Kata Markon

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>]

The clause in 24b "Have you come to destroy us?" happens to be where this
discussion began!  It actually began with the issue of whether this clause
is a declaration or question (and of course it could be a rhetorical
question).  Then it moved to discuss the referent of "us" in 24b, and
hence to consider clause 24a as a contextual source for determining the
referent in 24b.

If one accepts 24a as applicable to the congregation/people of Capernaum, I
would find it linguistically implausible to argue for a switch in reference
to another set of participants in the communication situation *without any
linguistical markers to flag the change*.  That is, once the reference of
1st pers. pl. is established by a speaker, something distinctive in the way
of linguistic circumlocution (or possibly an extra-linguistic gesture) must
be used to indicate a change in reference.  At least, I am arguing that the
crowd in Capernaum would have initially *heard* the outburst and *assumed
coherence* in the 1st pl. reference of the utterance.

As to the logic of this outburst following on the heals of Jesus' teaching,
you are most probably right: probably nothing Jesus said provoked the notion
of his destroying Capernaum.  And especially not on the basis of
regionalism, for Capernaum received him fairly well, and was very soon
called "home" (2.1).  Rather, I suppose that the entire outburst and
confrontation arose out of the perversity of the demonic.

I appreciate your pointing out the specification of AUTWN *their* with
synagague in 1.23, for this further highlights the coherence of the
congregation as a group on the stage in this episode, and provides
additional basis to read 'us/we' of 1.24 as coreferential with this group.

As to the occurence of EUQUS 'straight-way' in 1.23 in the middle of
an episode, I have pondered for years Mark's use of this adverb.  The
explanation I am currently drawn to is that it simply moves the narrative
forward into the action, sometimes introducing a new character along with
the next instigating action in the narrative.  I understand this man to
already be present in the crowd, and that the immediacy/urgency conveyed by
EUQUS is simply focused toward the main verb ANEKRACEN: "And all at once a
man in their synagogue with an impure spirit cried out:...."

I have inserted at the bottom below your message 2 prior emails so as to
fill in the gaps in the prior discussion.  These are in reverse
chronological order.

God Bless!
Joe Friberg

----- Original Message -----
From: George Young <gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:07 AM
Subject: [gmark] MK 1:24


> The following was posted to the list, a carryover from B-Greek forum.  I
> apologize for any confusion as to my own response.
>
>
> >This discussion is being carried over from a thread initiated in the
> >B-Greek
> >forum (original thread: Re: Is it a question or not), and concerns
whether
> >the demonized man of Mk 1.24 refers to 'himself + demon' or 'himself +
> >crowd' when he speaks as "us".  At this point the discussion is moving
> >towards the larger function of this passage in Mark
>
>
> I find the attribution of hUMIN (v. 24a) to include the people of
Capernaum
> (demon + crowd) an interesting hermeneutical maneuver, as it does seem to
> explain the vocative address to "Jesus of Nazareth."  But what do you do
> with the content of the outburst (i.e., "have you come to destroy us?"),
> for
> it follows Jesus' teaching session which, as far as we know, posses no
> apparent threat to the people of Capernaum?  Moreover, the tone of this
> outburst is very consistent with what demons say elsewhere.  I apologize
if
> this hiccup was already addressed on B-Greek.
>
> One further query: has anyone thought it peculiar that the demon is
> portrayed as "SUDDENLY appearing in THEIR [versus 'the']  synagogue?"
>
> George W. Young, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
> Queen's College Faculty of Theology
> 210 Prince Philip Drive
> St. John's  NF
> CANADA   A1B 3R6
> Tel. (709) 753-0116
> Fax. (709) 753-1214
> email: gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca

======================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe A. Friberg <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Is it a question or not Mk 1.24b


> Dear Jeffrey:
>
> Regarding:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeffrey White <jbwwhite AT sprynet.com>
>
>
> > Mark 1:23 reads, "kai euqus hn en th sunagwgh autwn anqropos en pneumati
> > akaqartw, kai anekraxen". pneumati is dat. sing. So the man was in an
> > unclean spirit. This rules out the 'legion' possibility.
> I hope you didn't misread me, thinking that I was raising the plurality of
> demons as a possible reading of Mk 1.24f.  I was merely trying to think of
> other passages where a demonized person (or demon) might have spoken in
the
> plural.  In Mk 5 we find specifically agree that the plural spoken is
> 'demons - man', not 'demons + man', and we are in agreement that Mk 1 we
are
> in agreement that the situation is comprised of 1 demon (sg.).
>
> > The man is the
> > speaker, but Jesus later commands the unclean spirit to come out.
> Agreed: Jesus recognized who was truly behind the words.
>
> > Who is
> > speaking when one speaks in the Holy Spirit? Both the spirit of God and
> the
> > person who is speaking.
> Agreed.  But even here you do not find 'we' used of 'man + Spirit', do
you?
> For the prophet to use 'we' in his/her address would connote that 'I speak
> as a representative of a committee', or 'I and the H.S. think so-and-so'.
> That counsel/committee connotation just doesn't seem appropriate for a
> prophet speaking for God.
>
> > In Mk 1:27, the other people in the synagogue knew
> > very well that Jesus commanded the unclean spirit, but nothing suggests
> that
> > they made assumption that the man was speaking for them.
> Agreed, in Mk 1.27.  But Mk 1.24 comes chronologically (as well as
> textually) before 1.27, and the events of 1.25-26 intervene, so the people
> may have, and I suspect *did*, learn something new from the interaction:
> that the man was in fact demonized, and that it was the demon who spoke.
At
> the point of 1.27, I don't think they thought twice about what was said in
> 1.24--their thoughts were already moved far beyond that outburst.  My
point
> is, at the occurence of 1.24, how did they react and *hear* what was said.
> The only way they could have interpreted the saying as 'demon + man' would
> be if they already recognized the man was demonized, and if they thought
> quickly enough about it, or if the man went around on a regular basis in
his
> demonized state state using 'we'.  We do not have access to these latter
> alternatives, and in the text I simply see that it was *Jesus* who
> recognized the demonized state of the man and who addressed the demon.
>
> > Nor does Jesus
> > suggest anything like this.
> Agreed.  Jesus does not address what the man said, he only *acts* to
rescue
> him!
>
> > While the crowd in the synagogue mentions
> > 'unclean spirits' in the plural, 'tois pneumasi tois akaqartois', that
was
> > only what they said in their amazement, not the fact stated in Mk 1:23.
> Agreed.  They may also have added this event to reports the had already
> heard about Jesus.
>
> > Of
> > course, no book of the Bible is 'a theological treatise on demonology',
> but
> > the various passages which discuss evil spirits and demons form the
basis
> of
> > what we may intellectually understand of them.
> Agreed.  My point being that the point of this passage is the
> power/authority of Jesus over the demon, not the intricacies of
> how-who-spoke.  My emphasis on the 'drama' is that the events happened one
> after the other, and what the crowd understood at one point might be very
> different than what they understood three verses later.
>
> > In Mark 1:23-27, I really
> > think there is more to support 'man+demon' than 'man+demon+crowd'.
> With so much agreement, I nevertheless must disagree here.  In fact, the
> more I defend the *possibility* of 'we' in 1.24 as referencing 'man +
crowd'
> (by the manipulation and contrivance of the demon), the more I am prone to
> this interpretation as the *probable* one  :-)   !  One more note from the
> context: 1.22 specifically discusses the crowd, of which the man is a
part,
> in the 3rd plural.  I really think the option of 'man + demon' is more
> informed by a full understanding of demonology rather than the immediate
> context of the passage.
>
> God Bless!
> Joe F.
>
> >
> > However, this is certainly not this case. While the comparison is Mark
5:9
> > is valid, there we are specifically told that that man had many demons
in
> > Mark 5:12. What is interesting is that Jesus starts by addressing them
in
> > the singular and they respond initially in the singular, "legiwn onama
> moi",
> > but shift immediately to the plural. It appears that Jesus was
addressing
> > them all simultaneously and personally by addressing them first in the
> > singular. But this was a different man involved having a similar problem
> in
> > principle, but in greater measure. Reading through the context in the
Mark
> > 5, the chapter itself follows the same pattern, emphasizing singularity
> > first, but them shifting toward an emphasis on plurality. What the
> > singularity in Mark 5:9 really expresses is the unity of the unclean
> spirits
> > in possessing the man.
> >
> > One other thing which stands out is that the man in Mark 1:24 was in a
> > synagogue, but the man in Mark 5:9 was in the tombs. While the man in
> tombs
> > is described as cutting himself and possessing superhuman strength, the
> man
> > in the synagogue is not. What is also interesting is that the man in the
> > tombs worships Jesus, but the man in the synagogue doesn't. However,
both
> > are described as being 'en pneumati akaqartw'.
> >
> > Shalom, Jeffrey
> > jbwwhite AT sprynet.com

======================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe A. Friberg <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Is it a question or not Mk 1.24b


> I truly acknowledge the *possibility* of "us" refering to man + demon, but
> doubt the probability of this reference.  I doubt that this is the *usual*
> form of reference by a demoniac.  One might compare the "we" of Mk 5.9,
but
> that represents a third option: pluarality of demons.  While you have
> presented references and arguments puported to support the possibility of
> "us" refering to man + demon (or man + Spirit as the case may be), do you
> have any *examples* of such?  (There may be some, but I can't think of
> them.)
>
> I see nothing in the current context that necessitates the reading man +
> demon: the introduction of the character is singular in v.23; I would
fully
> expect the congregation heard "us" and included themselves as opposed to
> this outsider Jesus, for I do not think they would stop to ponder, 'O,
this
> man must be demonized since he is acting this way, therefore the demon
must
> be speaking and including just himself/itself and the man in "us"'; I also
> expect the demon was speaking more for the ears of the congregation rather
> than to dialogue with Jesus.
>
> This passage in Mark is high drama, not a theological treatise on
> demonology!
>
> God Bless!
> Joe Friberg
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeffrey White <jbwwhite AT sprynet.com>
>
>
> > Since the demon was speaking through the man, 'us' logically refers to
the
> > man and the demon speaking together much as one might speak by the
Spirit
> of
> > God referring to himself/herself and the Spirit when there is agreement
> > between them. In Ephesians 2:2, it says 'tou pneumatos tou nun
energountos
> > en tois uiois ths apeiqeias'. Mark 1:24 certainly presents a man having
a
> > demon 'inworking' within him. James 2:19 says, 'ta daimwnia pisteuousin
> kai
> > frissousin'. Thus the demon and the man speaking together express
> something
> > from a belief characterized by an expectation of destruction by the
Lord.
> >
> > Jeffrey White
> > jbwwhite AT sprynet.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe A. Friberg <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>
>
> > >Finally, does it make much difference which way it is taken??  In any
> > event,
> > >a demonized man has simply raised the issue of whether Jesus has come
to
> > >destroy "us".  Whether he raised the issue as his belief in its
> facticity,
> > >as a question to find out if his suspicion was true, or as a taunt to
> turn
> > >the people against Jesus, does not really matter.  Other questions
could
> be
> > >raised about this outburst, such as: who is "us"--the man and the
demon,
> or
> > >the congregation in the synagogue?