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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Fatigue in Leper Story

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.