Mark 7 - a turning point

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

turning points	Mark 1-6	Mark 7-10
kind of teaching	Mark 2-4 teaching in parables, Mark 1-6 very few statements	Mark 7-10 teaching in statements, no teaching in parables
way of understanding the teachings	Mark 4 - pictorial understanding 4:24 Take heed (βλέπετε - blepete) what ye hear	Mark 7 - rational understanding Mark 7:14 Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand (σύνετε - synete)
kinds of healing	Mark 1-6: healing of physical illnes, no healing of blindness, deafness and muteness	Mark 7-10: healing of blindness, deafness and muteness, no healing of other physical illnes
kinds of exorcism	Mark 1-5: exorcism of „normal“ unclean spirits	Mark 9: exorcism of a deaf and mute spirit, Mark 7-10 no exorcism of a „normal“ unclean spirit
other "miracles" of Jesus	Mark 4-6 calming the storm, walking on water, multiplying bread and fish (feeding of the 5000)	Mark 7-10 no supernatural miracles with the exception of multiplying bread and fish (feeding of the 4000)

Errors, additions, comments?

[Peter Kirby]

Very insightful. Some have tried to detect 'cycles' of oral tradition behind the two sequences leading up to the feeding miracles. But, as this chart shows, there are ways of understanding the structure as the author's own deliberate way of layering the story.

[Ben C. Smith]

Errors, additions, comments?

Very interesting, Kunigunde. Here are some counterpoints to consider as you refine the list.

Mark 9: exorcism of a deaf and mute spirit, Mark 7-10 no exorcism of a „normal“ unclean spirit

Does the exorcism of Mark 7.24-30 count as normal or abnormal? On the one hand, the exorcism is performed at a distance; on the other, there is nothing special mentioned about the demon itself as there is with the one in Mark 9.14-29.

Mark 7-10 teaching in statements, no teaching in parables

Mark 7.17 specifically calls 7.14-15 a parable (παραβολή). (The sayings in 12.1-11 and 13.28 are also explicitly called parables.)

Mark 7 - rational understanding
Mark 7:14 Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand (σύνετε - synete)

The verb συνίημι also appears in Mark 4.12 and 6.52. Does it make a difference that in those two passages (the first a quotation from Isaiah 6.9) it is negated (μή, οὐ) whereas it is not in 7.14? However, it is also negated in 8.17, 21.

Mark 4 - pictorial understanding
4:24 Take heed (βλέπετε - blepete) what ye hear

The verb βλέπω also appears in the second person plural imperative (βλέπετε) in Mark 8.15, where it is also translated as "take heed" (RSV). (This usage appears several times in Mark 13, as well.)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Here are some counterpoints to consider as you refine the list.

Personally I am „sure“ that there is a difference between Mark 1-6 and Mark 7-10. I think also that this difference is based on such types of criteria that I've used in the chart.

End of my confidence. I don't know what exactly these criteria are. My chart contains only initial ideas on it. I am therefore more interested to understand more about this difference and these criteria than to defend my chart.

Your comments are all right and critical points, worth to think about it.

Does the exorcism of Mark 7.24-30 count as normal or abnormal? On the one hand, the exorcism is performed at a distance; on the other, there is nothing special mentioned about the demon itself as there is with the one in Mark 9.14-29.

I think no clear answer is possible, but I would say it's an “abnormal” exorcism-story and therefore hard to judge. The “normal” unclean spirit reacts to Jesus, cries and says to him, that he is the son of God (or such thing), and gets a rebuke.The text doesn't say that in contrast to the commandments of Jesus in the exorcism-stories in Mark 1-6. In Mark 7:24-30 the unclean spirit is absent und I think that the text doesn't say, that it is an “exorcism performed at a distance”. It is only said that “the demon has left your daughter” without mentioning the cause, perhaps even - “διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον” - because of the word of the woman (Mark 7:29). It could be a bit similarly to the healings of the hemorrhaging woman and Bartimaeus (“Your faith has saved/healed you”). Jesus demands the commitment of the father also in Mark 9:23.

Mark 7.17 specifically calls 7.14-15 a parable (παραβολή).

Mark 7:17 says only that “his disciples asked him concerning the parable” and that Jesus answered “Are ye so without understanding also?” Because it is clearly not a parable? I have faith that no one would call this abstract statement a parable without the word in Mark 7:17. (“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”) But no arguing about words! I assume we agree that the statement in Mark 7:15 is very different from the parables in Mark 2-4 (no use of metaphors, no figurative storytelling).

(The sayings in 12.1-11 and 13.28 are also explicitly called parables.)

My point is just Mark 1-6 and Mark 7-10 (before the Jerusalem-section).

The verb συνίημι also appears in Mark 4.12 and 6.52. Does it make a difference that in those two passages (the first a quotation from Isaiah 6.9) it is negated (μή, οὐ) whereas it is not in 7.14? However, it is also negated in 8.17, 21.

The verb βλέπω also appears in the second person plural imperative (βλέπετε) in Mark 8.15, where it is also translated as "take heed" (RSV). (This usage appears several times in Mark 13, as well.)

But only in Mark 4:24 and 7:14 these words are connected with a summons to listen a teaching of Jesus.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
To rightly divide, the first building block I'm confident of is Jesus' Galilean Ministry:

Verse	Link	Type	Object	Disciples	Commentary
1:39-45 And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons. And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being moved with anger, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. ...	and	Healing - Faith/Leprosy	The afflicted	Simon witnesses	Start of Jesus' Galilean Ministry. Jesus tagged with emotion of anger.
2:1-12 And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room [for them], no, not even about the door: and he spake the word unto them. And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven. ...	and	Healing - Faith/Palsy	The four	Simon witnesses	First it was the afflicted that had faith. Than it was those who wanted to help the afflicted. Multiplication from the believer to believers. The only named witness to both was Simon
2:13-22 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. ... he was eating with the sinners and publicans ... They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.	and	Teaching - Dietary/Cleanliness	Jesus	Levi of Alphaeus	Switch from teaching that faith creates healing to teaching that spiritual cleanliness is more important than physical cleanliness. The named witness here is Levi of Alphaeus, tax collector. This appears to be contrived in every way. Levi was the Priestly tax collector tribe and Alpha is the first Greek letter (the first will be the last).
2:23-28 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? ... And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: ...	and	Teaching - Ritual/Observance	The Disciples	Levi of Alphaeus	First it was only Jesus that was the object. Than it was the Disciples. Multiplication from the Sower to the sowers. The only named witness to both was Levi of Alphaeus. Teaching that spiritual observance is more important than physical observance

JW:
KK, "Mark" (author) is even more sophisticated than you give him credit for. You need to break down the pericopes into smaller grouping with more detail to better understand. Think of GMark here like an Instructor teaching a Worksout:

• 1) First, the Instructor demonstrates herself how to perform the exorcise (so to speak) in front of the students.
  
  2) The Instructor does a single rep.
  
  3) The Instructor than does multiple reps.

Subsequent Gospels have gamoed up "Mark's" deliberate structure (trying to make it sound more historical and less contrived), so it's harder to appreciate GMark all by itself. Just look at the above and note that for starters, "Mark" goes with a theme and than builds the theme from single to multiple. Also note with interest that at the start of the Galilean Ministry "Mark's" Jesus is tagged with the emotion of anger. In order (so to speak) to crucify one's Passion, one must first, above all else, have Passion.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki