Kata Markon

["K. Hanhart" <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

re: paper by Jeffrey Gibson on his website The scribal charge of Demonic
Collusion in Mk 3,21.

Dear Jeffrey,
I"m sorry I cannot reproduce your article on this 'mail message format'
So I will try to make comments on it, trusting that participants of this
List will take the trouble to download it first. It is an interesting
article re. an important and enigmatic chapter of Mark. The chapter
offers a key to the interpretation of the miracle stories that precede
it. 1) I agree with your analysis (pg 1) that the scribal charge isnot
"stemming from an honest misperception" but is "a conscious premeditated
misrepresentation of both who Jesus is and the aegis under which he
works." 2) I also agree,that "the Gospel's social context ..is the last
stage of the Jewish War" (pg 3), except that I believe  Mark rewrote a
decades-earlier-version of "euaggelion" written in the genre of a
Passover Haggadah for the pre-70 ecclesia. 3) I further think your
comparison is justified: J.E. Hoover falsely accusing MLKing of being a
communist (note 20).
So the social/political context of first century Judaism is of utmost
importance. One question I put myself is whether this whole episode is a
post-70 composition - or (with your dating) was created just before the
outbreak of the war - or that it reflects a much earlier situation,
namely, Jesus' own time. The very heart of the episode is Jesus' saying
about the breaking into the house of the Strong One. It has the ring of
authenicity.  
Question - who is the Strong One? To me it refers to the all powerful
presence of Roman might. True, its suppressive and cruel measures
(crucifixion is not a light matter), trampling at times on human rights,
is pictured as inspired by Satan - the tone of the episode is that of a
battle is of spiritual force against spiritual force. But it refers at
the same time to concrete, secular events in Jesus' days. A powerful,
omnipresent question for a Godfearing Judean was to formulate an ethical
attitude toward the Roman occupying forces. Jezus taught - as the Sermon
on the Mount illustrates - a) non violent resistence (e.g. the taxes
episode in chp 12) and b) the heavy but challenging discipline of loving
(even) one's enemy. This is what is 'new' in Jesus'  interpretation of
the Torah. 
In that setting one may better understand the reaction of the Jerusalem
scribes. In Maccabean times Judeans fought the enemy  in an armed
revolt, led by a priest and they conquered!  Most Christians (like
myself) in occupied countries (such as Holland or Norway) sided with the
underground forces who also used arms and bombs. Elie Wiesel in his
stirring tale of the Jewish intern of a concentrationcamp who was asked
by a SS officer who lay at the point of death in the camp's hospital, to
forgive him "on behalf of the entire Jewish nation" The officer was torn
by guilt because he had participated in the killing of Polish Jews. Elie
Wiesel posed the question: does anyone have the right to 'forgive' this
officer "on behalf of the entire Jewish nation". That seems like playing
God. Wiesel didnot have a definitive answer. This setting also explains
the concern of Mary for Jesus' teaching and practicing non-violent
resistance exposed himself to danger (just as MLKing and Ghandi would
experience). But by practicing this non-violent response to injustice
Jesus in fact did enter the house of the Strong One and disarmed him -
the only effective way to overcome the enemy.
In other words - Jesus was not an exorcist in the ordinary sense of the
word. The miracle stories should be interpreted by means of midrash, as
I have tried to do in my book. The reaction of the masses to his first
socalled 'miracle', which set the tone of the entire series of miracle
stories is not, " what a great miracle is this but "what is this? A new
TEACHING  - with AUTHORITY! (See Neyrinck's Festschrift, part2 [pp 997].
Finally, I believe the unforgivable sin was committed by those followers
of Jesus who first adhered to his teaching and thereafter fell back in
the old hostile frame of mind and who left the ecclesia (cf 1 John
2:19).

your   Karel Hanhart