Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  From Paul's supposed authentic letters (not Acts of course!) it is pretty obvious to me that Paul was quite uneasy about the "charismatic" dimension of some Hellenistic churches (especially Corinth). In fact he has very little in common with them, and tries to rule, organize, discipline, actually manipulate or even hijack their faith in order to bring it under his own flag (I mean "his Gospel"). So certainly he would'nt give more credit to miracles by ascribing them to Jesus (but he doesn't deny that either).

  About Jesus himself, the "JB hypothesis" (I mean John the Baptist!), for what it is worth, would somewhat favor the idea of his miracles as a later addition from Hellenistic charismatic tradition (along with the antinomian features). It is noteworthy that the miracles in Mark culminate with the Fig-tree story and the subsequent teaching of faith (chapter 11), which include the formula about "moving the mountains" which is also present in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (not as Jesus or Paul's word, but as a charismatic slogan). This can be a "signature" on the whole tradition.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Narkissos I like how you think. This of course should scare you.
  
  Doesn't this all play well with the Pauline Christ/ Chestus(Good) having been a very distinct character from the Gospel quasi-historical Jesus/Joshua/John? The two were merged by the proto-orthodoxy. Perhaps Paul saw some commonality but ran into a brick wall when he tried to introduce his mystic man to the Nazarenes.
• 

  Narkissos

  PP: Not scared at all!

  You sure do well to bring the Christos / Chrestos amphibology into the picture: it is clear that the semitic sense of "anointed" was meaningless for pagan Christianity (pleonasm) and that Christos was mostly taken in the sense of Chrestos (mild / good) -- the letter to Philemon is explicit about that --, resulting in a diaphanous Christ picture which was altogether alien to the Jewish Messiah...
• 

  Leolaia

  I was just reading this morning how the characterization of Jesus as an miracle worker in the Synoptic gospels was modeled partly on the Elijah/Elisha cycle and partly on the figure of Moses, as related in Exodus and the Book of Jannes and Jambres. The Moses theme is quite striking but little noticed because it draws on developments outside of the Torah. In Q 11:19, 24-26 (Luke 11:19, 24-26 = Matthew 12:43-45), Jesus critiques the exorcists of his day as making matters worse and resulting in greater possessions by "unclean spirits". The people assert that Jesus expells demons by the power of Beelzebub, "the prince of the demons" (Luke 11:15), while Jesus states that he acts with God's power (Luke 11:20). The people also demand from Jesus a "sign" (semeion) (Luke 11:29). All of this suggests that Jesus' relationship with other miracleworkers is akin to that of Moses and the magicians of Egypt (Exodus 7-9), where Pharaoh demands a "sign" (semeion) of Moses:
  

  "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a sign [semeion e teras],' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, and it will become a snake." (Exodus 7:9; LXX)

  This parallel helps explain the use of "sign" to refer to a miraculous wonder; in the Masoretic text, the equivalent term is mwpt "wonder" and in the Targum Onqeles (Ex. 8:5) the term is gbwr' "mighty deed". The connection between Moses and "signs" also runs throughout the LXX (cf. Exodus 10:1-2; 11:9-10; Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 34:11; Psalm 78:43; 135:9; Baruch 2:11; Wisdom 10:16; Sirach 36:5; 45:3). Psalm 78:43, for instance, refers to God "imposing his signs on Egypt, by displaying his wonders in the plains of Zoan."

  The accusation that Jesus casts out demons by the prince of demons also mirrors the extrabiblical belief that Pharaoh's magicians, known otherwise as Jannes and Jambres, were in league with the Devil. Thus in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we read: "Moses and Aaron stood by the hand of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Jannes [yhnh] and his brother in his plotting, when Israel was first saved" (CD 5:18-19). In the Testament of Solomon, the demon Abezethibou asserts that "I am the one whom Jannes and Jambres, those who opposed Moses in Egypt, called to their aid" (25:3-4). Similarly, Jubilees 48:9 claims that the demon Mastema helped the Egyptian magicians against Moses. Against this accusation, Jesus declares that he casts out demons "by the finger of God" (en daktulo theou), which is a direct reference to Exodus 8:19: "And the magicians said to Pharaoh [in reference to Moses' signs], 'This is the finger of God (daktulos theou).' " (LXX). This quotation firmly establishes the link between Jesus' miracles and signs in Luke 11:14-32 and the miracles and signs of Moses in Exodus 7-9 and Jewish legend. Eusebius, for instance, recognized the parallel by quoting Exodus 8:19 and then saying: 'In like manner did Jesus the Christ of God say to the Pharisees, 'If I by the finger of God cast out devils.' " (Dem. ev. 3.2). Also telling is how Luke 11:20 links the allusion to Exodus to the Kingdom of God: "But if it through the finger of God that I cast out demons, then know that the kingdom of God has come upon you." This statement is legible by understanding that Jesus, as a modern-day Moses, has a similar role by bringing people under the bondage of sin (i.e. Israelite slaves) into the blessing of the eschatological kingdom (i.e. the Promised Land), just as he also parallels Moses in bringing a new relationship with the Law. Psalm 78:42-43 thus says that "he saved them from the oppressor by imposing his signs on Egypt", and Deuteronomy 26:8-9 says that "Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with mighty hand and outstretched arm, with great terror, and with signs and wonders. He brought us here and gave us this land, a land where milk and honey flow."

  Another connection between Jesus in Luke 11 and Moses which is missing in the original Exodus narrative but found in extrabiblical sources is the mention is amazement; in the Book of Jannes and Jambres, Moses is described as "doing signs (semeia) so that all are amazed (thaumazein)" (Pap. CB XVI 26a-r). Similarly, Jesus exorcized a dumb man and "the crowds were amazed (ethaumasan)" and the growing crowds continued to seek "a sign (semeion)" (Luke 11:14, 29). In the Moses traditions, then, we find that Moses did miracles (Exodus 7-9; Jannes and Jambres), the people marvelled (Jannes and Jambres), there are competing miracle workers who do what Moses does and Pharaoh's magicians perform their magic through allegiance with the Devil (Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish tradition), Moses is asked to perform a sign (Exodus 7:9) and works his miracles by the finger of God (Exodus 8:19), and significantly Moses' competitors fail (Jannes and Jambres). In Luke 11:14-26, Jesus similarly performs a miracle (11:14), and the people marvelled (11:14), there were competing miracle workers who did what Jesus did (11:19, 24-26), while Jesus is accused of working through allegiance with Beelzebul (11:15). Jesus is asked to perform a sign (11:18), and works his miracles by the finger of God (11:20), while his competitors fail (11:24-26).

  The characterization of Jesus as a miracle worker in Q (and the Synoptics) may therefore simply derive from extending the parallel between Moses and Jesus (already established by Jesus' role as a Law-giver/interpreter and Savior figure) further. However, since Moses was not specifically characterized as an exorcist, the Moses motif appears to be building on an earlier exorcist tradition.

  Leolaia
• 

  peacefulpete

  nice. more and more I'm realizing how wide open this field is. Critical analysis of the NT is in it's infancy. Please check out the articles about James thatI referred to in my great trib thread. I'd like your opinion.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Back to the original theme. If in fact the miracles are secondary to the story as I suggestd, this explains the demand for secrecy we find in the new stories. In the Synoptics we often hear Jesus insisting that the healed person tell noone about it, that's just plain weird! However it could be explained as providing an excuse for their being no collective memory nor even oral tradition for these dramatic healings. In other words the author (of Mark?) had to offer a plausble reason that the late first century/early second century reader had not heard of these remarkable events before. The reason is...It was a secret.
• 

  Leolaia

  I was thinking the other day about the lack of institutional memory which seemed a little odd. But within the context of the Synoptics, I think the policy on silence was more a narrative device that repeats and gives structure to the gospel in its repetition: the pre-Easter Jesus forbids the news that he is the Messiah to be spread by demons (Mark 1:25, 34; 3:12), by those he cured (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and even by the apostles (8:30; 9:9), and the silence was not to be broken until after his death (cf. Matthew 10:27), and once he rose from the dead, then it was alright to declare the news about Jesus (Mark 16:17). The Synoptics explain the silence and Jesus' desertions of his disciples as due to the danger he found himself in (Mark 5:19; Matthew 12:14-16), and John 6:15 also has a similar theme, of the crowds desiring to take Jesus by force and make him their king. Jesus' avoidance of publicity of his work is a theme possibly derived from the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah where the servant explicitly avoids such publicity and does not make his voice heard in the streets or aloud (Isaiah 42:2-3). Matthew 12:17-21 directly cites this passage in Isaiah as the "prophecy" that Jesus had to fulfill. This might be an attempt to rationalize Mark's repeated emphasis on the theme in his gospel.
• 

  peacefulpete

  the Mystery man of Luke 9:49 WBTS friend or foe.... by Valis thread
• 

  peacefulpete

  I'm not convinced about the Secrecy element being a literary device. It is secondary to the story along with the miracles and it has no obvious pattern. I feel the author had a motive for including such a strang detail. The secrecy would serve as an explanation for thse storiesbeing newly introduced. The Isaiah passage may have played well for this purpose. And the writer could create the impression of another "prophecy" having been fullfilled at the same time.
• 

  Narkissos

  The secrecy of teaching in Mark doesn't seem to follow exactly the logic usually attributed to the secrecy of miracles.

  In 4:10ff: When he was alone (kata monas), those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside (tois exô, cf. 3:31f), everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.' "

  V. 33f With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private (kat'idian, cf. 6:31f; 7:33; 9:2,28; 13:3) to his disciples.

  Whether this sheds light upon the secrecy of miracles in Mark or is a different motif may be discussed. The kat'idian expression belongs to both contexts, but this hardly proves anything. Whatever the case, I doubt the usual, general explanation of secrecy is correct, because the Gospel's ending doesn't suggest open proclamation as could have been expected. The literary device sounds ironical (or tragicomical): the repeated order not to divulge is regularly transgressed, and the order to divulge is not fulfilled (16:8). This could be related to the very (Gnostic?) nature of the Gospel in Mark (or, perhaps better, the intermediate form with Secret Mark redaction if this scenario is correct): a mystery that can be proclaimed without being disclosed.