'(7)
                          >fn3: Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, (Princeton 1996), 49-71.
                          >fn4: Stark, 55.
                          >fn5: Stark, 18, 56.
                          >fn6: Stark, 59.
                          >fn6: Stark, 49.
                          >Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God said that there were significant intercultural
                          >border crossings between Christianity and Judaism up until the 5th century
                          >essentially agreeing with Rodney Stark without mentioning him and using
                          >different data.
                          >However, I think you would need to read Danielou, The Theology of Jewish
                          >Christianity, and other works on Jewish Christianity to obtain answers to
                          >some of your specific questions....
                          >
                          >Richard H. Anderson
                          >Wallingford PA
                          >http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

                          Now, to be sure, Anderson and Stark are referring to the hoi polloi, not
                          the Fathers. Nevertheless, it seems to me like you have turned "significant
                          border crossings" into a chasm, and have thereby have perhaps exaggerated
                          the differences.

                          Bob
                          Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                          Northern Arizona University
                          Flagstaff, AZ


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.