Perfil del usuario

The episode contains a large number of verbs relating to the unclean spirit and/or the boy. These will assist us with the meaning of the Peal of

ܛܒܚ

in vv. 18 and 20. Many of these verbs express violent actions enacted by the spirit on the boy. The first verb concerns the spirit ‘seizing’ or ‘grasping’ the boy (the Aphel of

ܟܪܕ

// καταλαμβάνω).

The Peal active participle of

ܫܒܝ

is found next as an action of the boy (KPG offers two alternatives ‘be paralyzed, stiff, rigid’ and ‘languish, pine’). The corresponding Greek is the middle-passive form of the verb ξηραίνω (‘becomes withered, lifeless, dry, stiff ’). The intended meaning of both Greek and Syriac is that the boy’s life force has virtually ‘withered away’, diminishing to a dangerously low state (cf. the same Greek-Syriac correspondence in Mk 11:21 used of the ‘withered’ fig tree). This makes further sense because it follows the Aphel of

ܬܥܪ

(losing bodily fluid).

The Aphel of

ܬܥܪ

occurs twice (verses 18 and 20, corresponding to ἀφρίζω). In Mk 9:18 it follows immediately the Peal of

ܛܒܚ

. It probably indicates the foaming up of saliva ‘at his mouth’ (

ܬܶܥܪ ܰܡܘ

‘and [results in] him making foam’). If the verb were not intransitive then the meaning might be have been ‘causing him to shake violently’ (Whish). As an action of the boy it could be taken more physiologically (in contrast to an action of assault by the demon). In 9:20 the verb belongs with the ‘writhing’ (Peshitta:

܀ܬܶܥܪ ܰܡܘܳܐ ܳܘ̱ܗܳܩܰܥܰܒܬ ܶܡܘܳ܆ܐܳܥܪܰܐܳܠܰܥܳܠ ܰܦܢ ܰܘ

‘and he fell on the ground writhing and foaming’).

We should pause here before looking at the meaning of the Ethpaal of

ܩܥܒ

in Mk 9:20. We need to be aware of how contextual factors determine whether or not word meanings are meant to be seen as medical symptoms since we may desire, along with the Greek commentaries, to perceive a similarity here with the Hippocratic medical treatise on epilepsy and thus read Mk 9:18–26 as relaying medical symptoms for several verbs. For example, Eric Sorensen compares the text in

102

Mark with the Hippocratic treatise on epilepsy because he perceives that both relay epileptic symptoms:

In the New Testament, the story of the possessed boy provides a direct point of

comparison with the Hippocratic medical record. Instead of the expressions "the sacred disease" (περὶἱερῆς νούσου), and "epilepsy" (ἐπιληψία) which occur in the medical treatise Mark describes his subject as "having a speechless spirit" (ἔχονταπνεῦμαἄλαλον).... Though the naming of the malady differs in Hippocratic work and the synoptic gospels the Table 5 shows that Mark and The Sacred Disease record essentially the same

symptoms.221

In this case Sorensen has already decided that epileptic symptoms are in view. Presumably, Sorensen would also perceive the same set of symptoms present in the Syriac translations. Such an exegesis does not require that we differentiate between what different ancient persons might have viewed as epilepsy since, as modern readers who are familiar with what ‘epilepsy’ really is (a medical disorder) we can presume that Mk 9:18–26 is, like the medical treatise, relaying epileptic symptoms.

But what each interpreter means by ‘medical’ must be clarified. The Greek medical treatises distinguish their own physiological perspective from the popular supernatural aetiologies. So we should, likewise, distinguish between ‘folk medicine’ and ‘professional medicine’ in this regard. The Greek medical treatises rejected the popular speculation of spirit aggression. Thus the author of the Hippocratic treatise περὶἱερῆς νούσου (‘on the sacred/divine disease’) “makes it plain that the name was not given because it was a divine visitation.”222 _{The author called it the}

‘sacred disease’ because that was its most popular name (and ἐπιληψία had not yet become its technical name).223 _{Moving beyond the Greek world of medical practitioners into the Syriac}

221 _{Eric Sorensen, Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 106.} 222 _{Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca, 161.}

223 _{The reason the Hippocratic treatise referred to the illness asπερὶἱερῆς νούσου (‘sacred disease’) is not only because}

that was its popular name. The author of the treatise considered the elements of nature (heat, cold, wind) as ultimately divine (and pure) and thus all illnesses were in a sense ‘divine’. Owsei Temkin, The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology (2nd ed.; Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1971), 22, refers to an article unavailable to me, namely Owsei Temkin, “The Doctrine of Epilepsy in the Hippocratic Writings,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 1 (1933). It seems that ἐπιληψία was not a technical term for the disease

before the third-century CE. Hence, adjectives usually described the symptoms or persons (ἐπίληπτος and τὰ ἐπιληπτικά‘pertaining to epileptic seizure/convulsions’). By the third-century ἐπιληψία had passed into Latin

(epilepsia) as a technical term for the disease. This coheres with the Hippocratic treatise (On the Sacred Disease) where

103

world, the distinction is probably not as sharp due to fewer professional practitioners of

medicine and so medical notions will become somewhat diluted with more traditional ones. But this is conjectural. Most of the Hippocratic treatises were already translated into Syriac by about the same time the Peshitta Gospels translations were being completed in the early fifth century.224

It seems safe to maintain, like that asserted by the Greek medical practitioners, a distinction between folk and professional medicine (folk therapies sought to override the ‘daemonic’

influences at work; professional therapies sought to rebalance the ‘humours’). In this way we can categorise our episode in both Greek and Syriac Mark as ‘medical’ only insofar as we mean ‘folk medical’.

In the epileptic treatise, the symptom of ‘foaming’ during an epileptic fit is understood as fluid struggling to escape from the body. Likewise, any writhing or kicking is considered to be due to an internal struggle as air attempts, unsuccessfully, to escape via the mouth. The only similarity to our text is the notion of a ‘struggle’ of sorts. Within our text, the unfortunate son is suffocating or losing necessary bodily fluid and so the ‘writhing’ (the Ethpaal of

_ܩܥܒ

, Mk 9:20) and

‘foaming’ are to be taken as visible signs of the boy’s struggle against his attacker. The Ethpaal of

ܩܥܒ

(Mk 9:20, corresponding to middle-passive of κυλίω) does not occur elsewhere in the Peshitta Bible, and is a supposed convulsive verb according to KPG (“be convulsed, writhe, roll about”). In its present context, the meaning is probably ‘writhe around (in pain)’ or ‘struggle around convulsively/torturously by kicking or flailing about on the ground’ (the Ethpaal of

_ܩܥܒ

might be passive, thus more directly implicating the unclean spirit, see §9.6.1). There is no need to enforce a physiological understanding in line with the medical Hippocratic treatise on epilepsy. Although it is possible to take several of the verbal actions as ‘medical symptoms’, whether

epileptic symptoms or symptoms of fever,225 _{there is little reason to do so within Mark’s}

causes of epilepsy in children.” Τοῖσι μὲν παδίοσιν αὗται αἱπροφάσιες τῆς ἐπιλήψιός εἰσι τὴν ἀρχήν). Two examples of ἐπίληπτοςin the treatise are: οὐγὰρ ἔτι ἐπίληπτονγίνεται (‘since he does not still suffer epileptic seizure’); καὶοὕτως ἐπίληπτοςγίνεται (‘and thus epileptic seizure occurs’).

224 _{However, the peak of medical/scientific translation occurred in the ninth century. Thomas F. Glick, Steven John}

Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2005), 224.

225 _{The phrase ‘fire and water’ has occasionally been taken to indicate ‘fever’. Thus the fourth century saint Amma}

Syncletica interpreted the phrase ‘fire and water’ in Ps 66:12 (“If you suffer from fever and cold, remember the text of the Scripture, ‘We went through fire and water,’ and then ‘you brought us out into a place of rest’.”) Quentin F

104

narrative which provides these actions as an intrusive spirit overpowering its victim in a violent and deadly display.

The Greek commentaries prefer to highlight several of the verbs as convulsive symptoms of epilepsy, but this is largely achieved by venturing beyond Mark’s narrative. From a narrative perspective, readers are not necessarily led to think of epilepsy. If Mark’s early Greek and Syriac readers are thinking ‘medically’ in terms of ‘epilepsy’ it is because something or someone outside the narrative has suggested it, but the narrative itself shows unambiguously that it is a demonic attack. Furthermore, no healing vocabulary appears. It is possible that both (ancient) epilepsy and demon-aggression are intended (see the parallel in Lk 9:37–43a) but the two are usually distinct, due to differing aetiologies.

The Peal of

_ܠܦܢ

(Mk 9:20) is a common verb for ‘fall, fall down’. Here it refers to being caused to fall (rather than falling down accidentally) and so reinforces the intentional aspect of the action. The lexeme is similar in meaning to the Aphel of

_ܐܡܪ

(Mk 9:22) used of the unclean spirit said to ‘throw’ the boy into (or towards) fire and water:

_{ܳܐܳܝ ܰܡ ܵܒ ܰܘܳܐܳܪܘܽܢܒܳܗ}ܶ ܰܝܬܡܪܰܐܳܢܵܐܳܝ ܺܓ ܰܣܳܢܝܺܢܒܰܙܵܘ

ܒܘܰܬܕ

ܳܺܕ

ܝ̱ܗܘܝ

(‘and many times has thrown him into fire and water in order to destroy him’). The unclean spirit is attempting to take the boy’s life.

The Aphel of

_ܕܒܐ

appears in Mk 9:22 for ‘to cause [him] to perish’ (corresponding to ἀπόλλυμι). The significance of this sentence within the thematic context of Mark is that the demon’s intention (to destroy a life) represents what Jesus is up against in his own mission, an intention Jesus wishes to confront head on in Jerusalem. Such an intention stands in extreme contrast with Jesus’ own non-violent mission to implement God’s reign and to restore life. We see that the same destructive goal is feared by the unclean spirit of Jesus in the earlier episode of spirit- banishment (Mk 1:26)—yet such intentions are never perceptible in Jesus himself, who instead simply commands enemy spirits either to be silent and/or to leave.

Wesselschmidt and Thomas C Oden, Psalms 51–150 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007). Similarly one might read Mk 9:22 medically as “cast him into burning fever and chills” as rendered by Victor Alexander, Aramaic New Testament: from the Ancient Church of the East Scriptures (Charleston: self-published, printed by CreateSpace, 2011).

105

The Peal of

_ܩܚܫ

in Mk 9:26 is, similarly, befitting of a battle/conflict of kingdoms (‘shatter,’ ‘break to pieces,’ ‘crush’).226 _{The Peal of}

_ܩܚܫ

_{is not usually used with a person as the verb’s}

object, the closest object used elsewhere would be a person’s heart (Acts 21:13; Prov 17:10) as an application that seems ‘figurative’ (in English only?). It is obviously a Syriac word of similar meaning (corresponding here to σπαράσσω). It is not clear how specific the action is, but it is again visibly harmful, and is followed by the boy looking dead (the Peal of

_ܬܘܡ

).227

If we were to draw any conclusions at this point concerning the meaning of the Peal of

_ܛܒܚ

, it would be that its accompanying vocabulary is aggressive. It is the accompanying verbs that should have the most influence on a decision concerning our difficult verb. We see that the son gets suddenly forced to the ground and he is fighting for his life as he struggles for air, having been ‘crushed’ by his attacker who intends to take his life. KPG’s three options for the Peal of

ܛܒܚ

(beat; throw down; convulse) remain possible. But if we are constrained by the textual context then a ‘convulsive’ sense should only be promoted if we can manage to clarify that a medical sense (epileptic convulsions) appears contextually unlikely in Peshitta Mark (or Greek Mark, see below, supposition 2, §2.4). Therefore, referring to ‘convulsions’ remains potentially ambiguous and misleading.

The distinction between spirit-banishment and healing within Mark has only rarely been observed in a strict way.228 _{Most recently the distinction has been asserted by John Pilch. Pilch}

notes the two-fold division in Mark as: “[1] sickness, and [2] affliction by unclean spirits or demons” that is, (1) events dealing with ‘sickness’ (1:29–31; 1:40–45; 2:1–12; 3:1–6; 5:21–24, 35– 43; 25–34; 7:31–37; 8:22–26; 10:46–52) and, (2) events dealing with ‘unclean spirits’ (1:21–28;

226 _{Cf. Rom 16:20 and Rev 2:27. In the Old Testament, the meanings are also destructive in nature, e.g. Eccl. 12:6}

(Ethpeel ‘broken, smashed’) and Dan 2:40 (‘break to pieces, crush [a kingdom]’.)

227 _{In Mk 9:26 some Peshitta manuscripts agree with the Sinaitic in attaching the intensifying adverb to the demon’s}

‘crushing’ of the victim rather than the demon’s screaming (i.e. after the Peal of ܩܚܫ rather than with the Peal of

ܐܥܩ), thus agreeing better with the Greek.

228 _{For example Graham Twelftree comes reasonably close to observing a strict distinction by speaking of “healing}

and exorcism.” Whilst he classifies exorcism as a category within healing (“blurring of the distinction between exorcism and other kinds of healing”) he is aware that “the boundaries between healing and exorcism” can be blurred (in Luke). Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 133, 86.

106

3:20–30; 5:1–20; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 9:38–40; [16:9–20]). The summary statements in Mark further support this two-fold division (thus Mk 1:32–34 maintains the twofold pattern of the sick and the demon-possessed; Mk 3:10–11 refers to diseases and the unclean spirits; Mk 6:7–13 refers to demons and to anointing many sick).229

So the Gospel of Mark categorizes social deficiencies (community ‘health’ problems tackled by Jesus) into two main groups, distinguishing the banishment of spirits from the healing of sick persons. Spirit-banishment in Mark is only broadly a kind of ‘healing’ within a broader notion of ‘healthcare’. No healing vocabulary appears in Mk 9:14–29 or in any of the other banishment accounts in Mark. In regard to the prominent themes (kingdom advancement, faith, death and resurrection) these are all carried over in Peshitta translation of Mk 9:14–29. As yet, we have no reason to suppose a ‘medicalisation’ of the context in the Peshitta, and especially not a

professional medical perspective.

It has now been demonstrated that supposition 1 is unsound. Within the narrative of Mark, Mk 9:14–29 concerns an aggressive and violent spirit attacking a boy and this intruder is then

banished by Jesus, without any healing vocabulary used. It is unlikely that the episode intends the boy’s suffering to be considered a ‘medical’ condition unless we specify it as (non-professional) ‘folk medical’ or more broadly as ‘societal health-care’. This observation was achieved by

identifying and maintaining cultural categories of illness within the text, that is, vocabulary that is ‘emic’ (of an insider perspective) was not confused with ‘etic’ vocabulary (of a foreign ‘outsider’ perspective) so that words of alleged medical significance can be approached ‘ethnomedically’ (as has been advocated by John Pilch).230 _{Therefore, supposition 1 (the tendency to see an epileptic}

229 _{John J. Pilch, Healing in the New Testament: Insights From Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis:}

Fortress, 2000), 68.

230 _{The distinction between ‘etic’ and ‘emic’ was one originally made by Kenneth Pike in 1967 as a linguistic}

distinction before being applied by other disciplines such as in anthropology where it indicates a distinction between an outsider’s perspective (etic) compared to an insider’s perspective (emic) on any aspect of culture. I use etic and emic in line with the anthropological usage, following Pilch. Similarly ‘ethnomedical’ is presently used as an ‘emic’ term for identifying something as ‘medical’ (as distinct to an etic ‘biomedical’ perspective). We are obliged to discern whether meanings given for the Greek lexeme σεληνιάζομαι (Mt 4:24, 17:15) would fall within an emic (insider) or

107

condition of the boy in Mk 9:14–29) can no longer be upheld. A convulsive meaning for the Peal of

_ܛܒܚ

will have to be based elsewhere.

2.4 Testing Supposition 2 (Greek Influence): Σπαράσσω as Allegedly Terminology

In document Residencia universitaria para estudiantes de arquitectura no residentes en Lima de la Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería (página 162-168)