Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JW:
Regarding Ben's primary evidence of possible source for GMark here = If the primary theme of the Jesus @ Home/Nazareth is to show rejection, than why does the pericope end with a few healings? Ben's theory is that this is because GMark's source did have healings. I think the better explanation though is found by comparing the offending pericope with the related pericope:

Mark 6 5 And he could (1)(2)there do no mighty work, save that (3)(4)he (5)laid his hands upon a [6]few sick folk, and (7)healed them.

Mark 6 56 And (1)(2)wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, (3)(4)they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the (5)border of his garment: and as [6]many as touched him were (7)made whole.

Contrast (1) There/Everywhere (2) Insiders/Outsiders (3) Jesus comes to them/They come to Jesus (4) Jesus initiates/They initiate (5) Maximum contact/Minimum contact [6] Few/Many (7) Physically healed/Spiritually healed (saved)

We see above that while the two pericopes in general are closely related by the theme of Jesus' healing, every major point in the two pericopes is contrasted. The first pericope emphasizes the physical, Jesus' family, neighbors and physical healing. The second pericope emphasizes the spiritual, people who lack the physical connection but have a spiritual one, with the cruncher being they are spiritually healed (saved).

Regarding Ben's objection than to the use of "few healings" being original to GMark here, we see that this is exactly the wording needed to contrast with the "many healings" of the contrasting pericope. So which is more likely:

• 1) The two pericopes here are original creations by "Mark" (author) designed to completely contrast with each other.
  
  or
  
  2) One or both pericopes mostly contrasted with each other and "Mark" just changed one or a few places to make them completely contrast.

Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 2

JoeWallack wrote: If the primary theme of the Jesus @ Home/Nazareth is to show rejection,

It very well could be dealing with traditions that the Aramaic Galileans refused him as "son of god" a blasphemous status, which by all rights is a Hellenistic Diaspora creation.


Think about it, if he existed and was a Galilean Jew, his own people with certainty would have refused a blasphemous claim of being a deity because they knew him.

why does the pericope end with a few healings?

They are rhetorically building divinity, reaffirming Hellenist YES he is the real "son of god" not the Emperor, he did heal people in miraculous ways above and beyond what the Emperor would ever do for anyone.

JoeWallack wrote:Regarding Ben's primary evidence of possible source for GMark here = If the primary theme of the Jesus @ Home/Nazareth is to show rejection, than why does the pericope end with a few healings? Ben's theory is that this is because GMark's source did have healings. I think the better explanation though is found by comparing the offending pericope with the related pericope:

Mark 6 5 And he could (1)(2)there do no mighty work, save that (3)(4)he (5)laid his hands upon a [6]few sick folk, and (7)healed them.

Mark 6 56 And (1)(2)wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, (3)(4)they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the (5)border of his garment: and as [6]many as touched him were (7)made whole.

Contrast (1) There/Everywhere (2) Insiders/Outsiders (3) Jesus comes to them/They come to Jesus (4) Jesus initiates/They initiate (5) Maximum contact/Minimum contact [6] Few/Many (7) Physically healed/Spiritually healed (saved)

We see above that while the two pericopes in general are closely related by the theme of Jesus' healing, every major point in the two pericopes is contrasted. The first pericope emphasizes the physical, Jesus' family, neighbors and physical healing. The second pericope emphasizes the spiritual, people who lack the physical connection but have a spiritual one, with the cruncher being they are spiritually healed (saved).

Regarding Ben's objection than to the use of "few healings" being original to GMark here, we see that this is exactly the wording needed to contrast with the "many healings" of the contrasting pericope.

Great post, Joe. Seriously. I believe my points have now been whittled down to virtually nothing: just a lingering question about the nature of "faith" in this pericope, but not nearly enough to base even the suspicions of a source theory on.

I especially love it when you turn my own style of "is it not all too convenient" argument against me:

So which is more likely:

• 1) The two pericopes here are original creations by "Mark" (author) designed to completely contrast with each other.
  
  or
  
  2) One or both pericopes mostly contrasted with each other and "Mark" just changed one or a few places to make them completely contrast.

I agree. The former seems more likely. Cheers.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

So which is more likely:

• 1) The two pericopes here are original creations by "Mark" (author) designed to completely contrast with each other.
  
  or
  
  2) One or both pericopes mostly contrasted with each other and "Mark" just changed one or a few places to make them completely contrast.

I agree. The former seems more likely. Cheers.

Ben.

JW:
Well thanks Ben. And in contrast to you, for those who need points sharply explained (You know who you are. Or maybe you don't.) the "few healed" in the offending pericope is also necessary to provide the contrast between the physical healing there and the spiritual healing of the contrasting pericope.


Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 2