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

RE: [XTalk] Miracles and modern historians

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Feb 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 30 , Feb 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 30 , Feb 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 30 , Feb 13, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 30 , Feb 14, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 30 , Feb 15, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 30 , Feb 15, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 30 , Feb 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 30 , Feb 20, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.