​Was Jairus's daughter dead or not?

[eight bits]

In the three synoptic gospels (Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's), Jesus is told that a girl has died. He responds that she isn't dead, but is asleep. He goes to her side, and in short order, she's back on her feet.

Was Jesus being figurative? Something like, "Yes, she's dead, but death is just sleep when I can fix it?" That isn't what he said, but ...

The clearest about "Yes, she was dead" is Matthew. Not so much because he tells the story itself unambiguously, but because after he tells the story, he has Jesus say to John the Baptist's disciples that "dead people" have been raised. Jesus doesn't raise anybody else in Matthew. He must (?) have meant that the girl was dead.

The murkiest version is Luke's. His Jesus tells those disciples of John the same thing as in Matthew, but in Luke, this comes right after Jesus has raised somebody else: a widow's son. Only afterwards will Jesus minister to Jairus's daughter. When he does, there will be story elements pointing one way and story elements pointing the other way... some elements seem to point both ways! Oh ... and some key words are so vague in Luke that translators can write their own version, and have.

Which leaves Mark. He alone shows awareness that false diagnoses of death were a fact of life in the ancient world. Only in Mark does Pilate seek expert testimony that Jesus is really dead before releasing the body. Only in Mark is Jesus told that another character, a boy, is dead (after Jesus exorcises a demon from him). Jesus simply wakes the boy up without saying a word.

Beyond false death diagnoses in general, it turns out that educated people during the "Gospel Era" (late 1st Century CE) and long before then believed that women could fall into a coma that resembled death. The coma could be corrected quickly as soon as the comatose woman's womb were restored to its right place. To modern readers this is nonsense, but to some in Mark's first audiences, this was gospel.

More details:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/25/in-gmark-jairuss-daughter-hadnt-died/

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/matthew-and-luke-weigh-in-on-jairuss-daughter/

 

[SHaYap]

I'm still doing the math of the bread and fishes... 

~

[quiXilver]

Don't believe anything said, claimed, or written by the cannibalistic blood drinking cults.

[zep73]

I didn't even know Jesus had a daughter.

[Piney]

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

In the three synoptic gospels (Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's), Jesus is told that a girl has died. He responds that she isn't dead, but is asleep. He goes to her side, and in short order, she's back on her feet.

Is there any Alexandrian Greco-Buddhist or Greco-Hindu character that is attributed to the same story? 

 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

Is there any Alexandrian Greco-Buddhist or Greco-Hindu character that is attributed to the same story? 

It's hard enough to do a miracle, and you want an original miracle?

The cool thing (I think; minority opinion to be sure) is that Mark realizes that there is no miracle here. Maybe he knows the passage in Pliny's Natural History, or maybe he knows what it describes from some other source.

Matthew is hopeless, but I think Luke knows that Mark is skeptical, or at least tolerant of skeptics in his audience. It is an amazing coincidence that Luke would add a detail to his version of the story that seems to refer to the same passage in Pliny's Natural History as would explain the girl's condition and her recovery as natural phenomena. A wink and a nod, or so I believe.

 

12 hours ago, zep73 said:

I didn't even know Jesus had a daughter.

Mormon Jesus has bunches of them, or so I've heard.

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

We all should know by now that those two relations are Bacchus and Krishna. I think he said, "She is not Dead yet, but merely sleeps." I guess it could be a coma, or that she was not dead long enough to be a lost cause. Her soul must have still been close to her body and the silver cord still attached.

I also like the stories of Rasputin when it comes to this. When he heals the prince who couldn't be healed by the physicians.

P.S. I think the silver cord is probably actually a reference to the spinal cord and may or may not be related to the supposed silver cord attached to the soul like.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Green Lion

[quiXilver]

Was Jairus' daughter really dead?

Was Jesus a real person?

 

No way to know for sure, but it's fun to speculate!

Edited August 30, 2021 by quiXilver

[Mr Walker]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:52 AM, eight bits said:

In the three synoptic gospels (Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's), Jesus is told that a girl has died. He responds that she isn't dead, but is asleep. He goes to her side, and in short order, she's back on her feet.

Was Jesus being figurative? Something like, "Yes, she's dead, but death is just sleep when I can fix it?" That isn't what he said, but ...

The clearest about "Yes, she was dead" is Matthew. Not so much because he tells the story itself unambiguously, but because after he tells the story, he has Jesus say to John the Baptist's disciples that "dead people" have been raised. Jesus doesn't raise anybody else in Matthew. He must (?) have meant that the girl was dead.

The murkiest version is Luke's. His Jesus tells those disciples of John the same thing as in Matthew, but in Luke, this comes right after Jesus has raised somebody else: a widow's son. Only afterwards will Jesus minister to Jairus's daughter. When he does, there will be story elements pointing one way and story elements pointing the other way... some elements seem to point both ways! Oh ... and some key words are so vague in Luke that translators can write their own version, and have.

Which leaves Mark. He alone shows awareness that false diagnoses of death were a fact of life in the ancient world. Only in Mark does Pilate seek expert testimony that Jesus is really dead before releasing the body. Only in Mark is Jesus told that another character, a boy, is dead (after Jesus exorcises a demon from him). Jesus simply wakes the boy up without saying a word.

Beyond false death diagnoses in general, it turns out that educated people during the "Gospel Era" (late 1st Century CE) and long before then believed that women could fall into a coma that resembled death. The coma could be corrected quickly as soon as the comatose woman's womb were restored to its right place. To modern readers this is nonsense, but to some in Mark's first audiences, this was gospel.

More details:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/25/in-gmark-jairuss-daughter-hadnt-died/

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/matthew-and-luke-weigh-in-on-jairuss-daughter/

 

Try moving any woman's womb around.

You will find they wake up, "right quick." 

(Terribly incorrect I know. But it  was just how I read your words and thought about what it would be like to have your womb  readjusted and repositioned )  

Unless they were "completely dead , " they would wake up fast. 

[eight bits]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You will find they wake up, "right quick." 

Just to be clear about Pliny and the older ancient medical text he cites. There is such a thing as a "prolapsed" womb (as for other organs that are "held in place" relative to other organs).

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/uterine-prolapse/symptoms-causes/syc-20353458

What the modern reader finds nonsensical is that this would result in a coma that resembled death, one that might persist for days, and from which the woman would wake up "right quick" if her womb were restored to its proper place.

I imagine Mark to be like the modern writer on a hospital-or-doctor television program. He finds an appropriate "disease of the week," and develops the dramatic potential of that condition in the context of the characters who star in the show.

 

17 hours ago, Green Lion said:

Her soul must have still been close to her body and the silver cord still attached.

Although a "silver cord" is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in the context of death (Ecclesiastes 12:6), Luke doesn't go that far when he adds to the story, and neither Mark nor Matthew tells anything from the girl's own point of view.

 

14 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Was Jairus' daughter really dead?

Was Jesus a real person?

 

No way to know for sure, but it's fun to speculate!

True enough. One nice thing, I think, is that we can separate the two questions. Whether or not Jesus was a real person, Mark is telling a story here. Maybe Mark made it up, maybe he heard it somewhere, maybe it's based on the true-life adventures of a Galilean bare-foot doctor ... that we don't know and probably never will.

What Mark intended in choosing the story and telling it (which may have been intentional ambiguity, or intentional "believe what you want" that differed among his audience members) is a fair question. It's like asking who the murderer is in a mystery novel ... even though the butler isn't a real person, what's on the page supports the butler did it rather than some other character, even though no real people are involved and no real murder happened..

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:14 AM, quiXilver said:

Don't believe anything said, claimed, or written by the cannibalistic blood drinking cults.

How rude. 
We’re also the only cannibalistic blood drinking cult that has it’s own UN recognised country.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:22 AM, eight bits said:

In the three synoptic gospels (Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's), Jesus is told that a girl has died. He responds that she isn't dead, but is asleep. He goes to her side, and in short order, she's back on her feet.

Was Jesus being figurative? Something like, "Yes, she's dead, but death is just sleep when I can fix it?" That isn't what he said, but ...

The clearest about "Yes, she was dead" is Matthew. Not so much because he tells the story itself unambiguously, but because after he tells the story, he has Jesus say to John the Baptist's disciples that "dead people" have been raised. Jesus doesn't raise anybody else in Matthew. He must (?) have meant that the girl was dead.

The murkiest version is Luke's. His Jesus tells those disciples of John the same thing as in Matthew, but in Luke, this comes right after Jesus has raised somebody else: a widow's son. Only afterwards will Jesus minister to Jairus's daughter. When he does, there will be story elements pointing one way and story elements pointing the other way... some elements seem to point both ways! Oh ... and some key words are so vague in Luke that translators can write their own version, and have.

Which leaves Mark. He alone shows awareness that false diagnoses of death were a fact of life in the ancient world. Only in Mark does Pilate seek expert testimony that Jesus is really dead before releasing the body. Only in Mark is Jesus told that another character, a boy, is dead (after Jesus exorcises a demon from him). Jesus simply wakes the boy up without saying a word.

Beyond false death diagnoses in general, it turns out that educated people during the "Gospel Era" (late 1st Century CE) and long before then believed that women could fall into a coma that resembled death. The coma could be corrected quickly as soon as the comatose woman's womb were restored to its right place. To modern readers this is nonsense, but to some in Mark's first audiences, this was gospel.

More details:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/25/in-gmark-jairuss-daughter-hadnt-died/

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/matthew-and-luke-weigh-in-on-jairuss-daughter/

 

Off the top of my head, Luke was written last and is a text that’s reliant on another (IIRC Mark) gospel for the story told therein to hold together. 
From a believer’s perspective it’s a dead child risen by the Word of the Lord, but from an attempt to ground in reality - she was asleep (or in a coma of some sort) and Jesus was canny (or lucky) enough to awaken her.

[SHaYap]

Resurrecting Plato in the Christian lands... 

Quote

plato.stanford.edu

Plotinus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

by L Gerson · 2003 · Cited by 493 — Plotinus (204/5 – 270 C.E.), is generally regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism. He is one of the most influential philosophers in ...

 

Date of death: 270 CE

 

Place of birth: Lycopolis

~

 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

From a believer’s perspective it’s a dead child risen by the Word of the Lord, but from an attempt to ground in reality - she was asleep (or in a coma of some sort) and Jesus was canny (or lucky) enough to awaken her.

I'm not a believer, but it seems to me that there isn't one, single, unique believer's perspective.

Definitely Matthew is as you say, and if the belief is that what goes for one synoptic gospel (Matthew, Mark and Luke) goes for all, then there we are. She was dead and Jesus fixed it. The one gospel that tells it clearly trumps the other two which are "subject to interpretation."

But would Mark's Jesus be less worthy of a believer's respect if he were simply telling the truth? By that point in the story, he has a heavy reputation as a healer. Here's an easy chance for Jesus to do what any number of other people have done IRL: take credit for restoring somebody's life simply by correctly diagnosing what others have misdiagnosed (or maybe just being in the right place at the right time).

He doesn't have to say anything, just not correct people from what they've already come to believe all on their own, that the girl is dead. But he doesn't, he volunteers the truth unbidden, even takes a razzing for doing so, and gives the most convincing demonstration of that truth which he or anybody possibly could: he wakes her up without any fuss or bother.

Why is that not a potential believer's perspective? That Jesus is the kind of leader who tells the truth even when he could get away with a calculated silence?

On a point arising: nobody can be sure because the gospels are undated, but the general opinion seems to be that the order of composition is Mark first, then Matthew, then Luke, and finally John. It's fairly deinite that among those first three, even if that order is wrong, a lot of copying went on among them. BUT, as this story illustrates, each of them is capable of adding their own unique spin to what they've received.

 

 

 

[SHaYap]

Early days began with the Greco-Roman trying to piece the empire together again... 

Quote

plato.stanford.edu

Neoplatonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

by C Wildberg · 2016 · Cited by 41 — Evidence for the increasing Neoplatonization of Christianity is abundant: The brilliant Christian theologian Origen...

 

...

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu › ...

The Permanent Influence of Neoplatonism upon Christianity

by WR Inge · 1900 · Cited by 23 — THE PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF NEOPLATONISM. UPON CHRISTIANITY. By W. R. INGE,. Oxford, Eng. THERE is...

 

...

https://www.jstor.org › stable

Synesius of Cyrene between Neoplatonism and Christianity

by JA Bregman · 1993 — BETWEEN NEOPLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY. REVIEW ARTICLE. BY. Jay A. Bregman. Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius. By Alan Cameron.

 

 

...

 

 

https://www.pdcnet.org › collection-...

The Relationship Between Neoplatonism and Christianity

O'Meara in which he stresses the importance of Neoplatonism for both Eastern and Western. Christianity. The Introduction by Thomas Finan...

 

By the time of James no one had any idea who or what Plato was... 

~

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, third_eye said:

Early days began with the Greco-Roman trying to piece the empire together again... 

By the time of James no one had any idea who or what Plato was... 

~

 

He invented the plate.

[docyabut2]

On 8/29/2021 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

In the three synoptic gospels (Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's), Jesus is told that a girl has died. He responds that she isn't dead, but is asleep. He goes to her side, and in short order, she's back on her feet.

Was Jesus being figurative? Something like, "Yes, she's dead, but death is just sleep when I can fix it?" That isn't what he said, but ...

The clearest about "Yes, she was dead" is Matthew. Not so much because he tells the story itself unambiguously, but because after he tells the story, he has Jesus say to John the Baptist's disciples that "dead people" have been raised. Jesus doesn't raise anybody else in Matthew. He must (?) have meant that the girl was dead.

The murkiest version is Luke's. His Jesus tells those disciples of John the same thing as in Matthew, but in Luke, this comes right after Jesus has raised somebody else: a widow's son. Only afterwards will Jesus minister to Jairus's daughter. When he does, there will be story elements pointing one way and story elements pointing the other way... some elements seem to point both ways! Oh ... and some key words are so vague in Luke that translators can write their own version, and have.

Which leaves Mark. He alone shows awareness that false diagnoses of death were a fact of life in the ancient world. Only in Mark does Pilate seek expert testimony that Jesus is really dead before releasing the body. Only in Mark is Jesus told that another character, a boy, is dead (after Jesus exorcises a demon from him). Jesus simply wakes the boy up without saying a word.

Beyond false death diagnoses in general, it turns out that educated people during the "Gospel Era" (late 1st Century CE) and long before then believed that women could fall into a coma that resembled death. The coma could be corrected quickly as soon as the comatose woman's womb were restored to its right place. To modern readers this is nonsense, but to some in Mark's first audiences, this was gospel.

More details:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/25/in-gmark-jairuss-daughter-hadnt-died/

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/matthew-and-luke-weigh-in-on-jairuss-daughter/

 

Jesus was like a doctor, that healed people. 

[XenoFish]

I guess the only good answer is if it advances/serves the plot of the story. 

[eight bits]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I guess the only good answer is if it advances/serves the plot of the story. 

Yes, but the plot, at least in Mark, is pretty much what Docy said,

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

Jesus was like a doctor, that healed people. 

Jesus has a healing ministry which complemets a teaching ministry. That is, he ministers to the living in Mark.

There's plenty of story in that, IMO. I'm not sure that's an "anti-believer" position, either.

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Jesus has a healing ministry which complemets a teaching ministry. That is, he ministers to the living

 

Still does.

Jesus was not an ordinary person. Yes, he was every bit as human as everyone else but he was also at the same time, the incarnate Creator of the universe.

 

"The healing wonders which every now and then attended Jesus’ mission on earth were not a part of his plan of proclaiming the kingdom. They were incidentally inherent in having on earth a divine being of well-nigh unlimited creator prerogatives in association with an unprecedented combination of divine mercy and human sympathy. 

 

Paradoxically I guess, this situation gave Jesus a lot of trouble in that it....

 

"provided prejudice-raising publicity and afforded much unsought notoriety.

 

And it still does today.

A very interesting thing that happened in connection with these healings is that...

 

"the majority of those who were recipients of supernatural or creative physical healing were not permanently spiritually benefited by these extraordinary manifestations of divine mercy. A small number were truly edified by these physical ministries, but as a rule, the spiritual kingdom was not advanced in the hearts of men by these amazing eruptions of timeless creative healing.

The Healing at Sundown

 

"A rich widow of Tyre, with her retinue, came seeking to be healed of her infirmities, which were many; and as she followed Jesus about through Galilee, she continued to offer more and more money, as if the power of God were something to be purchased by the highest bidder. But never would she become interested in the good news; it was only the cure of her physical ailments that she sought.

The Widespread Fame of Jesus

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Will Due

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

The healing wonders which every now and then attended Jesus’ mission on earth were not a part of his plan of proclaiming the kingdom.

That's a fair reading, IMO, of the first chapter of Mark. At the outset of his public activity (1:15), he has a preaching message with nothing about healing, “The time is fulfilled, and God’s Kingdom is at hand! Repent, and believe [what I'm telling you].” But when he goes to preach this at his local synagogue, a demoniac finds him. OK, Jesus performs an exorcism. Then he goes to Peter's house, and finds Peter's mother-in-law is sick. Fine, Jesus is a good guest and helps her out. That night (when Sabbath travel restritions expire), the locals come to the house for healing and exorcism (and maybe some of them for the teaching).

Nothing about that remotely suggests a "plan" for the exorcism or the healing. Jesus isn't looking for problems to solve, the problems are finding him. The decisive moment comes a little later when he goes to a synagogue to teach, and a leper wants to be healed. It's pretty clear (in what seems to be an early version of Mark anyway) that Jesus foresees that if he heals the leper, then this guy is going to promote Jesus as a healer plain and simple. Jesus makes the choice to go ahead anyway, and sure enough, thereafter Jesus can't go places without attracting crowds of patients. "Crowd management" becomes a recurring problem in Mark.

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

"the majority of those who were recipients of supernatural or creative physical healing were not permanently spiritually benefited by these extraordinary manifestations of divine mercy.

That's a fair reading, too. Jesus may be very good at what he does, but he's not the only wandering healer and exorcist. A patient might well be grateful for the relief, but it's a long way from there to "this guy is more than human."

It sill is, even if you think that all of this is history rather than a historical novel or drama.

[Abramelin]

On 8/30/2021 at 3:28 AM, zep73 said:

I didn't even know Jesus had a daughter.

Yes, and she was called Sarah. Well, that's according to the Gypsis in southern France.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

That's a fair reading, IMO, of the first chapter of Mark. At the outset of his public activity (1:15), he has a preaching message with nothing about healing, “The time is fulfilled, and God’s Kingdom is at hand! Repent, and believe [what I'm telling you].” But when he goes to preach this at his local synagogue, a demoniac finds him. OK, Jesus performs an exorcism. Then he goes to Peter's house, and finds Peter's mother-in-law is sick. Fine, Jesus is a good guest and helps her out. That night (when Sabbath travel restritions expire), the locals come to the house for healing and exorcism (and maybe some of them for the teaching).

Nothing about that remotely suggests a "plan" for the exorcism or the healing. Jesus isn't looking for problems to solve, the problems are finding him. The decisive moment comes a little later when he goes to a synagogue to teach, and a leper wants to be healed. It's pretty clear (in what seems to be an early version of Mark anyway) that Jesus foresees that if he heals the leper, then this guy is going to promote Jesus as a healer plain and simple. Jesus makes the choice to go ahead anyway, and sure enough, thereafter Jesus can't go places without attracting crowds of patients. "Crowd management" becomes a recurring problem in Mark.

That's a fair reading, too. Jesus may be very good at what he does, but he's not the only wandering healer and exorcist. A patient might well be grateful for the relief, but it's a long way from there to "this guy is more than human."

It sill is, even if you think that all of this is history rather than a historical novel or drama.

Furthermore, he explicitly tells people to NOT talk about his resurrection of Jairus’ daughter and tells the healed Lepers to present to the authorities and show that they are healed, not “and tell ‘em Jesus did it”. 

[eight bits]

12 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Yes, and she was called Sarah. Well, that's according to the Gypsis in southern France.

Was Saint Sarah thought to be Jesus's child before Holy Blood, Holy Grail (American title, early 1980's)? Do the Romani go along with that?

 

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Furthermore, he explicitly tells people to NOT talk about his resurrection of Jairus’ daughter and tells the healed Lepers to present to the authorities and show that they are healed, not “and tell ‘em Jesus did it”. 

Well, the leper is another example of "take your pick from three versions,"

Mark 1:40-44  The leper is to tell no one, no exception made for the priests (A recovered patient had no obligation to explain anything to the priests when making a thanksgiving sacrifice), the leper tells all kinds of people anyway, and this creates crowd problems for Jesus

Matthew 8:1-4 The leper is to tell no one, an exception apparently is made for the priests ("that will be proof for them"), no information is given about whether the guy complies with Jesus's instructions, but it doesn't matter because Jesus is already crowded before this healing (8:1)

Luke 8:12-16 Like Matthew, the same apparent exception is made for the priests and there is no information about the guy's compliance; like Mark this incident sets off crowding, but that is not blamed on this guy disobeying Jesus's instructions.

The instructions part of Jairus's daughter is "take you pick from two versions"

Mark 5:43 and Luke 8:56 are as you say; but Matthew 9:26 has no silence instructions, and the report is widely disseminated.

Edited September 1, 2021 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

15 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Yes, and she was called Sarah. Well, that's according to the Gypsis in southern France.

Depends on where and who draws the lineage lines... 

Quote

~