Page 2 of 3

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:15 am
by Martin Klatt
Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:32 am

Would it really alter the interpretation if it were her second menses?

The point of initiation rituals to celebrate the passover to a new stage of life is that they are unique milestones. So definitely it would alter the interpretation. Moreover the 12 year of age mentioned is indicative of the right age for the event, I don't think that is coincidental.
But you are certainly right in the respect that in many cultures any menses period was reason to seclude women from society, the difference being that elaborate rituals around that phenomenon were scarce, it was better to keep silent about that, it was in the realm of taboo.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:51 am
by Charles Wilson
So, does everyone (besides me) think that "The woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter" are simply Coincidence? The appearance of "Twelve Years" in both Stories are concatenations of words that happen to have "12 years" in them?

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:14 am
by Martin Klatt
No, both stories are obviously connected. The woman is probably at the end of her fertile stage while the girl has just started it. Mark makes an excellent story with the antithetical connection. The 12 is a literary device applied. Nobody really believes an ongoing flow of 12 years is even possible, though chronic irregular menses is not unheard of, which is just as bothersome under Judaic law. Every woman who has gone through menopause knows the menses often become more irregular when that time comes closer. Just more reason why I am sure both are about that same female condition.

But there are more sinister connections in the text, the allusion to the physicians, ἰατρῶν, who had fleeced the woman of her wealth, is cleverly connected to Jesus himself as he calls himself the ἰατρός in verse 2:17. She believed in the physicians and it did her no good, now she credulously believes in Jesus.
For me it is clear if he is just another ἰατρός then the so-called cure of her is just as bogus as the one of the paralytic in 9:25.
He tells her: go in peace and be free of your affliction, but we don't know if it will return, only time will tell. He tells the unclean spirit: don't enter him again, but we don't know if it will, only time will tell. Mark keeps us in the dark and doesn't tell. Brilliant.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:58 am
by Charles Wilson
Thank you, Martin.

1. I believe that this is Political, covering a time of 12 years between two events in Jewish History beginning at Passover 4 BCE - but you know that concerning my Positions.

2. You might want to look at Mark 6: 56 as well:

[56] And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

Compare with Mark 5: 26:

[27] She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
[28] For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

The Mark 5 Section is very personal, including references to Internal States and Internal Dialogues. The Mark 6 Story is Objective-Descriptive.
Why?

All we can ask for is Consistency and Completeness and the two Stories of the Woman and Jairus' Daughter may be about Initiation Rites of Women in that society. They both point to something deeper. You may be correct.

Best,

CW

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:46 am
by Martin Klatt
Charles Wilson wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:58 am




You might want to look at Mark 6: 56 as well:

[56] And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

Compare with Mark 5: 26:

[27] She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
[28] For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

The Mark 5 Section is very personal, including references to Internal States and Internal Dialogues. The Mark 6 Story is Objective-Descriptive.
Why?
Well Charles,

That was a very interesting question.
As I see it the story of the woman with the flow was the precedent that explains the other episode you mention. The psychological painting Mark sketches of her explains the state of mind of desperate and credulous folk who will resort to anything to find comfort and remarkably even Jesus says to her:
“Daughter,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you; go in peace and be free of your affliction.”
That's how even modern faith-healers of all denominations still operate, enlightened people call them charlatans however, that's because very few actual healings take place, but the dupes feel saved and will return again and again because of their desperate faith maybe some day the miracle will happen for them.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:53 am
by Charles Wilson
Then there is "The Woman Bent Over for Eighteen Years":

Luke 13: 11 - 13, 16 (RSV, truncated to show the Logical Point):

[11] And there was a woman who had had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years; she was bent over and could not fully straighten herself.
[12] And when Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your infirmity."
[13] And he laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight, and she praised God.
***
[16] And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?"

This appears to be of the same Form as the Markan Passages. It still exhibits an Objective-Descriptive Pattern - No internal Dialogues - but notice the Rhetorical Flourish! She is a Daughter of Abraham AND she has been bound by Satan for eighteen years! Is this Symbolic-Historical?

I trace this Story to 8/9 CE as well, with the finishing of the Cloisters in 10 BCE. Herod opens the Temple on the day of the anniversary of his ascension. Herod establishes a festival. You worship God and Herod on the same day. This, therefore, is another Herod story.

OK. Fine.

For present purposes, does the Lukan Passage fit in with your Thesis?


Best to you,

CW

Edit Note: My obligation to a friend who encouraged me to put in EVERYTHING in my writings when something pops into my head forces me to state that "...a daughter of Abraham..." may also be a Lukan Flourish that would distinguish Luke from the more pedestrian Mark, a possibly stylistic gesture of Luke.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:24 am
by Martin Klatt
Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:53 am


For present purposes, does the Lukan Passage fit in with your Thesis?


Best to you,

CW

Edit Note: My obligation to a friend who encouraged me to put in EVERYTHING in my writings when something pops into my head forces me to state that "...a daughter of Abraham..." may also be a Lukan Flourish that would distinguish Luke from the more pedestrian Mark, a possibly stylistic gesture of Luke.
Good Charles,

My main hypothesis being that Luke and Matthew are bad plagiarisms of Mark, the Lukan passage is not originally Markan and it shows only a cheap rehash of the story of the man with the withered hand on a sabbath from Mark 3:1 etc. So in a sense it affirms my hypothesis partly.
The rotter about Luke and Matthew is that they try to portray Jesus as a real healer where Mark turns all these bogus miracles into jokes by clever wordplay.
The account of Mark 3:1-6 is another good example of Marks method, I humbly presume to know how his mind works by now.
The man with the withered hand on a sabbath joke is hilarious, because the synagogue attendants are closely observing if Jesus will treat him on a sabbath in order to condemn him, but Jesus turns the joke on them because he doesn't lift a finger but instead he orders the man to show his hand and there is nothing wrong with it. He was just a lazy slacker, pretending. This is a story of a lazy person combined with the sabbath rest, where you are supposed to all refrain from work anyway, so why would you heal a hand that can't work today? And Jesus outwitting his opponents en passant criticizing their take on sabbath. It is all brilliant wordplay.
He says to them: Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it? At first glance this sounds overly dramatic as it concerns only a hand, not exactly a life-threatening ailment but that has to do with what ends the episode: And afterward the Pharisees go out to plot how to destroy him! Pure genius punchline to close.
BTW this is the third lazy healing joke in a sequence, the first is about Simon's mother in-law(sic)1:29-31, the second about the paralytic who crashes through the roof 2:1-12. There is a dirty healing sequence too, also a triplet, look for it using cleaning and spit as giveaways.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 pm
by Charles Wilson
Martin Klatt wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:24 am
The man with the withered hand on a sabbath joke is hilarious, because the synagogue attendants are closely observing if Jesus will treat him on a sabbath in order to condemn him, but Jesus turns the joke on them because he doesn't lift a finger but instead he orders the man to show his hand and there is nothing wrong with it. He was just a lazy slacker, pretending. This is a story of a lazy person combined with the sabbath rest, where you are supposed to all refrain from work anyway, so why would you heal a hand that can't work today? And Jesus outwitting his opponents en passant criticizing their take on sabbath. It is all brilliant wordplay.
He says to them: Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it? And afterward the Pharisees go out to plot how to destroy him! Pure genius punchline to close.
Note that these are all "Do-Ables". See also Turton here ( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X ):
Seeing the Gospel of Mark as a performed text may also explain some other aspects of the story. For example, the writer's vague geography and lack of geographical description and detail may reflect the expectation that those items would be presented visually. All the writer had to do was give some general idea of the location of incidents: a synagogue, a lonely place, the other side, in the house, and so on. The set crew would do the rest. Further, none of Jesus' miracles represent actions that would have been physically difficult or materially complicated and expensive to portray on stage. Jesus doesn't fly, move mountains, cast lightning, or transform one object into another. Instead, the blind see, the lame walk, demons leave their hosts, and a fig tree wilts. Clearly, the Gospel of Mark could easily be staged by a non-professional cast and crew on short notice, with a minimum of sets and equipment." [Emphasis added]
From a more Roman Perspective, this makes sense. The Judaic Messianism is a sham since the "Miracles" and "Healings" are easy set-ups against the gullible and superstitious Jews. (Another "One-Thing-Leads-to-Another:" See Josephus and the "Overturning of the Bowl of Water").

Edit Note:
Josephus, Antiquities..., 8, 2, 5:
And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly...

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:39 am
by Martin Klatt
Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 pm

Note that these are all "Do-Ables". See also Turton here ( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X ):
Seeing the Gospel of Mark as a performed text may also explain some other aspects of the story. For example, the writer's vague geography and lack of geographical description and detail may reflect the expectation that those items would be presented visually. All the writer had to do was give some general idea of the location of incidents: a synagogue, a lonely place, the other side, in the house, and so on. The set crew would do the rest. Further, none of Jesus' miracles represent actions that would have been physically difficult or materially complicated and expensive to portray on stage. Jesus doesn't fly, move mountains, cast lightning, or transform one object into another. Instead, the blind see, the lame walk, demons leave their hosts, and a fig tree wilts. Clearly, the Gospel of Mark could easily be staged by a non-professional cast and crew on short notice, with a minimum of sets and equipment." [Emphasis added]
From a more Roman Perspective, this makes sense. The Judaic Messianism is a sham since the "Miracles" and "Healings" are easy set-ups against the gullible and superstitious Jews. (Another "One-Thing-Leads-to-Another:" See Josephus and the "Overturning of the Bowl of Water").

Edit Note:
Josephus, Antiquities..., 8, 2, 5:
And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly...
Good work Charles,

The gospel of Mark is a good candidate for on stage performance. The majority of jokes are made by verbal constructs and only a smart and educated person would see through the implications which made all the impossible claims, the miracles, possible. The base audience of a play however would not need those qualifications, but would be shown by visual signals what was really going on, the verbal wordplay and puns only punctuating the fun for them. In Greco-Roman comedy tradition for instance there were masks used for up to a hundred stock characters so the audience would know what kind of role actors on stage were playing. I bet Jesus was wearing the mask of a charlatan from the start of the play, or better still from the moment the so-called spirit dropped into his mouth after baptism, because that was the defining moment of what he was to become during the play.
There is also ample evidence from these times that elaborate stage-props were used in theatres so even the physically difficult or materially expensive as Turton calls it were not precluded, there were for instance cranes used to make gods or other supernatural creatures fly over the scene.
Such an expensive prop would be the boat used throughout the story. It is no accident the boat plays such a prominent role. If you need an expensive prop, you better make good use of it and not squander all that money on a one off.

The story of Eleazar is nice but note here that it is Vespasian and his men who are hoodwinked or entertained by a clever Jewish magician, not the Jews. This is also an often misunderstood joke. I know of very serious scholars of Jewish magic who claim this was how Jewish people understood healing magic to work.
They do not see that the added "proof" of the basin full of water tumbling is just an indication the whole thing is only a magician's stage act pulling a string of hair to make it topple over. Josephus is not trying to convince us it was real, instead he signals it's a ruse.

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:05 am
by Charles Wilson
Of Galba:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":
Accordingly his [Galba's] coming was not so welcome as it might have been, and this was apparent at the first performance in the theatre; for when the actors of an Atellan farce began the familiar lines

"Here comes Onesimus from his farm"36

all the spectators at once finished the song in chorus and repeated it several times with appropriate gestures, beginning with that verse.
Note 36: "The text is uncertain, but obviously the song ridiculed a stingy old countryman."
The performance in front of Vespasian carries with it some deeper meanings. "Eleazar" is the Major Patriarch in the Mishmarot Priesthood, Eleazar's "House" holds 16 of the 24 Priestly Groups (1 Chronicles 24). "Jehoiarib", the first of the Groups in the 1 Chronicles 24 version, carries the Assignment of the Hasmonean Dynasty (Though the 16th, "Immer", also claims the Hasmoneans.). The Hasmoneans are a Threat to Roman Rule, in the Judean Province and elsewhere.

Performing for the Conquerors is an old device. A String Quartet of midgets performed one last time in front of the National Socialist Leaders before being led away to the gas chambers. Being seen by the Generals - in this case, Vespasian - has always been important, Zakkai being a most important example. Sometimes it works in reverse: Zakkai was questioned by one of Vespasian's generals about the strange math in the Book of Numbers. There always seems to be one stage of compression too many in these stories. "Something is left out".

Anyway, the uneasiness of looking over the shoulder and seeing all of this as a Roman Joke complicates the picture immensely. Was this a Play? A coded Joke written by Scholars in the Roman Court? I believe that there were Coded Texts put in by survivors of Destruction of the Temple, probably from Yavneh.

Could such a complicated Construction have occurred in the Aftermath of the Destruction?

"Here comes Onesimus from his farm..."

"Uh-Oh. Here come the farm animal jokes..."