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

Re: Healing Stories

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Bob, I am in a rush again this a.m., but thank you for the chat and just a few remarks: 1. I am not undone if Jesus was an exorcist/ healer, I simply remain
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 5 6:55 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,

      I am in a rush again this a.m., but thank you for the chat and just a
      few remarks:

      1. I am not undone if Jesus was an exorcist/ healer, I simply remain
      unconvinced that the data base you cite from the Jesus Seminar consensus
      gives historical evidence for that.
      2. Pardon my knowledge or lack thereof of email protocols, but CAPS are
      not meant as shouting but for emphasis sake. I'm only a year and a half
      old emailer... and all the conventions are not clear to me.
      3. Hal Taussig, a Jesus Seminar Fellow, writes of just a brief overview
      of his disagreement with the JS consensus, Crossan and Borg in "Jesus
      Before God." This very brief sketch will not provide the detail you are
      seeking in accounting a review of the relevant text, but his
      introduction in this thought provoking work does sketch out his overall
      portrait of Jesus and addresses the issue of healing. Just one note
      from pg. 31 that is only a summary statement: "I do not think that Jesus
      was one of those healers. The anthropological studies about these
      healers show that they are not teachers." His proposal and mine, too,
      is that this is a modest proposal.
      4. Last evening I reviewed one rendition of the first layer of Q (in
      Burton Mack's volume on Q) and the beginning of Mark up through where
      the 12 are formed in Chapter 3. If you at all accept something like Q1
      as Mack proposes, there are no healing stories in this layer of
      tradition. There is "the mission statement," but I find actually
      helpful the general way Mack translates the interaction with those who
      are ill. It is a "tending to" language. (I will understand if you
      think that both of these points are not acceptable to you, but I regard
      them as both important. Taussig will say that there were healers and
      exorcists among the earliest followers, but that we simply do not have
      evidence that Jesus was an exorcist/ healer.) In the later layers of Q
      we do get healing stories. The one that comes first is the one that
      comes after the opening sermon where Jesus is confronted by a Roman
      centurion on behalf of a favorite servant. There is dialogue and then
      Jesus upon hearing "the faith testimony" WITH A WORD (emphasis) says to
      go because he has been healed. This story is a fine example of the
      Kingdom Power that Jesus commands.

      As we move into Mark... we see the same. Notably in the first exorcism
      "the key character" (so to speak) is the demon who knows Jesus' real
      identity. The context in the synagogue is over authority... and Jesus
      has authority as do not the Scribes. The exorcism dramatizes this. The
      stories that follow line up in similar fashion. The Peter's house/
      mother-in-law story is about "localizing the mission" and Petrine
      position. The healing is with just saying "get up." And on as these
      first stories go... it is noted that persons and demons "are to hush
      up!" This all fits beautifully with one of Canonical Mark's theological
      motifs... the dawning of the KOG and the necessity of keeping "the
      Messianic Secret" until all is revealed. Beautiful theology and I like
      it! But history, I must conclude, "no."

      I must run now, but we can also get into the art of midrash more fully.
      For now I again just ask you to think about the way I spoke of it...
      Direct working out of specific stories, Prophetic Fulfillment that
      dramatizes how Jesus fulfilled the prophets of old, and General/ or
      Broad Theological Fulfillment where theological and/ or ethical themes
      from the Hebrew Scriptures are dramatized with Wonder Stories. I
      understand all of this in terms of what can be called the Midrashic
      Imagination. Such functions by reflecting on received tradition...
      connecting it to HJ... and dramatizing that in narrative form.

      Well must run...

      Gordon
    • Sukie Curtis
      ... I like your thought experiment! Even for someone like me, who s a skeptic and a rationalist to my only slightly less skeptical/rational husband, it
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 5 7:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Nichael Cramer wrote:

        > I would propose a thought experiment: Suppose we were to
        > take precisely these arguments for the historicity of these
        > events, unchanged except for one small detail; namely that
        > we simply replace the name "Jesus" with the name, say,
        > "Claudius". To what extent would we be expected to
        > accept these stories as "historical"?

        I like your thought experiment! Even for someone like me, who's a "skeptic
        and a rationalist" to my only slightly less skeptical/rational husband, it
        FEELS different to change the name; it registers differently, particularly
        with someone not usually thought of as a "religious figure" or "holy
        person."

        I have gone back and reread the chapter of Crossan's _The Historical JEsus_
        on "Magician and Prophet" and have been reminded of the chasm that separates
        me and my mindset/culture, etc. from cultures where magician-healers are an
        everyday assumption (although I suppose I'm reminded of some vestiges of
        that mindset in our own day when people make half-jokes about my hoped-for
        influence, as a "religious official," on the weather or the outcome of
        events). I find it fascinating, yet know I'm continually hindered by not
        being able to shed my skin, so to speak, in order to enter more fully that
        other world.

        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
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Liz Fried
        Dear All, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the Evangelists and the early church *assumed* that Jesus healed and cast-off demons. He would have had to
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 5 7:59 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear All,
          I think it is reasonable to suppose that the Evangelists and the
          early church *assumed* that Jesus healed and cast-off demons.
          He would have had to do all those thing to demonstrate any sort of
          link with God. (It is the same today with Sai Baba, a Hindu guru.)
          However, how can we in the 21st century believe he really did these things
          except by magic tricks or hypnosis -- in the same way that Sai Baba does?
          Reading Mark, it's as if the whole world had Turette's disease.
          Turette's disease is not cured by hypnosis except only temporarily.

          To site as evidence the existence of multiple independent attestations only
          indicates
          how ingrained the belief was, and how important it was to his followers.
          It does not indicate anything about a real human being.

          Liz
        • Nichael Cramer
          ... I understand this, but it still seems difficult not to see a special status being granted. Allow me to ... In light of this let me rephrase my question:
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 5 8:05 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob Schacht wrote:
            >This is not the issue at all; indeed, the Jesus seminar would take offense
            >at your suggestion that they had granted any special status to the Gospels
            >at all. For the sake of discussion, neither do I. Indeed, it is one of
            >their most basic articles of critical scholarship that the Gospels are
            >*not* to be accorded any special status.

            I understand this, but it still seems difficult not
            to see a "special status" being granted. Allow me to
            refer to your earlier posting:

            > It is completely unacceptable methodology,
            >IMHO, to *assume* a priori that every incident presented as scripture
            >fulfillment is ipso facto *merely* a literary invention copying from the
            >scriptural model. Your opening sentences seem to suggest such a blanket
            >conclusion.

            In light of this let me rephrase my question:

            For what other ancient text would we consider it acceptable
            historical methodology to begin by assuming that a report of
            a supernatural event were anything except a "literary invention"?

            > ... I would urge you to become familiar, at
            >your first opportunity, with both The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus,
            >and you will see what I mean.

            Actually I am quite familar with both these texts.

            Nichael


            Mr Anarchic Eel
            nichael@...
            http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
          • Antonio Jerez
            ... Though I have often had arguments in the past with Bob Schacht about the historical veracity of many parts of the NT, I feel sympathy for his positition on
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 5 1:43 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Nichael Cramer wrote:

              > In light of this let me rephrase my question:
              >
              > For what other ancient text would we consider it acceptable
              > historical methodology to begin by assuming that a report of
              > a supernatural event were anything except a "literary invention"?

              Though I have often had arguments in the past with Bob Schacht about the
              historical veracity of many parts of the NT, I feel sympathy for his positition
              on this particular matter. I agree that Gordon Raynal's claim that ALL healing
              and miracle stories are pure metaphorical midrash without any grounding in
              any historical happening is simplistic in the extreme. Gordon is on the right track
              when it comes to the nature miracles - like Jesus walking on water and stilling the
              storm - but out on a limb when talking about the exorcism stories.
              Nichael Cramer asks a rather strange question. I am not a Christian, do not believe
              in the supernatural and study the the gospels as a secular historian. A historian does
              not rule out beforehand a report from an ancient text that that contains supernatural
              elements as a total literary invention. Nichael is also being extremely simplistic. The fact
              that a healing story like Mark 1:21-28 mentions a man being possessed by demons does
              not automatically mean that the historical Jesus could not have had a real encounter with
              a man which he and his firstcentury BELIEVED was demonpossessed Just because we
              moderns don't give a certain event the same interpretation that the ancients did does not
              mean that the event doesn't have anything historical over it at all.
              That said I must admit that the miracle stories in the gospels are often treated with a
              seriousness that is often laughable by the kind of pseudohistorians that are all too common
              in the exegetical guild. Why even bother to try to argue for anything historical behind a story
              like Jesus walking on water or the raising of Lazarus? Still we find scholar after scholar in
              commentary after commentary going to ridiculous lengths to argue that there may be something
              behind the event after all. The last time I had this unpleasant experience was when reading Craig
              Keener's recent commentary on Matthew. Here he digs up dozens of litterary parallels from ancient
              litterature about people walking miraculously on water and the man still doesn't want to admit that
              we are dealing with pure metaphorical "midrash". That said, though I was often angered by the
              dumbness of many of Keeners arguments, I must recommend his commentary because it is a goldmine
              for anybody interested in finding out about the literary parallels in pagan and jewish litterature to the
              gospel stories.

              Best wishes

              Antonio Jerez
              Göteborg, Sweden
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... I m afraid you two might be talking past each other. Bob is talking about prophecy historicized ; Nichael is talking about supernatural events. These
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 5 5:09 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 11:05 AM 2/5/01 -0500, Nichael Cramer wrote:
                >Bob Schacht wrote:
                >> It is completely unacceptable methodology,
                >>IMHO, to *assume* a priori that every incident presented as scripture
                >>fulfillment is ipso facto *merely* a literary invention copying from the
                >>scriptural model. Your opening sentences seem to suggest such a blanket
                >>conclusion.
                >
                >In light of this let me rephrase my question:
                >
                >For what other ancient text would we consider it acceptable
                >historical methodology to begin by assuming that a report of
                >a supernatural event were anything except a "literary invention"?

                I'm afraid you two might be talking past each other. Bob is
                talking about "prophecy historicized"; Nichael is talking
                about supernatural events. These two categories are not
                co-terminous and, in fact, include many different episodes.
                For example, Jesus's riding on a donkey into Jerusalem is
                not a supernatural event, but a good candidate for prophecy
                historicized.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
              • Bob Schacht
                ... You are still confusing the specifics of the event with the interpretation of the event, something that the Jesus Seminar is careful to avoid. To take the
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 5 9:32 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:05 AM 2/5/01 -0500, Nichael Cramer wrote:
                  >...In light of this let me rephrase my question:
                  >
                  >For what other ancient text would we consider it acceptable
                  >historical methodology to begin by assuming that a report of
                  >a supernatural event were anything except a "literary invention"?

                  You are still confusing the specifics of the event with the interpretation
                  of the event, something that the Jesus Seminar is careful to avoid. To take
                  the example I gave of Mark 5:25, I quoted the JSem as follows:
                  "There was a woman who suffered from vaginal hemorrhaging. She touched
                  Jesus' cloak and the bleeding stopped instantly."

                  Note well that the Jesus Seminar is not claiming that Jesus performed a
                  miracle. In fact, they are not claiming that Jesus did anything at all. In
                  fact, there is nothing supernatural about this account, in the bare bones
                  JSem phrasing of the historical core of the event. The supernatural part
                  comes in the *interpretation* of the bare facts. You, apparently, cannot
                  help but *read into* the account something supernatural.

                  So in general the claim for historicity of these passages is merely this:
                  something happened, and it was interpreted as a miracle (or a healing, or a
                  sign, or whatever other word of interpretation). There is nothing
                  supernatural about this claim for historicity. Both (what was observed,
                  what people said) are historically accessible data that are the routine
                  stuff of ancient history. Whether the interpretation imposed on the
                  observations was correct or not is quite another matter.

                  > > ... I would urge you to become familiar, at
                  > >your first opportunity, with both The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus,
                  > >and you will see what I mean.
                  >
                  >Actually I am quite familar with both these texts.

                  You may possess both these texts, but you do not seem to have read them
                  very closely. The JSem is very careful about its choice of words in the
                  historical claims it makes. I urge you to take another look.

                  Best regards,
                  Bob




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Gordon Raynal
                  Antonio, The important word in this post is could. Of course the healing wonder stories could suggest that Jesus was a healer. And as I noted yesterday
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 6 5:11 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Antonio,

                    The important word in this post is "could." Of course the healing
                    wonder stories "could" suggest that Jesus was a healer. And as I noted
                    yesterday I'm not an unhappy person if this is true. But the stories of
                    healings and exorcisms do not come to us as "touched up" (to use
                    photographic technique language) stories. They come as wonder stories
                    whose purpose is theological. In the case of this pericope the demon(s)
                    know who Jesus really is... the crowds get that he teaches with an
                    authority unlike those of religious establishment... the demon knows
                    that truth and from whence the authority comes! Now behind this "could"
                    be an exorcism that the story telling tradition changed to proclaim
                    theology, but exactly how by historical methodology can you make that
                    judgment? Again, as a Christian, I have no problem with this story as a
                    beautiful example of theological proclamation... the ancient form of
                    dramatizing the parabler Jesus become the PARABLE OF GOD. This, like
                    all these stories, is rich fodder for theological reflection. It fits
                    into Mark's theological framework and it forms an important part of the
                    whole witness. But this story does not get me any closer than "could,"
                    and if you will read Taussig's little introduction he will suggest why
                    that "could," to use Jesus Seminar lingo, deserves "a Gray bead," in my book.

                    Beyond this, I find fascinating the move to define the illnesses cited
                    in post Freudian "psycho-somatic terms," then proceed to delve into how
                    Jesus was an effective healer of these sorts of illnesses. This is
                    surely a fascinating modern preoccupation! Having spent over a decade
                    working in a psychiatric unit at a teaching medical university and
                    having worked with patients who have "conversion disorders," and yes,
                    having seen blindness, lameness overcome and such as rashes relieved...
                    those who truly fit the diagnostic standards for a conversion disorder
                    are very complex cases. The actual recovery is not instantaneous
                    (symptom relief sometimes is, yes, but not serious recovery) and I never
                    saw an actual case be relieved without psychotropic medications and then
                    serious and long term follow-up. To be sure... I imagine that being in
                    the presence of wise, justice and peace loving Jesus was "healing" in
                    the broad sense of that. The long term effects of being involved in a
                    reconciliation movement surely had positive psychological effects. And
                    Paul lets us know that healers became associated with this movement.
                    But all of this is a quite different historical claim than we are dealt
                    with the kind of "could have" argument presented here. Suggesting a
                    supposition is one thing, making a historical claim requires evidence.
                    What we get from the ancient world, obviously, are not medical records.
                    What we get... and they are of a kind... (these are consistent stories
                    in that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Son of the Father who has
                    inaugurated the eschatological age of the Kingdom). With that comes
                    nature and healing (and actually, of course, healing is "natural"/ has
                    to do with nature!) wonders that signify this happening. Before this in
                    Israel's scriptures WE ARE TOLD that this is part of what God does and
                    therefore the Evangelists as they did for birth, baptism, temptation,
                    teachings, passion, death, resurrection and glorification... went to the
                    Scriptures to elucidate this proclamation. And to say the least this
                    has remained an amazing form of religious communication. The consistent
                    testimony across the texts... just to borrow Paul's affirmation in II
                    Cor. 5... is that in Jesus a community of reconciliation was founded.
                    Now I like to employ "healing metaphors" for the effect of this! And
                    when I look at Jesus' parables what I find is a story of a Samaritan who
                    tends and makes for the possibility of recovery. So if we want to talk
                    about the real healing that Jesus helped effect, that is where I suggest
                    we start!

                    Gordon Raynal
                    Inman, SC



                    Antonio Jerez wrote:
                    >
                    > Nichael Cramer wrote:
                    >
                    > > In light of this let me rephrase my question:
                    > >
                    > > For what other ancient text would we consider it acceptable
                    > > historical methodology to begin by assuming that a report of
                    > > a supernatural event were anything except a "literary invention"?
                    >
                    > Though I have often had arguments in the past with Bob Schacht about the
                    > historical veracity of many parts of the NT, I feel sympathy for his positition
                    > on this particular matter. I agree that Gordon Raynal's claim that ALL healing
                    > and miracle stories are pure metaphorical midrash without any grounding in
                    > any historical happening is simplistic in the extreme. Gordon is on the right track
                    > when it comes to the nature miracles - like Jesus walking on water and stilling the
                    > storm - but out on a limb when talking about the exorcism stories.
                    > Nichael Cramer asks a rather strange question. I am not a Christian, do not believe
                    > in the supernatural and study the the gospels as a secular historian. A historian does
                    > not rule out beforehand a report from an ancient text that that contains supernatural
                    > elements as a total literary invention. Nichael is also being extremely simplistic. The fact
                    > that a healing story like Mark 1:21-28 mentions a man being possessed by demons does
                    > not automatically mean that the historical Jesus could not have had a real encounter with
                    > a man which he and his firstcentury BELIEVED was demonpossessed Just because we
                    > moderns don't give a certain event the same interpretation that the ancients did does not
                    > mean that the event doesn't have anything historical over it at all.
                    > That said I must admit that the miracle stories in the gospels are often treated with a
                    > seriousness that is often laughable by the kind of pseudohistorians that are all too common
                    > in the exegetical guild. Why even bother to try to argue for anything historical behind a story
                    > like Jesus walking on water or the raising of Lazarus? Still we find scholar after scholar in
                    > commentary after commentary going to ridiculous lengths to argue that there may be something
                    > behind the event after all. The last time I had this unpleasant experience was when reading Craig
                    > Keener's recent commentary on Matthew. Here he digs up dozens of litterary parallels from ancient
                    > litterature about people walking miraculously on water and the man still doesn't want to admit that
                    > we are dealing with pure metaphorical "midrash". That said, though I was often angered by the
                    > dumbness of many of Keeners arguments, I must recommend his commentary because it is a goldmine
                    > for anybody interested in finding out about the literary parallels in pagan and jewish litterature to the
                    > gospel stories.
                    >
                    > Best wishes
                    >
                    > Antonio Jerez
                    > Göteborg, Sweden
                    >
                    >
                    > 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
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: Gordon Raynal To: Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:11 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Historical Healing
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 6 10:35 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi@...>
                      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:11 AM
                      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Historical Healing Stories


                      > Beyond this, I find fascinating the move to define the illnesses cited
                      > in post Freudian "psycho-somatic terms," then proceed to delve into how
                      > Jesus was an effective healer of these sorts of illnesses.

                      In a society where illness was believed to be the result of sin, I can see
                      how
                      "psycho-somatic/guilt" maladies would proliferate in a society so entranched
                      in religious fervor, perhaps even outnumber illnesses of pathological
                      origin.
                      Forgive the sin, cure the disease.


                      Jack
                      --
                      ______________________________________________

                      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                      Jack Kilmon
                      Austin, Texas
                      jkilmon@...

                      http://www.historian.net

                      sharing a meal for free.
                      http://www.thehungersite.com/
                    • Antonio Jerez
                      ... Gordon, I would not agree with you that some of the healing and excorcism stories do not come up to us as touched up . In a case like Mark 2:1-12 we very
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 6 10:53 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Gordon Raynal wrote:

                        > Antonio,

                        > The important word in this post is "could." Of course the healing
                        > wonder stories "could" suggest that Jesus was a healer. And as I noted
                        > yesterday I'm not an unhappy person if this is true. But the stories of
                        > healings and exorcisms do not come to us as "touched up" (to use
                        > photographic technique language) stories. They come as wonder stories
                        > whose purpose is theological. In the case of this pericope the demon(s)
                        > know who Jesus really is... the crowds get that he teaches with an
                        > authority unlike those of religious establishment... the demon knows
                        > that truth and from whence the authority comes! Now behind this "could"
                        > be an exorcism that the story telling tradition changed to proclaim
                        > theology, but exactly how by historical methodology can you make that
                        > judgment?

                        Gordon,
                        I would not agree with you that some of the healing and excorcism stories
                        do not come up to us as "touched up". In a case like Mark 2:1-12 we very
                        probably have a historical reminicence from Jesus "touched up" theologically.
                        I think we can say that the historical core (basically without any retouching) is
                        found from verse 2:1-4. But I do agree with you that it is often almost impossible
                        to disentangle history from fiction in many of the NT stories. Unfortunately there
                        is no good metodology.

                        > What we get from the ancient world, obviously, are not medical records.
                        > What we get... and they are of a kind... (these are consistent stories
                        > in that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Son of the Father who has
                        > inaugurated the eschatological age of the Kingdom). With that comes
                        > nature and healing (and actually, of course, healing is "natural"/ has
                        > to do with nature!) wonders that signify this happening. Before this in
                        > Israel's scriptures WE ARE TOLD that this is part of what God does and
                        > therefore the Evangelists as they did for birth, baptism, temptation,
                        > teachings, passion, death, resurrection and glorification... went to the
                        >Scriptures to elucidate this proclamation.

                        But you forget that there is little indication that firstcentury Jews expected
                        the Messiah to be an exorcist and a healer. I think you are putting the cart
                        before the horse. As I read the evidence Jesus made himelf quite a reputation
                        as a healer and an exorcist during his lifetime. After his death his followers
                        searched the scriptures to find passages that could show that the Messiah
                        was unexpectedly both to be a miracle worker and a dying and resurrected one.
                        We also have indications in the gospels (and Josephus?)that both foe and friend acknowledged
                        that Jesus was an exorcist. A pericope like Matthew 12:22-37 shows how the
                        early Christians tried to counter the accusations that Jesus healing powers came
                        from Satan.

                        Best wishes

                        Antonio Jerez
                        Göteborg, Sweden
                      • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                        ... I wish you d do it online, this is really interesting! Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 6 1:09 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Gordon Raynal writes:

                          > So, that is a bit more. If you'd like to go over some stories in
                          > detail, perhaps we can do that off-line.

                          I wish you'd do it online, this is really interesting!

                          Regards,

                          Robert Brenchley

                          RSBrenchley@...
                        • Ken Olson
                          ... early Christians tried to counter the accusations that Jesus healing powers came from Satan.
                          Message 12 of 20 , Feb 7 12:32 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 1:53 PM on 2/6/01 Antonio Jerez wrote:

                            >>A pericope like Matthew 12:22-37 shows how the
                            early Christians tried to counter the accusations that Jesus healing
                            powers came
                            from Satan.<<

                            Is that necessarily the social context of the composition of this
                            pericope? Frequently in Mark, Jesus is a sort of role model (as
                            opposed to Peter and the other disciples) for proper Christian
                            behavior in times of trouble and persecution. The pericope in Mk.
                            3.22-30 (= Mt. 12.22-37, Lk. 11.17-23, 12.10) may be an example of
                            such. Christians who claimed to have an indwelling holy spirit, which
                            made them "dead to sin" and granted them "gifts of the spirit"
                            including prophecy, glossolalia, healing, and "discerning of spirits"
                            (1 Cor. 12) may frequently have faced accusations of demonic
                            possesion. The possibility that this situation has been retrojected
                            into the lifetime of Jesus at least deserves consideration. This
                            story may be due to Christians' need to counter accusations made
                            against themselves rather than to historical memory of such
                            accusations made against Jesus.

                            Ken

                            Kenneth A. Olson
                            Graduate Teaching Assistant
                            Department of History
                            2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
                            University of Maryland
                            College Park, MD 20742
                            kaolson@...

                            I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
                            Huxley
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.