At 10:45 AM 4/10/01 +0100, Peter M. Head 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
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 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@...