"The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by mlinssen »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:46 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 11:46 am I have gone by 2 texts, looking for case-sensitive And and But. Quick & Dirty, yes - my Hebrew not so good

ESV OT:

And: 5923
But: 1130

And-But ratio: 5.24

Berean Mark:

And: 576
But: 44

And-But ratio: 13.09

13.09 / 5.24 = Mark's And-But ratio is 2.5 times greater than that of the OT

Took me 5 minutes. I really praise, love and adore biblical academic research! Such great quality
Baum presented also tables based on the Greek text. Some non-biblical Greek text with a ratio under 1/1 are on the next page :D

Baum16.jpg
Is he deliberately selecting only certain books and sections so he can get to his math? What is the point of this highly selective table? Why didn't he just pick a representative and intact sample size?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:58 pm Is he deliberately selecting only certain books and sections so he can get to his math? What is the point of this highly selective table? Why didn't he just pick a representative and intact sample size?
Baum mainly used the results of other scholars in the tables. Selecting several chapters from a book to show the peaks may be a sufficient basis.

The problem with a machine search is of course that it also captures all the other "ands", e.g. in enumerations. On the other hand, the phenomenon is obvious to anyone who takes a look at the LXX.

LXX 2 Kings (MT 2 Sam) starts with Καὶ. While Mark has "Καὶ ἐγένετο" twice throughout his Gospel, 2 Kings has it in the first two verses plus a "καὶ ἐγενήθη".

1 καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν Σαουλ καὶ Δαυιδ ἀνέστρεψεν τύπτων τὸν Αμαληκ καὶ ἐκάθισεν Δαυιδ ἐν Σεκελακ ἡμέρας δύο
2 καὶ ἐγενήθη τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἦλθεν ἐκ τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ Σαουλ καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ διερρωγότα καὶ γῆ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν πρὸς Δαυιδ καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ

That's a different weight class than Mark when it comes to Καὶ.

Ulan once searched Καὶ in LXX 1 Kings 1 (MT 1 Sam 1).
Ulan wrote: Fri May 05, 2017 2:33 am Did anyone ever check whether the "bad Greek" is some attempt at further imitation? We still get the old chestnut brought up that the use of “καὶ” is an example for bad Greek, colloquial Greek, and similar ideas, even if it's obvious what Mark is doing here just by looking further back in the Greek Bible, like the beginning of 1Sam here:
Image
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by mlinssen »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:53 pm The problem with a machine search is of course that it also captures all the other "ands", e.g. in enumerations. On the other hand, the phenomenon is obvious to anyone who takes a look at the LXX.
Hence why I took only And and But, those at the beginning of a sentence.
It reminds me of little children talk when they tell a story: and he this and then he that and then he left and the he right but also up and then he down - etc. Rudimentary language
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Topography, geography and localization

Mark 1:1-8
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Schmidt wrote (page 20-22 of the German edition
The meaning is: John the Baptist appeared preaching in the desert, he preached in the desert. John is mentioned without any introduction as an already known personality. There is no indication of a chronological dating. This absence is important. With the narration as it is available in Mark, we hit the granite of the old tradition. This tradition was passed on by insiders who knew the people and events and therefore naturally had no interest in biographical details ...

… more literary is a parallel fragment from the Gospel of the Ebionites as Epiphanius mentioned it:
It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and Elisabeth : and all went out to him.
This is a correct personal description and introduction, as a reader with a halfway biographical interest would expect. A still quite esoteric tradition did not attach any importance to it. And such a tradition kept us Mark intact.
...
John acts "in the desert". There is no geographical specification of any kind.
...
The connection between verse 4 and verse 5 clearly states that the place of preaching and of baptism is identical, meaning that the Jordan is to be found in the desert. But that seems difficult. One tried to counter this difficulty by seeing the lower Jordan valley in the desert mentioned here, which Josephus once called an "eremia".
...
The evangelist does not seem to have clear geographical notions. Apparently he is not interested in these things, nor does he have a chronological interest.
...
The older and historical account is that John baptized in the Jordan area.
...
It is questionable whether the desert motif goes back to a particularly old report. On closer inspection, it turns out that the desert motif grew out of the prophet’s quote in verse 3. The evangelist who placed this quotation at the beginning of his gospel introduced these features into the story of the Jordan Baptist.
...
The story is removed from any geographical character. He who introduced the desert motif into the story was not thinking of any particular desert, as we were initially inclined to assume, but had in mind the grandiose image of a lonely desert. And he put a certain emphasis on that.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:56 am .
Topography, geography and localization
Although Schmidt did not explicitly explain his theory, with these explanations he repeated a distinction between literary accounts and non-literary accounts within the Gospels that was important to him.
… more literary is a parallel fragment

From a historical point of view, however, Schmidt’s criticism means something positive. In his opinion, the non-literary account is historically valuable and contains historical facts while the literary account is suspected of being literary fiction.
A still quite esoteric tradition did not attach any importance to it. And such a tradition kept us Mark intact.

As a literary account, Schmidt evaluated the Ebionite gospel in relation to the person of John. He also regarded Mark's descriptions of the desert as the place of John’s preaching as literary.
… more literary is a parallel fragment from the Gospel of the Ebionites as Epiphanius mentioned it: … This is a correct personal description and introduction, as a reader with a halfway biographical interest would expect.
...
The evangelist … who introduced the desert motif into the story was not thinking of any particular desert, ... but had in mind the grandiose image of a lonely desert. And he put a certain emphasis on that.

In contrast, the introduction of John’s person in Mark 1:4-8 is not literary (according to Schmidt), as is the mention of the Jordan as the place of baptism. Precisely because Schmidt did not feel any literary shaping regarding these points, he estimated both as unsuspicious and ascribed historical reliability to them.
John is mentioned without any introduction as an already known personality. … With the narration as it is available in Mark, we hit the granite of the old tradition. This tradition was passed on by insiders who knew the people and events and therefore naturally had no interest in biographical details ...

The ... historical account is that John baptized in the Jordan area.

Ulan
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Ulan »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 11:24 pm
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:53 pm The problem with a machine search is of course that it also captures all the other "ands", e.g. in enumerations. On the other hand, the phenomenon is obvious to anyone who takes a look at the LXX.
Hence why I took only And and But, those at the beginning of a sentence.
It reminds me of little children talk when they tell a story: and he this and then he that and then he left and the he right but also up and then he down - etc. Rudimentary language
I assume this was done for the purpose of recitation at a synagogue or Christian meeting place. They probably read in some kind of singsong, like it's sometimes done today. The "kai" sets the rhythm.


As for the question of what's historical behind the Jesus stories, I've basically given up on that ever since the info from the Pauline epistles sank in. Paul had Jesus produce new stuff at night in his head, and everyone in those Christian meetings could do the same, either as glossolalia (which isn't that interesting in this context) or as actual "prophesies" (during which women were supposed to cover their head). Usually, dead people have the decency to not to produce new sayings, but I guess we have to forget about that in early Christianity, completely independent from the question about the historical (or not) Jesus, even more so than for definitely historical figures, whose speeches were most probably also invented by authors in many or even most cases.

But I won't clog up Kunigunde's thread with this, so that's it from me.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ulan wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 12:26 pm But I won't clog up Kunigunde's thread with this, so that's it from me.
You are always welcome :cheers:

imho in order to better understand Schmidt's theory, it is best to imagine four steps along which Schmidt developed his theory. Schmidt never said that explicitly but it gradually emerges from his book.

1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes
4. Conclusion

1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels

I have already mentioned that Schmidt considered the Gospel of Mark to be the oldest gospel and that it is based on sources. Schmidt differentiated the sources between a collection of many individual, self-contained pericopes (Mark 1-13) and a coherent report (Mark 14-16). According to Schmidt, Mark took the pericopes of Mark 1-13 from oral tradition and he had a very old written report (Mark 14-16).

The oral and written sources were unliterary and went back to reports from eyewitnesses.


2. Criticism of each individual pericope

In his criticism, Schmidt started from an ideal, realistic and easily understandable eyewitness report, just as he imagined it. On this basis he criticized each individual pericope of Mark, observing that the pericope sometimes contains literary additions, sometimes from Mark, but especially from Matthew and Luke.

For example, he criticized the verses GMark 1:4-8 regarding topography as follows

- The exact location of the baptism at the Jordan is not specified.
- The information about the desert is a literary addition by Mark.
- There is no place in Palestine where the Jordan river lies in a desert.
- The statements in Mark 1:5 “the whole region of Judea and all Jerusalemites” are literary exaggerations by Mark.
- Further chronological and topographical details in GMatthew and GLuke are merely literary additions.

According to Schmidt, Mark has no knowledge of local geography and is not interested in it.

Therefore, only little information about the baptism of John on the Jordan can be considered as the original source report and as the historical core handed down in oral tradition.

Schmidt wrote
Two different accounts are interwoven in the text now available (Mark 1:4-8)
a) a story about a preacher in the desert and
b) a story about a baptizer at the Jordan.
...
The older and historical account is that John baptized in the Jordan area.
...
This hypothesis can be assumed to be correct insofar as the inserted story can be taken out of the context again without difficulty.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:12 am
1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes
4. Conclusion

3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes

Mark 1:16-28 16 Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19 And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him. 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. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, 24 “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

Schmidt wrote
There is a close topographical and chronological connection. However, attempting to pinpoint this relationship presents some difficulties. The interpreters therefore also find dates that strongly contradict each other. And in fact, a clear explanation is not possible.

From the sea, Jesus and the new disciples go into Capernaum and immediately go to the synagogue on the Sabbath. Should one conclude from this that the day of their arrival was a Sabbath? If that were the case, then the calling would also have to have taken place on the Sabbath. However, the fact that in this case the disciples would have pursued their fishing trade on the Sabbath speaks vehemently against this. In order to avoid this conclusion, which is impossible, the interpreters see a chronological break either before or after the arrival in Capernaum.

Bernhard Weiss assumes that the word “immediately” only refers to what follows immediately after arrival and points out that nothing is said about a journey by Jesus and his disciples from the lake to the city. Other exegetes put a time gap between the arrival and the appearance in the synagogue and explain: Jesus enters Capernaum with his disciples and teaches immediately on the Sabbath following the arrival. Wohlenberg finds the following chronological connection: “The dawn of the Sabbath came soon after the Lord had arrived in Capernaum with the four disciples. So the entry into Capernaum took place on a Friday afternoon, and what we read happened in the service held on that Sabbath... On the other hand, it can be assumed that the report refers not only to the evening and opening service, but also to that which took place on Saturday assembly included.”

With all these explanations ... it is assumed that there is a fixed chronological sequence, which, however, has to be deviated from as soon as difficulties arise in the interpretation. From what has been said thus far in discussing the framework of Jesus' story, however, Mark's chronology appears as mere conjecture to be rejected.

In the present pericope it is not certain whether “immediately”, Mark's favorite phrase, has a succinct meaning. Above all - and this is the decisive factor - there is a gap between Mark 1:20 and 1:21 that cannot and should not be filled. Nothing is told about what happened between Jesus and his new disciples immediately after their conversion. A new pericope begins with Mark 1:21, which is an isolated account from Mark 1:16-20.

The Codex Syriac Sinaiticus omitted the location of Capernaum because it seemed strange that Jesus called fishermen who live near Capernaum and only then came to the city itself. Matthew and Luke also eliminated this difficulty. The Syriac Sinaiticus did this in a radical way of his own. A comparable correction is when the Codex omits the “immediately” in Mark 1:21. This is also intended to separate the two scenes of Mark 1:16-20 and Mark 1:21-28, which seem to have a close chronological and topographical connection.

It is not surprising that the localization of a particular scene disappears ... In many cases the topography was quite irrelevant to the story in question and the content of the narrative was all that mattered. On the other hand, as we have seen, place names grew with the stories and were adopted, not because they were very important, but because they were considered irrelevant.

That's the way it is in the gospel of Mark. A specific scheme according to which one would have to evaluate the topography of this gospel cannot be identified. We must examine each case individually. All that can be said, as a generally well-applied rule, is that Mark sometimes localizes his scenes and sometimes not. This shows that he already found this local information in the tradition available to him.

The same applies to the time specifications. We have already seen that there is no chronological order in the Gospel of Mark ... If Mark tells first about the calling of disciples and then about the stay in Capernaum and Luke reverses this order, then no special tradition is required.


Luke 4:31-37; 5:8-11 4:31 And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath, 32 and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority. 33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, 34 “Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” 35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. 36 And they were all amazed and said to one another, “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!” 37 And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region. 5:8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” 9 For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” 11 And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.

Schmidt wrote
Because even the correct knowledge of the outline in Mark shows that there is no connection between Mark 1:16-20 and Mark 1:21-28. But then it is not enough to merely assume that there is a gap.... No, one must go further: the order of both events can be interchanged at will. The oldest writers of the Gospels were rightly free on this point, without scruples. In fact, Luke simply rearranges both narratives. If that's the case, the question of the order of the stays in Capernaum cannot be answered either. In Mark 1:21ff, Mark only describes a first stay in Capernaum. Matthew includes two stories of this in his account of a second visit to Capernaum. (see Matthew 4:12ff and Matthew 8:14ff) On this point, too, there has not been an inadmissible change in the Mark report, but from Mark himself nothing can be said about the number and sequence of Jesus' visits to Capernaum.

It cannot be that the proponents of the Mark first hypothesis shatter the framework of Jesus' story in Matthew and Luke, or that the lovers of Luke's Gospel do the same in Mark. The framework must be shattered in all three gospels.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:12 am
1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes
4. Conclusion

4. Conclusio

Schmidt's conclusion is that the life of the historical Jesus cannot be reconstructed because initially only small stories were passed on orally, rarely giving time and place of the action. The evangelists sometimes located these individual stories or arranged them chronologically, but these improvements are only a secondary framework.

Schmidt wrote
But on the whole there is no life of Jesus in the sense of a developing life story, no chronological outline of Jesus' story, but only individual stories, pericopes placed in a framework.

gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "The Framework of the Story of Jesus" by Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 12:47 pm
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:12 am
1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes
4. Conclusion

3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes

Mark 1:16-28 16 Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19 And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him. 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. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, 24 “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

Schmidt wrote
There is a close topographical and chronological connection. However, attempting to pinpoint this relationship presents some difficulties. The interpreters therefore also find dates that strongly contradict each other. And in fact, a clear explanation is not possible.

From the sea, Jesus and the new disciples go into Capernaum and immediately go to the synagogue on the Sabbath. Should one conclude from this that the day of their arrival was a Sabbath? If that were the case, then the calling would also have to have taken place on the Sabbath. However, the fact that in this case the disciples would have pursued their fishing trade on the Sabbath speaks vehemently against this. In order to avoid this conclusion, which is impossible, the interpreters see a chronological break either before or after the arrival in Capernaum.

Bernhard Weiss assumes that the word “immediately” only refers to what follows immediately after arrival and points out that nothing is said about a journey by Jesus and his disciples from the lake to the city. Other exegetes put a time gap between the arrival and the appearance in the synagogue and explain: Jesus enters Capernaum with his disciples and teaches immediately on the Sabbath following the arrival. Wohlenberg finds the following chronological connection: “The dawn of the Sabbath came soon after the Lord had arrived in Capernaum with the four disciples. So the entry into Capernaum took place on a Friday afternoon, and what we read happened in the service held on that Sabbath... On the other hand, it can be assumed that the report refers not only to the evening and opening service, but also to that which took place on Saturday assembly included.”

With all these explanations ... it is assumed that there is a fixed chronological sequence, which, however, has to be deviated from as soon as difficulties arise in the interpretation. From what has been said thus far in discussing the framework of Jesus' story, however, Mark's chronology appears as mere conjecture to be rejected.

In the present pericope it is not certain whether “immediately”, Mark's favorite phrase, has a succinct meaning. Above all - and this is the decisive factor - there is a gap between Mark 1:20 and 1:21 that cannot and should not be filled. Nothing is told about what happened between Jesus and his new disciples immediately after their conversion. A new pericope begins with Mark 1:21, which is an isolated account from Mark 1:16-20.

The Codex Syriac Sinaiticus omitted the location of Capernaum because it seemed strange that Jesus called fishermen who live near Capernaum and only then came to the city itself. Matthew and Luke also eliminated this difficulty. The Syriac Sinaiticus did this in a radical way of his own. A comparable correction is when the Codex omits the “immediately” in Mark 1:21. This is also intended to separate the two scenes of Mark 1:16-20 and Mark 1:21-28, which seem to have a close chronological and topographical connection.

I'm interested in the interpretation of Mark's use of "immediately" since I have an opinion about Paul's use of the same word in Gal 1:16f. My inclination is to look for a connection between immediately the most relevant verbs. To my ear, "teaching" is relevant to the idea of immediately, but it seems rude to start teaching immediately. So, perhaps even more relevant is their response: they were immediately astonished. Similarly, my sense is that the next "immediately" goes with the next response: "...there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he immediately cried out." It seems to me that "they were astonished" and "he cried out" go together one after another. Or maybe they are simultaneous. I don't know how that way of reading "immediately" would work elsewhere in Mark.
Post Reply