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

[Synoptic-L] Fatigue in Leper Story

Expand Messages
  • JFAlward@aol.com
    Summary of key points in fatigue discussion: Joe Alward: In his article, Fatigue in the Synoptics (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm), Mark
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Summary of key points in fatigue discussion:

      Joe Alward:

      In his article, "Fatigue in the Synoptics"
      (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm), Mark Goodacre points to
      Matthew's story of The Cleansing of the Leper as an example of fatigue, owing
      to its dependence on Mark. Goodacre claims that Jesus met in private with
      the leper, and I argued in an earlier post that this assumption was
      unjustified. This is what Mark wrote:

      Mark 1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues
      and casting out demons. 40 And a leper came…

      Why should we believe that none of the people from the synagogues were
      present when Jesus met with the leper?
      ===============
      Ken Olson, responding to earlier post:

      This argument presumes that Jesus going through Galilee, proclaiming
      the message in the synagogues and casting out demons (Mk. 1.39)
      attracted crowds.
      ===============
      Joe Alward:


      The people need not have been "attracted" to Jesus; if you don't wish to
      imagine that the people from the synagogue were drawn to Jesus because of
      they were "amazed at his teaching," (Mark 1:22), then you could alternatively
      believe that the leper met with Jesus either in the synagogue, or outside the
      synagogue where one would expect to find other persons. It seems to me that
      in seeing no witnesses in Mark, but lots of them in Matthew, Goodacre is
      blinding himself to the possibility that Mark is showing the same fatigue as
      Matthew.

      ===============
      Best Regards,

      Joe Alward

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Can you tell me if you ve done any work toward investigating the use of KAI in GMark and what it does or does not indicate with respect to Mark s
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        JFAlward@... wrote:

        > Summary of key points in fatigue discussion:
        >
        > Joe Alward:
        >
        > In his article, "Fatigue in the Synoptics"
        > (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm), Mark Goodacre points to
        > Matthew's story of The Cleansing of the Leper as an example of fatigue, owing
        > to its dependence on Mark. Goodacre claims that Jesus met in private with
        > the leper, and I argued in an earlier post that this assumption was
        > unjustified. This is what Mark wrote:
        >
        > Mark 1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues
        > and casting out demons. 40 And a leper came…
        >
        > Why should we believe that none of the people from the synagogues were
        > present when Jesus met with the leper?

        Can you tell me if you've done any work toward investigating the use of KAI in
        GMark and what it does or does not indicate with respect to Mark's assumptions
        regarding the actual chronological/narratival links among and between the Jesus
        traditions he reproduces?

        I'd also be interested in knowing if you've spent any time mulling over the
        thesis on this issue of K.L. Schmidt in his _Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu_?

        Yours,

        Jeffrey Gibson


        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ken Olson
        ... wish to imagine that the people from the synagogue were drawn to Jesus because of they were amazed at his teaching, (Mark 1:22), then you could
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 7:01 PM on April 3, 2001 Joe Alward wrote:

          >>The people need not have been "attracted" to Jesus; if you don't
          wish to
          imagine that the people from the synagogue were drawn to Jesus because
          of
          they were "amazed at his teaching," (Mark 1:22), then you could
          alternatively
          believe that the leper met with Jesus either in the synagogue, or
          outside the
          synagogue where one would expect to find other persons. It seems to
          me that
          in seeing no witnesses in Mark, but lots of them in Matthew, Goodacre
          is
          blinding himself to the possibility that Mark is showing the same
          fatigue as
          Matthew.<<

          KO:
          I argued in my earlier post (9:48 PM, April 2) that Jesus' tour of
          Galilee (1.39-45) repeats the pattern of his day in Capernaum
          (1.21-1.34) and that, in both cases, people come to Jesus *after* the
          healing miracle, not after his preaching and casting out demons.

          There are two good reasons for not accepting that the cleansing of the
          leper took place in the synagogue:
          (1) Mk. 1-39 is a summary statement about Jesus' tour of Galilee. It
          does not refer to "the" synagogue, but that Jesus preached in
          synagogues (pl.). We could imagine that the leper approached Jesus in
          one of the synagogues in which Jesus preached, but Mark does not say
          that and (2) I should want a great deal of evidence before accepting
          that Mark meant to imply that the uncleansed leper *entered* a
          synagogue, an event that would have had serious consequences. See
          Leviticus 13-14 (especially 13.45-46) and M. Negaim (especially
          13.11-12) on lepers in Jewish law.

          So Mark probably meant to imply that the cleansing of the leper took
          place during the Galilean ministry, but not in a synagogue. There is,
          of course, the *possibility* that Mark thought of the miracle as
          taking place in public, but nothing in his text says or implies that
          it was. Matthew specifically says that great crowds were following
          Jesus at the time the leper came to him (Mt. 8.1). Goodacre assumes
          no crowd is present at the cleansing of the leper in Mark because Mark
          says or implies nothing about a crowd being present at that time and
          implies that the crowds came later. Goodacre assumes a crowd is
          present in Matthew's version of the story because Matthew says it is.
          Goodacre is not "blinding himself"; he is following what's in the text
          rather than assuming something not in the text and not supported by
          the text.

          Best wishes,

          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


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • JFAlward@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/8/01 6:35:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: ... just ... Mark s gospel is very episodic, and it is risky to
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 8, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 4/8/01 6:35:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
            scarlson@... writes:

            << At 09:07 PM 4/8/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
            >How is Goodacre's claim that the leper met privately with Jesus more
            >justified than my claim that people from the synagogue, as well as those
            just
            >un-demonized, were standing by when the leper came to Jesus?

            Mark's gospel is very episodic, and it is risky to import
            details from one episode into a separate episode. When
            one is appropriately careful in respecting Mark's structure,
            dubious propositions, such as the one here that lepers could
            ever allowed to enter synagogues, can be avoided.

            As for Goodacre's characterization that the meeting of Jesus
            with the leper is private, I think it is important to understand
            that Mark's text is not explicit on this point (but an appropriate
            inference). It is precisely Mark's lack of explicitness that
            lulled Matthew into its redaction to add the crowds, setting up
            Matthew's later fatigue when the injunction to secrecy is made.

            Stephen Carlson
            >>
            =============
            Mark 1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues
            and casting out demons. 40 And a leper came…

            I recognize the unlikelihood that the leper was cured inside the synagogue,
            that's why I wrote above of people *from* the synagogue, not inside it.

            Why should we believe the leper met privately with Jesus, and that the
            synagogue teaching and the encounter with the leper were episodes so far
            removed in space and time that there would have been no onlookers from the
            synagogue? The last thing Jesus had been doing before meeting the leper was
            preaching in synagogues, presumably amazing the listeners, and casting out
            demons. Might Mark not have wished us to believe that some of these people
            would have followed Jesus and been nearby when the Jesus met the leper? Why
            must we assume that nobody was around?

            Do you believe that Mark's "lack of explicitness" gives Goodacre license to
            claim that "the leper met privately with Jesus"? It seems to me the
            justificaton for assumption is its furtherance of the case for Marcan
            priority. If it's not, then what *is* the justification?



            Regards,

            Joe Alward

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Needless to say, this makes it clear that you are offering your interpretation of the text. The text does not say where the people of the synagogue are in
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 9, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:05 PM 4/8/01 EDT, JFAlward@... wrote:
              >Mark 1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues
              >and casting out demons. 40 And a leper came…
              >
              >I recognize the unlikelihood that the leper was cured inside the synagogue,
              >that's why I wrote above of people *from* the synagogue, not inside it.

              Needless to say, this makes it clear that you are offering your
              interpretation of the text. The text does not say where the
              people of the synagogue are in relation to the leper. You have
              your inference, and Goodacre has his. The question remains,
              though, which interpretation fits best with what we already know
              of Mark's gospel and the 1st century Galilean milieu.

              >Why should we believe the leper met privately with Jesus, and that the
              >synagogue teaching and the encounter with the leper were episodes so far
              >removed in space and time that there would have been no onlookers from the
              >synagogue? The last thing Jesus had been doing before meeting the leper was
              >preaching in synagogues, presumably amazing the listeners, and casting out
              >demons. Might Mark not have wished us to believe that some of these people
              >would have followed Jesus and been nearby when the Jesus met the leper? Why
              >must we assume that nobody was around?

              It is well known since as far back as the early second century that
              Mark's gospel is largely a string of unconnected episodes. (Cf.
              Papias's apology for Mark in Eus., H.E. 3.39). Consequently, it is
              methodologically improper to impute the setting of one episode into
              another, even into a juxtaposing episode. That Mark 1:39 and 1:40
              belong to different contexts can be seen in the Discourse Segmentation
              Apparatus in the UBS GNT 4th ed. This tool shows that all major
              translations place a section break at Mark 1:40, except for RSV,
              REB, and NRSV, which use a paragraph break instead.

              >Do you believe that Mark's "lack of explicitness" gives Goodacre license to
              >claim that "the leper met privately with Jesus"? It seems to me the
              >justificaton for assumption is its furtherance of the case for Marcan
              >priority. If it's not, then what *is* the justification?

              Although Mark does not expressly state that the leper met
              privately, that is a reasonable inference from the text,
              because the text includes an injunction to secrecy and
              does not contradict a private setting. On the other hand,
              the inference that this meeting occurred inside of a
              synagogue or now, right outside of one, is not quite
              as reasonable, because it rests on the questionable
              methodological premise that one can impute the setting
              from one episode into another.

              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

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Peter M. Head
              ... Is there any particular reason to assume that Mark s secrecy commands presume a private setting? It would be suprising to a reader who has just come past
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen wrote:

                >Although Mark does not expressly state that the leper met
                >privately, that is a reasonable inference from the text,
                >because the text includes an injunction to secrecy and
                >does not contradict a private setting.

                Is there any particular reason to assume that Mark's secrecy commands
                presume a private setting? It would be suprising to a reader who has just
                come past 1.24f and 1.34 (cf. also 3.10-12; 5.43 [cf. 7.36 private only at
                one level]).

                If not then does Mark G's argument break down at this point?

                Peter

                Dr. Peter M. Head
                Tyndale House
                36 Selwyn Gardens
                Cambridge CB3 9BA
                Tel: 01223 566607
                Fax: 01223 566608
                email: pmh15@...



                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 4/10/2001 5:48:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes:
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 4/10/2001 5:48:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  pmh15@... writes:

                  << Is there any particular reason to assume that Mark's secrecy commands
                  presume a private setting? It would be suprising to a reader who has just
                  come past 1.24f and 1.34 (cf. also 3.10-12; 5.43 [cf. 7.36 private only at
                  one level]).

                  If not then does Mark G's argument break down at this point?>>


                  It's interesting, I argued that Mark G's argument breaks down in almost
                  exactly the opposite sense: namely, is it necessarily true that in Matt a
                  crowd is presupposed within the story of the healing of the leper? The crowds
                  that follow Jesus in 8:1 clearly form part of a literary framework around the
                  great sermon (cf. 4:25), and the incident that begins in 8:2 with KAI IDOU...
                  seems to involve an encounter between Jesus and a leper alone. On the other
                  hand, it's interesting to note that almost exactly the opposite phenomenon
                  occurs in the story that immediately follows (8:8-13): here, Jesus' action of
                  entering Capernaum is given in the singular (nobody is said to accompany
                  Jesus here), and yet, in the middle of the story, Jesus turns to address
                  "those who were following [him?]" (8:10). Again, in 8:28-34, after having
                  crossed the Sea of Galilee with his disciples in a boat, Jesus is described
                  in apparently lone encounter with two fierce demoniacs (he alone is said to
                  have arrived on the other side in 8:28, etc.; the disciples are nowhere
                  alluded to in the story: see also 9:1, with singular verbs). I think we have
                  to allow Matthew to involve or not involve other people within a particular
                  encounter between Jesus and a beneficiary of his messianic benefits as he
                  sees fit. We probably should not assume the presence of others if they are
                  not in any way alluded to within the account itself. What do others think?
                  (Note: The way in which Matt 8:10-12 functions within the larger pericope
                  suggests to me that the "followers" here may allude more to Jewish-Christians
                  of Matthew's time than to anyone present at the time of Jesus' original
                  encounter with the centurion. Other than being an audience for the prophetic
                  words of Jesus spoken in 10-12, these people play no role whatsoever in the
                  narrative).

                  Leonard Maluf

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Peter Head wrote -- ... I think Mark G s argument depends on the idea that, in Matthew s account, if there was a crowd present then the conversation between
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Peter Head wrote --
                    >
                    >Is there any particular reason to assume that Mark's secrecy commands
                    >presume a private setting? It would be suprising to a reader who has
                    >just come past 1.24f and 1.34 (cf. also 3.10-12; 5.43 [cf. 7.36 private
                    >only at one level]).
                    >
                    >If not then does Mark G's argument break down at this point?
                    >
                    I think Mark G's argument depends on the idea that, in Matthew's
                    account, if there was a crowd present then the conversation between
                    Jesus and the leper would have been heard by the crowd, and this would
                    make nonsense of Jesus' secrecy command.

                    I am not sure about this assumption. A crowd would instinctively have
                    kept a safe distance from a leper. They could have seen Jesus talking
                    with the leper, but not heard what was said between them. The meeting
                    between Jesus and the leper could have been public, but the conversation
                    private, therefore.

                    Today, in a game of football two players can hold a private conversation
                    in public -- seen, but not heard, by thousands of spectators.

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                    Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                    > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                    > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                    _

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... Although Goodacre did characterize the meeting between the leper and Jesus as private , I have preferred to focus on the fact that privacy aspect is not
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:45 AM 4/10/01 +0100, Peter M. Head wrote:
                      >Stephen wrote:
                      >>Although Mark does not expressly state that the leper met
                      >>privately, that is a reasonable inference from the text,
                      >>because the text includes an injunction to secrecy and
                      >>does not contradict a private setting.
                      >
                      >Is there any particular reason to assume that Mark's secrecy commands
                      >presume a private setting? It would be suprising to a reader who has just
                      >come past 1.24f and 1.34 (cf. also 3.10-12; 5.43 [cf. 7.36 private only at
                      >one level]).

                      Although Goodacre did characterize the meeting between the
                      leper and Jesus as "private", I have preferred to focus on
                      the fact that privacy aspect is not explicit in Mark 1:40-45.
                      Thus, the subsequent injunction to secrecy in Mark does not
                      pose the same difficulties as in Matthew, whose setting differs
                      from Mark's, because Mark's setting is capable of being
                      understood as a private meeting but Matthew's cannot be.

                      As for your examples, I view Mark 1:24, 34, and 3:12 not so
                      much as a secrecy injunction but as a demonstration of Jesus's
                      control over demons, i.e. Jesus can muzzle demons. I may be
                      wrong, but doesn't Mark 5:40 indicate that the injunction in
                      v43 is in a private setting? Mark 7:36 is an injunction to
                      the crowd (an extra element in the text that expressly negates
                      a private setting), whereas Mark 1:40-45 has no such element and
                      the injunction of v43 is to the leper, not any crowd.

                      >If not then does Mark G's argument break down at this point?

                      I'm not sure. Personally, I feel that my reformulation of
                      the argument is an improvement. So this example still works
                      as a case of fatigue.

                      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

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.