Blasphemy, sin, & the spirit in Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

The purpose of this thread is to isolate what I perceive to be (at least part of) a textual layer in Mark, one consisting of (at least) four textual units. This layer has to do with blasphemy, sin, and the spirit; the first two individual textual units can be convincingly demonstrated, I believe, to have been added to existing material, while the last two simply seem to go along thematically with the two already mentioned:

1. Mark 2.5b-10.
2. Mark 3.28-30.
3. Mark 13.11.
4. Mark 14.61b-64.

Let us start with Mark 2.5b-10 (in context, 2.1-12):

1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”

What I take to be the added material is in red. The evidence for this material having been added is threefold. First, the words "says to the paralytic" are exactly repeated, once in verse 5 and then again in verse 10, and everything marked off by that repetition is cleanly removable without issue. Second, to remove that material is to remove a supremely awkward transition at the end of it, a bit of text so poorly stated that it can be expressed accurately only with an unfinished statement set off by a dash (—): "'But so that you may know...' — he says to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up....'" Third, the whole point of the added material is to make it seem as if Jesus might be God in some way, yet at the end of the pericope, after the addition, everyone is amazed and glorifies God: confusingly, if the material in red is present, since whom are they glorifying? God? Jesus as God? Both?? It seems evident, therefore, that this material has been made to interrupt an already existing healing that originally lacked any discussion of sin and blasphemy.

For the record, both Luke 5.24 and Matthew 2.6 retain the awkward transition (necessitating a dash), though they each make other changes in the pericope.

Let us continue with Mark 3.28-30 (in context, 3.20-35):

20 And He comes home, and the crowd gathers again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” — 30 since they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit [ὅτι ἔλεγον, πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει].” 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they say to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He says, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He says, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Again, I have marked in red what I take to be a textual addition: yet another statement about sin and blasphemy. The evidence for this addition starts with another awkward transition best set off with a dash (—). But that explanatory statement (all of verse 30: "since they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit'") also indicates that it is only with some difficulty that this saying can be made to fit its context. It is not immediately clear from context why Jesus moves from defending himself against charges of being in league with Satan to telling his accusers what kind of sin will not be forgiven; the explanatory statement backtracks to make clear that he is being accused specifically of being possessed by an unclean spirit, which helps to clarify that the blasphemy in question involves confusing the Holy Spirit with a demon.

That this saying can stand on its own is shown by how Luke treats it. Mark 3.20 has no Lucan or Matthean parallel. Mark 3.22-35 in its entirety is parallel to Matthew 12.22-50, but Luke breaks this section up, spreading it across 11.14-23; 12.10; and 8.19-21, 12.10 being the saying in question.

Furthermore, the statement about blaspheming the Holy Spirit can be shown to have originated in early church practice. We know from several sources that early Christian gatherings often included prophetic utterances. But what happens if a prophet delivers a load of nonsense? Different groups came up with different responses to this issue. For example, let us consider Didache 11.7-12:

7 And you shall not test or judge any prophet who speaks in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. 8 But not every one who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but he who has the ways of the Lord; by their ways they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet. 9 And every prophet who orders in the spirit that a table shall be laid, shall not eat of it himself, but if he do otherwise, he is a false prophet; 10 and every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet; 11 and every prophet who is approved and true, and ministering in the visible mystery of the Church, but who teaches not others to do the things that he does himself, shall not be judged of you, for his judgment lies with God, for in this manner the ancient prophets also did. 12 But whoever shall say in the spirit, Give me money, or things of that kind, listen not to him; but if he should tell you concerning others that are in need, that you should give unto them, let no one judge him.

This is obviously the Sitz im Leben for the idea of the unforgivable sin. Notice that the Didache requires no explanatory note (like Mark 3.30) to force this statement into the context. While it is true that the original ruling (do not challenge a prophet...) has been mitigated by further rulings (...unless s/he is not acting properly), it is also true that the context is clear throughout, with nothing out of place as Mark 3.28-30 appears to be.

1 John 4.1-6 provides another solution to this obviously endemic problem:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Contrary to the injunction against blaspheming the spirit, this advice essentially invites the congregation to test prophets! It also offers an antidocetic litmus test by which to judge their prophecies.

By the time we get to Thomas 44, things have become more abstract and trinitarian:

44 Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

Since the saying obviously originated in the context of how to treat prophetic utterances in Christian gatherings, its use in Mark as a defense on the lips of Jesus comes off as clearly secondary. It has been added to that context artificially, with Mark 3.30 as an explanatory aid in its insertion.

We now come to the two items on the list that do not quite so clearly stand out from their contexts, but which cohere thematically with the two foregoing textual units. The relevant bits will again be in red. First, Mark 13.11 (in context, 13.9-11):

9 “But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.

Notice how out of place verse 10 appears to be, forcing verse 11 to restate the obvious (about being arrested), though I am not completely sure what to make of this observation. Second, Mark 14.61b-64 (in context, 14.55-64):

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 61a But He kept silent and did not answer. 61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Notice here that Jesus speaking at all comes as a soft contradiction of verse 61a, about him remaining silent (as per Isaiah 53.7), though (again) I am not completely sure what to make of this observation.

Mark 13.11 lacks any mention of sin or blasphemy, but it attributes to the Holy Spirit whatever someone who has been arrested on account of Jesus happens to say in his or her defense; it essentially turns any arrested Christian into a prophet! Mark 14.61b-64 puts Jesus himself into this position, with the ironic result that the high priest accuses him of blasphemy and thus winds up blaspheming the Holy Spirit presumably speaking through Jesus. I submit that both of these textual units further develop the themes already expressed in the first two discussed above. I cannot prove (at least not yet) that they belong to the same textual layer, so to speak, as the first two (since they may have been added even later), but it would make sense if they did.

What do you think? Are there any other textual units in the gospel of Mark that might stand or fall with the four identified here? Are there better places in the text to mark off the additions from the base?

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

..................................
We now come to the two items on the list that do not quite so clearly stand out from their contexts, but which cohere thematically with the two foregoing textual units. The relevant bits will again be in red. First, Mark 13.11 (in context, 13.9-11):

9 “But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.

Notice how out of place verse 10 appears to be, forcing verse 11 to restate the obvious (about being arrested), though I am not completely sure what to make of this observation. Second, Mark 14.61b-64 (in context, 14.55-64):

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 61a But He kept silent and did not answer. 61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Notice here that Jesus speaking at all comes as a soft contradiction of verse 61a, about him remaining silent (as per Isaiah 53.7), though (again) I am not completely sure what to make of this observation.

Mark 13.11 lacks any mention of sin or blasphemy, but it attributes to the Holy Spirit whatever someone who has been arrested on account of Jesus happens to say in his or her defense; it essentially turns any arrested Christian into a prophet! Mark 14.61b-64 puts Jesus himself into this position, with the ironic result that the high priest accuses him of blasphemy and thus winds up blaspheming the Holy Spirit presumably speaking through Jesus. I submit that both of these textual units further develop the themes already expressed in the first two discussed above. I cannot prove (at least not yet) that they belong to the same textual layer, so to speak, as the first two (since they may have been added even later), but it would make sense if they did.

What do you think? Are there any other textual units in the gospel of Mark that might stand or fall with the four identified here? Are there better places in the text to mark off the additions from the base?

Ben.

IMVHO in Mark 13 9-11 verse 10 appears more likely to be a later interpolation than verse 11. (Theoretically verse 11 could be an early interpolation and verse 10 a late interpolation but this seems a bit complicated.)

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

..................................
We now come to the two items on the list that do not quite so clearly stand out from their contexts, but which cohere thematically with the two foregoing textual units. The relevant bits will again be in red. First, Mark 13.11 (in context, 13.9-11):

9 “But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.

Notice how out of place verse 10 appears to be, forcing verse 11 to restate the obvious (about being arrested), though I am not completely sure what to make of this observation. Second, Mark 14.61b-64 (in context, 14.55-64):

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 61a But He kept silent and did not answer. 61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Notice here that Jesus speaking at all comes as a soft contradiction of verse 61a, about him remaining silent (as per Isaiah 53.7), though (again) I am not completely sure what to make of this observation.

Mark 13.11 lacks any mention of sin or blasphemy, but it attributes to the Holy Spirit whatever someone who has been arrested on account of Jesus happens to say in his or her defense; it essentially turns any arrested Christian into a prophet! Mark 14.61b-64 puts Jesus himself into this position, with the ironic result that the high priest accuses him of blasphemy and thus winds up blaspheming the Holy Spirit presumably speaking through Jesus. I submit that both of these textual units further develop the themes already expressed in the first two discussed above. I cannot prove (at least not yet) that they belong to the same textual layer, so to speak, as the first two (since they may have been added even later), but it would make sense if they did.

What do you think? Are there any other textual units in the gospel of Mark that might stand or fall with the four identified here? Are there better places in the text to mark off the additions from the base?

Ben.

IMVHO in Mark 13 9-11 verse 10 appears more likely to be a later interpolation than verse 11. (Theoretically verse 11 could be an early interpolation and verse 10 a late interpolation but this seems a bit complicated.)

I agree with all of that. Verse 10 intrudes. But verse 11 lines up with the themes pointed out elsewhere; so, if there is anything to that lining up, then yes, it gets complicated.

[Michael BG]

After finishing reading The Apocalyptic Imagination by John Collins I thought about the son of man sayings, but I came up against a problem. I wanted to reject as non-historical all sayings except those that refer to a heavenly son of man separate from Jesus, but I just couldn’t do it.

Therefore with this in mind I am going to comment, unfortunately my time is limited and so I am likely to comment on the sayings in different posts over the next few days.

Mk1-5a. 11-12

[1] And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
[2] And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
[3] And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
[4] And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
[5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic,

[11] "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."
[12] And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

There are still some features in this that are generally seen as Marcan “and immediately” in verse 11 and “they were all amazed”.

Mark 2.5b-10

"My son, your sins are forgiven."
[6] Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
[7] "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
[8] And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts?
[9] Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?
[10] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic –

We have the problem word “blasphemy”. What did the Jews consider as blasphemy? We have discussed this before. At some time we need to decide if this reference to blasphemy here and the one at 14:64 and maybe others are Marcan additions or were they already in a pre-Marcan source?

The question of repetitiveness is one I don’t have a position on. We can see that both Matthew and Luke have kept it. They sometime keep it in other places in Mark and in Q. It is therefore again possible that this repetitiveness was already in the saying before it reached Mark.

Therefore if you are asking is this a result of Marcan redaction, I think the answer may be no. If you are asking how much of this could be historical then maybe you are correct. Except for my problem with verse 10. Why would a Christian add “the son of man has authority …”, rather than having Jesus saying “I have authority …”?

Maurice Casey in Jesus of Nazareth discusses this passage p 256-62. He is interested in seeking the Aramaic behind the Greek rather than identifying where the redaction takes place. I often find his arguments for what the Aramaic was compelling, but I don’t agree with him that this gets us back to the original saying. I only seeing it as getting us back to the pre-Greek tradition. Here Casey identifies the Aramaic word qalltl behind Mark’s easier (v. 9), which he states means “‘light’, in weight … was used metaphorically with regard to commandments, or legal judgements. It meant that they were comparatively of lesser importance” (p 259). He identifies the Aramaic word shebhaq behind Mark’s aphienai in verse 5 which is here translated as “forgiven”. Casey states that the saying in verse 5 is passive and “presupposes that his sins have been forgiven by God” (p 259). Casey translates shebhaq as “forgiven/undone/released”. I think aphienai can be translated as “laid aside” and I think this might be the best meaning we can get to. Casey states that a person’s sins can be seen as part of a person’s illness in the Old Testament and later Jewish sources. Casey then states that the son of man refers to a group of people who can pronounce that God has “forgiven” someone’s sins. “They must include prophets, and healers” (p 261) … “both Essenes and Therapeutae were involved in the healing … illness”. Casey states that Jesus “may have been generalizing from his own experience. … We have seen that he accepted the ability of other exorcists, … He may well have deliberately sought to demonstrate that God enabled people to undo the effects of sin upon illness …” (p 262). He calls ‘were questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"', “secondary because, even according to Mark, the scribes say nothing. Moreover the accusation of blasphemy is inappropriate, because Jesus’ announcement of the forgiveness of the man’s sins presupposes that it is God who has forgiven him” (p 262) Casey continues “This comment presupposes the extreme hostility to Jesus’ ministry which we have already seen …”. I do wonder if this hostility is historical or if it was created by early Christians when developing the story that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.

I am very happy to agree with Casey that Mk 2:6b-7 is secondary, but I don’t understand why he thinks “[6] Now some of the scribes were sitting there,
[8] And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts?
[9] Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?” is not secondary as well. If Mark cannot report what the scribes were thinking, then why can Jesus know what they are thinking and respond to it. Both are linked together. If we see the first as unhistorical then the second falls along with it. However we are left with the commentary of verse 10 “But that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”, which seems to be linked to the above discussion and must fall with it, no matter how much I think it is unlikely to be a creation of the early Christian community (especially if Casey is correct about its meaning). I would be interested in possible reasons why early Christians would create this saying rather than having Jesus directly claim the authority to forgive sins.

It also seems strange that the people “glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!” I see this as in the normal tradition of showing the reaction of the people to miracles etc. and as such it is secondary.

If I am correct the earlier tradition behind the Marcan “source” was:

[1] And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
[2] And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
[3] And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
[4] And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
[5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are laid aside."
[11] "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."
[12] And he rose, and took up the pallet and went out before them all;

[Ben C. Smith]

After finishing reading The Apocalyptic Imagination by John Collins I thought about the son of man sayings, but I came up against a problem. I wanted to reject as non-historical all sayings except those that refer to a heavenly son of man separate from Jesus, but I just couldn’t do it. ....

If you are asking how much of this could be historical then maybe you are correct.

Just to be clear on my end, I am not trying to figure out here what may or may not go back to the historical Jesus. I agree that the question should be asked. But I am trying to figure out this gospel text first, with its many little weirdnesses and mysteries.

We have discussed this before. At some time we need to decide if this reference to blasphemy here and the one at 14:64 and maybe others are Marcan additions or were they already in a pre-Marcan source? ....

Therefore if you are asking is this a result of Marcan redaction, I think the answer may be no.

True, this ought to be addressed, but it gets very complicated very quickly. I contented myself in the OP to suggesting that four pieces of text were inserted into four contexts at some point. Those four contexts could predate Mark, and Mark the evangelist himself is inserting the additions. Or Mark the evangelist could have written the four contexts, and the texts are later scribal interpolations. Or any of a number of other options, depending on how many layers one is prepared to accomodate in a single text. Once more than one layer is present, it becomes challenging even to identify which layer is the author's; and the roles of author and editor become confused/confusing.

Except for my problem with verse 10. Why would a Christian add “the son of man has authority …”, rather than having Jesus saying “I have authority …”?

The whole issue of what "son of man" means in the gospels is intricately thorny.

It also seems strange that the people “glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!” I see this as in the normal tradition of showing the reaction of the people to miracles etc. and as such it is secondary.

If showing the reaction is a "normal tradition", why could it not form a part of the original story? Or are you saying that there was a time during which such reactions were not typically recounted, but then they became popular at some point?

If I am correct the earlier tradition behind the Marcan “source” was:

[1] And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
[2] And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
[3] And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
[4] And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
[5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are laid aside."
[11] "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."
[12] And he rose, and took up the pallet and went out before them all;

Our reconstructions of the basic text are fairly close, at any rate.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

Let us start with Mark 2.5b-10 (in context, 2.1-12):

1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”

What I take to be the added material is in red. The evidence for this material having been added is threefold. First, the words "says to the paralytic" are exactly repeated, once in verse 5 and then again in verse 10, and everything marked off by that repetition is cleanly removable without issue. Second, to remove that material is to remove a supremely awkward transition at the end of it, a bit of text so poorly stated that it can be expressed accurately only with an unfinished statement set off by a dash (—): "'But so that you may know...' — he says to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up....'" Third, the whole point of the added material is to make it seem as if Jesus might be God in some way, yet at the end of the pericope, after the addition, everyone is amazed and glorifies God: confusingly, if the material in red is present, since whom are they glorifying? God? Jesus as God? Both?? It seems evident, therefore, that this material has been made to interrupt an already existing healing that originally lacked any discussion of sin and blasphemy.

For the record, both Luke 5.24 and Matthew 2.6 retain the awkward transition (necessitating a dash), though they each make other changes in the pericope.
Ben.

JW:
Great stuff Ben. Laparola shows significant Textual Variation for all verses here (especially 2:9) except 2:6 which is evidence that the explanation is editing of the Markan original. I believe though that your broader point is that evidence of layers goes both ways. It could support editing of a Markan original or it could support "Mark" (author) as the editor, yes?

I generally value the Internal evidence for Textual Criticism of GMark over the External evidence since it does look like Christianity suppressed/did not preserve early texts of GMark compared to its effort with other Gospels. In addition to the Internal evidence you indicated, the focus of the offending pericope regarding the reason for Jesus to accept the healing request is on the presenters (as opposed to the presented):

3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic

So having Jesus just say something different to the paralytic has no effect whatsoever on this focus.


Joseph

The William Of Oz

[Michael BG]

....

If you are asking how much of this could be historical then maybe you are correct.

Just to be clear on my end, I am not trying to figure out here what may or may not go back to the historical Jesus. I agree that the question should be asked. But I am trying to figure out this gospel text first, with its many little weirdnesses and mysteries.

We have discussed this before. At some time we need to decide if this reference to blasphemy here and the one at 14:64 and maybe others are Marcan additions or were they already in a pre-Marcan source? ....

Therefore if you are asking is this a result of Marcan redaction, I think the answer may be no.

True, this ought to be addressed, but it gets very complicated very quickly. I contented myself in the OP to suggesting that four pieces of text were inserted into four contexts at some point. Those four contexts could predate Mark, and Mark the evangelist himself is inserting the additions. Or Mark the evangelist could have written the four contexts, and the texts are later scribal interpolations. Or any of a number of other options, depending on how many layers one is prepared to accomodate in a single text. Once more than one layer is present, it becomes challenging even to identify which layer is the author's; and the roles of author and editor become confused/confusing.

I think you make these things more difficult than me.

If you wish to consider if they were scribal interpolations then you have not made this clear, nor concluded if it is or not. I had supposed you were considering if these verses were Marcan redaction, but you are not even clear on this.

However as you state “the purpose of this thread is to isolate what I perceive to be (at least part of) a textual layer in Mark, one consisting of (at least) four textual units.”

Except for my problem with verse 10. Why would a Christian add “the son of man has authority …”, rather than having Jesus saying “I have authority …”?

The whole issue of what "son of man" means in the gospels is intricately thorny.

Indeed but I am happy to recognise that it has four meanings - used to mean any man, used to mean me or I, the speaker, used to mean a particular group that can be inferred from the context and used to mean the heavenly being of Daniel 7. Plus a fifth that it was used as a title for Jesus.

It also seems strange that the people “glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!” I see this as in the normal tradition of showing the reaction of the people to miracles etc. and as such it is secondary.

If showing the reaction is a "normal tradition", why could it not form a part of the original story? Or are you saying that there was a time during which such reactions were not typically recounted, but then they became popular at some point?

Using the term “original story” is unhelpful. I do accept that it would be part of the tradition received by Mark. My point is that it is an early Christian addition to the story to make it agree with such traditional miracle stories and as such shouldn’t be considered historical.

If I am correct the earlier tradition behind the Marcan “source” was:

[1] And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
[2] And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
[3] And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
[4] And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
[5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are laid aside."
[11] "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."
[12] And he rose, and took up the pallet and went out before them all;

Our reconstructions of the basic text are fairly close, at any rate.

Ben.

They are slightly different as I have included 5b and you have the whole of verse 12. On second thoughts it is possible that “before them all” is also an addition to the story to link it to their reaction. It is for you to decide if this makes a difference for what you are attempting to show.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”

What I take to be the added material is in red.
...
Third, the whole point of the added material is to make it seem as if Jesus might be God in some way, yet at the end of the pericope, after the addition, everyone is amazed and glorifies God: confusingly, if the material in red is present, since whom are they glorifying? God? Jesus as God? Both?? It seems evident, therefore, that this material has been made to interrupt an already existing healing that originally lacked any discussion of sin and blasphemy.

Maybe this could be relevant?

Mark 1:21 And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think you make these things more difficult than me.

If you wish to consider if they were scribal interpolations then you have not made this clear, nor concluded if it is or not. I had supposed you were considering if these verses were Marcan redaction, but you are not even clear on this.

That is true. I am not clear on which layer to label as "Mark" (and therefore as "Marcan redaction"). I do not know whether Mark collected these stories and then added the texts I have identified to them or whether Mark wrote up the gospel without them and then later scribes added them. I would love some evidence that this "textual layer" belongs with this or that part of the gospel. (I notice downthread that Kunigunde has pitched in with something of that nature.)

However as you state “the purpose of this thread is to isolate what I perceive to be (at least part of) a textual layer in Mark, one consisting of (at least) four textual units.”

Correct. How this textual layer, so to speak, fits into the rest of the gospel is very much an open question for me.

Indeed but I am happy to recognise that it has four meanings - used to mean any man, used to mean me or I, the speaker, used to mean a particular group that can be inferred from the context and used to mean the heavenly being of Daniel 7. Plus a fifth that it was used as a title for Jesus.

I am familiar with all of those meanings except perhaps "a particular group inferred from the context." Do you happen to have an example of that usage?

It also seems strange that the people “glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!” I see this as in the normal tradition of showing the reaction of the people to miracles etc. and as such it is secondary.

If showing the reaction is a "normal tradition", why could it not form a part of the original story? Or are you saying that there was a time during which such reactions were not typically recounted, but then they became popular at some point?

Using the term “original story” is unhelpful.

That is not fair. You used the term "secondary", and "original" is no more than a synonym for "primary" in this context. If there is no such thing as anything original, then there is no such thing as anything secondary. I am asking why you think that the element of the people reacting to the miracle was added to something when it is a "normal tradition" to show such reactions. That is all.

I do accept that it would be part of the tradition received by Mark. My point is that it is an early Christian addition to the story to make it agree with such traditional miracle stories and as such shouldn’t be considered historical.

Why can it not be part of the very first version of the story ever told? Why can it not be that the very first time anybody ever related the story (whether historical or not), the crowd's reaction was a part of it?

Our reconstructions of the basic text are fairly close, at any rate.

They are slightly different as I have included 5b and you have the whole of verse 12. On second thoughts it is possible that “before them all” is also an addition to the story to link it to their reaction. It is for you to decide if this makes a difference for what you are attempting to show.

It makes a difference to the details, but not much of a difference to the possible layering of the gospel.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Great stuff Ben. Laparola shows significant Textual Variation for all verses here (especially 2:9) except 2:6 which is evidence that the explanation is editing of the Markan original. I believe though that your broader point is that evidence of layers goes both ways. It could support editing of a Markan original or it could support "Mark" (author) as the editor, yes?

Thanks, Joe. Yes, I am not sure which way to cut the evidence of layering. Did the author we call Mark take stories and add this layer to them, or did the author we call Mark write up his gospel without them, and they were added in later? When the additions are attested in the manuscript record as variants, they tend to look like scribal tinkering, right? (I think that is the point of your noticing the variants above.) But, when the additions are not so attested, I find it more difficult to determine whether the additions are scribal, redactional, or authorial (and indeed these terms start to bleed into each other).

The distinction between whether the addition is attested in the manuscripts or not may be completely artificial, since it may simply be a matter of chance which variants were preserved from the period before we have any extant manuscripts for the text of Mark. But I still feel it somehow.

I generally value the Internal evidence for Textual Criticism of GMark over the External evidence since it does look like Christianity suppressed/did not preserve early texts of GMark compared to its effort with other Gospels.

I tend to agree.

In addition to the Internal evidence you indicated, the focus of the offending pericope regarding the reason for Jesus to accept the healing request is on the presenters (as opposed to the presented):

3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic

So having Jesus just say something different to the paralytic has no effect whatsoever on this focus.

Very interesting point.