Professional Bias?

[Giuliano]

Did you ever notice how Mark and Luke treat the story of the woman with an issue of blood?

Mark reads:

Mark 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

Luke reads:

43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Mark doesn't seem to have a high opinions of physicians. They abused her, took her money and she got worse. Luke admits she spent all her money on physicians; but he seems to imply that she was incurable. It wasn't the physicians' fault.

If you ever doubted that the author was Luke, a physician, that should set your mind at ease.

 

[Joseph77]

Not if you trust the medical profession today.

 

[Joseph77]

Mark doesn't seem to have a high opinions of physicians. They abused her, took her money and she got worse.

This happens every day today. A multitude of times, as most families experience.

 

[Joseph77]

It wasn't the physicians' fault.

Luke NEVER SAID THIS.
Neither did JESUS,nor GOD THE CREATOR.

They never once said those physicians were even helpful.

 

[Waiting on him]

God seems to have given man an ability to subdue many medical problems that confront us, but too what prevail. Only Christ can heal the spiritual deposit.

 

[Dcopymope]

God seems to have given man an ability to subdue many medical problems that confront us, but too what prevail. Only Christ can heal the spiritual deposit.

Well we have an immune system for that, but if he didn't allow us to heal ourselves faster through the various sources in nature, I'd still call him inept.

 

[DNB]

Did you ever notice how Mark and Luke treat the story of the woman with an issue of blood?

Mark reads:

Mark 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

Luke reads:

43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Mark doesn't seem to have a high opinions of physicians. They abused her, took her money and she got worse. Luke admits she spent all her money on physicians; but he seems to imply that she was incurable. It wasn't the physicians' fault.

If you ever doubted that the author was Luke, a physician, that should set your mind at ease.

I don't agree with your insights. Both are merely saying that she 'suffered' many treatments, that typically cost a lot of many, but could not be healed. Their intent is not to make the physicians look like quacks or deceptive, but to emphasize her demise, and the incurable nature of the disease. Thus, because of this depiction, we understand both her desperation and faith (simply a touch of his garment will suffice), and the powerfully miraculous nature of Jesus' healing, being able to subdue and eradicate something so destructive and overwhelming.

 

[Giuliano]

I don't agree with your insights. Both are merely saying that she 'suffered' many treatments, that typically cost a lot of many, but could not be healed. Their intent is not to make the physicians look like quacks or deceptive, but to emphasize her demise, and the incurable nature of the disease. Thus, because of this depiction, we understand both her desperation and faith (simply a touch of his garment will suffice), and the powerfully miraculous nature of Jesus' healing, being able to subdue and eradicate something so destructive and overwhelming.

Both do not say she "suffered" many things of many physicians. Marks says that, Luke does not.

 

[DNB]

Both do not say she "suffered" many things of many physicians. Marks says that, Luke does not.

Yes, but harmonized they do. They are either in contradiction, or insight needs to reconcile them. Suffer in this context does not mean foul play, it means that something took its toll. Just like one suffers a cold or injury.

 

[Giuliano]

Yes, but harmonized they do. They are either in contradiction, or insight needs to reconcile them. Suffer in this context does not mean foul play, it means that something took its toll. Just like one suffers a cold or injury.

I don't see a contradiction between the two accounts. I also didn't ask for help harmonizing them.

If Mark said the woman did not get better but got worse while Matthew said only that she didn't get better but omits the part about her getting worse, that is not a contradiction. They're just giving us different details. The question was not about harmonizing them. The question was why they presented different details of the story the way they did. They are not identical passages, they are not saying the same thing exactly.

 

[Joseph77]

This happens every day today. A multitude of times, as most families experience.

World wide today, come to think of this!

 

[Joseph77]

Luke NEVER SAID THIS.
Neither did JESUS,nor GOD THE CREATOR.

They never once said those physicians were even helpful.

So it is still today.


(few exceptions, just as few Ekklesia)

 

[DNB]

I don't see a contradiction between the two accounts. I also didn't ask for help harmonizing them.

If Mark said the woman did not get better but got worse while Matthew said only that she didn't get better but omits the part about her getting worse, that is not a contradiction. They're just giving us different details. The question was not about harmonizing them. The question was why they presented different details of the story the way they did. They are not identical passages, they are not saying the same thing exactly.

But you said that one author has a higher esteem of physicians, than the other. I'm saying that this perception is incorrect. One is not disparaging the vocation or the practitioner by inference or intimation, but merely expressing the same facts of the condition that woman was in, in a different manner.

 

[Giuliano]

But you said that one author has a higher esteem of physicians, than the other. I'm saying that this perception is incorrect. One is not disparaging the vocation or the practitioner by inference or intimation, but merely expressing the same facts of the condition that woman was in, in a different manner.

Why do you think Luke omitted details that Mark included? You know what I think. What do you think?

 

[DNB]

Why do you think Luke omitted details that Mark included? You know what I think. What do you think?

Authorial license. That goes without saying. In many places, the synoptics are not identical where they are telling the same story. One perspective compliments the other. The fact that one is different than the other, doesn't mean that they had contradictory views, on any aspect of the subject at hand. I already explained my interpretation.
But the problem here, is not the fact there are differences between the two accounts, but the inference that you've taken from one of them. Even if they were the same, you would say that they both had a low esteem of physicians. The expression 'got worse' doesn't mean by intent on the doctor's part.

 

[Giuliano]

Authorial license. That goes without saying. In many places, the synoptics are not identical where they are telling the same story. One perspective compliments the other. The fact that one is different than the other, doesn't mean that they had contradictory views, on any aspect of the subject at hand. I already explained my interpretation.

I don't know what you mean by them complimenting each other. I think each stands up fine on its own. What is notable is that Mark, who usually writes more briefly, is the one who writes the longer account in this instance.

[QUOTE}But the problem here, is not the fact there are differences between the two accounts, but the inference that you've taken from one of them. Even if they were the same, you would say that they both had a low esteem of physicians. The expression 'got worse' doesn't mean by intent on the doctor's part.[/QUOTE]You should give up trying to read my mind. You are making an inference about me that isn't true. Why would I say both had a low esteem of physicians? Are you implying that I hate physicians myself? Doctors have saved my life twice. One of my sisters, now retired, was a registered nurse.

When Mark says the woman got worse while spending so much money, I don't think Mark believed physicians were deliberately making her sicker. No, my "inference" is they knew her case was hopeless by what was known to medicine then but they experimented on her and took her money. Remember, "the love of money" quote from Paul?

It astonishes me that you seem to think you can read my mind but then are reluctant to try to look for Luke's motive for not including details which don't portray physicians of the time in the best light. Me? I'd be surprised if a physician had included "bad" details like that. He'd be more likely to emphasize the "incurable" angle. What was my motive in starting this thread? It's in the first post. "If you ever doubted that the author was Luke, a physician, that should set your mind at ease." I'm glad Luke omitted those details since it's evidence that a physician wrote the book. It gives the book of Luke more credibility in my eyes. When he tells me that events are in chronological order, I believe him. When he says he spoke to many of the people involved, again I believe him.

If the situation were reversed and Luke included the "bad" details while Mark omitted them, I'd be scratching my head. I could tell myself Mark omitted them for the sake of brevity; but I might wonder if the author of Luke had been a physician himself.

 

[DNB]

I don't know what you mean by them complimenting each other. I think each stands up fine on its own. What is notable is that Mark, who usually writes more briefly, is the one who writes the longer account in this instance.

[QUOTE}But the problem here, is not the fact there are differences between the two accounts, but the inference that you've taken from one of them. Even if they were the same, you would say that they both had a low esteem of physicians. The expression 'got worse' doesn't mean by intent on the doctor's part.

You should give up trying to read my mind. You are making an inference about me that isn't true. Why would I say both had a low esteem of physicians? Are you implying that I hate physicians myself? Doctors have saved my life twice. One of my sisters, now retired, was a registered nurse.

When Mark says the woman got worse while spending so much money, I don't think Mark believed physicians were deliberately making her sicker. No, my "inference" is they knew her case was hopeless by what was known to medicine then but they experimented on her and took her money. Remember, "the love of money" quote from Paul?

It astonishes me that you seem to think you can read my mind but then are reluctant to try to look for Luke's motive for not including details which don't portray physicians of the time in the best light. Me? I'd be surprised if a physician had included "bad" details like that. He'd be more likely to emphasize the "incurable" angle. What was my motive in starting this thread? It's in the first post. "If you ever doubted that the author was Luke, a physician, that should set your mind at ease." I'm glad Luke omitted those details since it's evidence that a physician wrote the book. It gives the book of Luke more credibility in my eyes. When he tells me that events are in chronological order, I believe him. When he says he spoke to many of the people involved, again I believe him.

If the situation were reversed and Luke included the "bad" details while Mark omitted them, I'd be scratching my head. I could tell myself Mark omitted them for the sake of brevity; but I might wonder if the author of Luke had been a physician himself.[/QUOTE]
My point Giuliano, is that there are no bad details. That's my entire point!!!
This is what you wrote 'Mark doesn't seem to have a high opinions of physicians. They abused her, took her money and she got worse.'
No one is reading your mind, it's not necessary, you explicitly stated how you interpret Mark's details. I'm saying that your perception is incorrect, based on your quote. Mark does not have a low esteem of physicians, nor did he imply that the doctor's that treated her, abused her. You are trying to read Mark's mind.

 

[Giuliano]

My point Giuliano, is that there are no bad details. That's my entire point!!!
This is what you wrote 'Mark doesn't seem to have a high opinions of physicians. They abused her, took her money and she got worse.'
No one is reading your mind, it's not necessary, you explicitly stated how you interpret Mark's details. I'm saying that your perception is incorrect, based on your quote. Mark does not have a low esteem of physicians, nor did he imply that the doctor's that treated her, abused her. You are trying to read Mark's mind.

Next you'll be saying Mark adored all physicians.

If they were all so competent, why didn't they tell the woman her case was incurable? Mark and Luke seemed to know that.

 

[DNB]

Next you'll be saying Mark adored all physicians.

If they were all so competent, why didn't they tell the woman her case was incurable? Mark and Luke seemed to know that.

They knew it after the fact.

 

[Giuliano]

They knew it after the fact.

It took twelve years before anyone could figure out the woman had an incurable condition?