MIRACLE STORIES

AS LITERARY COMPOSITIONS:
THE CASE OF JAIRUS'S DAUGHTER
CHARLES W. HEDRICK
Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield MO 65804

Until the late eighteenth century the miracles in the canonical gospels were
regarded and explained as supernatural occurrences narrated virtually as they
happened. No distinction was made between the report and the event from
which the report was thought to have originated. Hermann Samuel Reimarus was
the first to challenge this marriage of history and faith by calling the historical
credibility of the miracle stories into question.1
In the nineteenth century some miracles were taken to be reports about
events as they were perceived to have been experienced by eye witnesses. The
stories were then explained (or explained away) by an appeal to the putative
historical events that were thought to he behind them.2 Even David Friedrich
Strauss, who rejected most of the miracles tradition as legend and myth, thought
that some of ie stories derived from actual events in which Jesus by his
presence and demeanor had cured or exorcized persons from "supposed" demon
possession or nervous disorders.3 Of course the reports did not reflect for
Strauss the true circumstances of the actual events.
In the twentieth century miracle stories still tend to be read and
explained (or explained away) against the background of a presumed historical
event. And hence features in the story are explained on the basis of a
first-century putative event in the ministry of Jesus.4 Only the form critics

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its
Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1968)
18-19; Charles Talbert, ed., Reimarus: Fragments, trans. R. S. Fraser (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1970) 143-44, 229-35.
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 19, 28, 32, 34, 41, 44-45, 51-53.
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 82-83; D. F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus
Critically Examined, ed. P. C. Hodgson; trans. G. Eliot (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972)
436.
4

Compare, for example, Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark. The
Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Macmillan, 1959) 171: On

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

218

focused on the miracle story proper as a narrative unit, without appealing to an

underlying event to resolve features of the story, although they do not provide
a full literary analysis of each story.5 Redaction critics have primarily been
interested in the way that Matthew and Luke edited Mark and in the theology
of the evangelists, rather than in describing the narrative performance of miracle
stories as literary compositions.6
In this paper I will analyze the story of Jairus's Daughter as a literary
composition, using the insights and techniques of narrative criticism derived
from the study of modern fiction. Jairus's Daughter is a complete and
autonomous narrative with beginning, middle, and end,7 and hence it is an
appropriate subject for such analysis, whether or not it derives from an earlier
historical event of some sort. As composition, it is the product of an author's
imagination, literary skill, and life experience. Hence no appeal will be made to
a putative historical event to explain incongruities, gaps, and ambiguities in the
text. The story will be read on its own terms and for itself.

the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:21-18) he writes:

[Jesus'] teaching and accent of authority, the supernatural aura of His
person, His reaction to evil, His ringing command and sentence of
expulsionthese are the points which arrest the attention of the
reader. The story has this character, not because Mark has embellished
a shorter oral version current in the community, but because he
records a tradition which preserves the colour and detail of the actual
event.
See also J. Ramsey Michaels, Servant and Son. Jesus in Parable and Gospel (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1981) 176: Of the blind man (Mark 8:22-26) he writes:
His story is told vividly and realistically, as an eyewitness would tell
it. . . . The blind man begs for the touch of Jesus, but Jesus does
more, he takes him by the hand and leads him from the village, then
spits on his eyes and lays hands on him for healing. Such earthy,
almost indelicate details are unnecessary for Mark's literary and
theological purposes. They simply represent the way Mark heard the
story told, and probably the way it actually happened.
5

See, for example, R. Bultmarm, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J.
Marsh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963) 209-44; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans.
B. L. Woolf (New York: Scribners, no date) 70-103.
6

G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew,

trans. P. Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 165-299.
7

See Aristotle, Poetics, 7.1-7.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

219

I. WHICH STORY?
Each of the three different versions of Jairus's Daughter (Mark
5:22-24a, 35b-43; Matt 9:18-19, 23-26; Luke 8:41-42, 49b-56) constitutes a
unique performance of the story. Each narrator performs the story in
recognizably different ways. Hence the narrative critic must decide on one of the
performances to analyze. The other performances may be helpful, however, in
identifying unique aspects of the one performance chosen for analysis. For this
study I have chosen to analyze the story of Jairus's Daughter as Mark (5:22-24a,
35b-43) performed it.
By comparison with Matthew and Luke it is clear that the story begins
with Mark 5:22. Each narrator has introduced the story proper in a different way
(Mark 5:21; Luke 8:40; Matt 9:18a), but the story of Jairus's Daughter begins
for each narrator with the father of the young girl presenting himself to Jesus
(Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41; Matt 9:18b). Mark's narrator briefly suspends the story
of Jairus's Daughter to tell the story of the Woman with a Hemorrhage
(5:24b-34).8 At 5:35a the two stories are joined. This brief connective statement
("while he was still speaking") is not actually a part of either story, but serves
as a transition between them. Hence the Markan story, broken up into periods
and clauses,9 is as follows:

Mark 5:24b ("the thronging crowd**) clearly goes with the story of the Woman
with the Hemorrhage, to provide the crowd mentioned at 5:27 and shown as thronging
about him in 5:30-31: So Bultmaim, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 214. Separating
the two stories for analysis is against Dibelius who regarded the two stories as
"inseparably bound together": Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 72. See also the
discussion by Paul Achtemeier, "Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae," JBL 89 (1970): 276-79.
My justification for analyzing the story of Jairus's Daughter apart from the Woman with
a Hemorrhage is that the plots of the stories are independent and autonomous. Mark's
method of intercalation has protected the integrity of each story as an independent unit.
The horizons of the stories are merely contiguous, not overlapping.
'I have adapted the divisions of the story into "periods" and "clauses" following
Aristotle (Rhetoric .9.1-10). A period () is a "statement () that has a
beginning and end in itself and a magnitude that can be easily grasped"; a clause
() is a part of a period. I am taking a "period" in this story to be a unit of the
story in which an action is complete. A "clause" is a part of a period The translation is
my own. It attempts to focus the reader on Mark's poetics. Most modem translations tend
to be more interpretive than is really necessary. I do not assume that my translation is
"literal"; only that it is less interpretive than virtually all modem translations, which are
designed to facilitate worship. As a result such translations tend to obscure aporia and
ambiguity in biblical texts.

220

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

1. And one of the chiefs of synagogue (named Jairus) comes,
2. and seeing him falls at his feet.
3. And intensely implores him saying
4.
"My daughter is at the point of death;
5.
come and lay hands on her
6.
that she might be healed and live."
7. And he goes away with him.

1. Some come from the chief of synagogue saying

2.
"Your daughter died.
3.
Why are you still bothering the teacher?"
4. And Jesus having overheard what was being said
5.
says to the chief of synagogue
6.
"Do not be frightened; only believe."

1. And he allowed no one to go along with him,

2.
except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.

1. And they come into the house of the chief of synagogue,

2. And he sees a commotion and wailing and much shouting.
3. And having entered, he says to them,
4.
"Why are you making such a commotion and wailing?
5.
The child has not died, but she is sleeping."
6. And they started laughing at him.

1. And throwing everyone out,

2. he takes the father and mother of the child, and those with him,
3. and enters where the child was.
4. And having taken hold of the child's hand,
5.
he says to her, 'Talitha koum,"
6.
which translated is: "Little girl, I say to you wake up."
7. And immediately the little girl got up and walks around
8.
for she was twelve years of age.
9. And they were absolutely dumbfounded.
VI.
1. And hefirmlyordered them
2.
that no one should know this;
3. And he said (something should) be given to her to eat.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

221

II. THE SUBTLE INFLUENCE OF MARK'S SETTING

The pericope of Jairus's Daughter (5:22-24a, 35b-43) occurs in a catena
of miracle stories that are sandwiched between Jesus' address on parables
(4:1-34) and his address to Pharisees and crowds on the topic of Jewish dietary
practices (7:1-23). A reader is forced to consider this section 4:35-6:56 as a
deliberate cohesive unit since it is framed by the two integrated units 4:1-34 and
7:1-23.
The various reactions to Jesus through the section are direct responses
to Jesus' mighty (supernatural) deeds of controlling nature, healing, and
exorcising demons: that is, lack of faith (4:40; 6:6,52); fear (4:41; 5:15,17, 33;
6:50); perplexity over who Jesus is (4:41; 6:2-3,14-16,49); but also faith (5:18,
34, [36]); and astonishment (5:20,42; 6:2, 51). The general impression that the
segment 4:35-6:56 makes is that Jesus is a highly successful worker of deeds,
wondrous and beyond normal human ability.
Because of Mark's setting for the story, readers are encouraged to
understand that the girl has been raised from the dead. Raising the dead is a far
more remarkable feat than awakening someone from illness induced sleep, and
fits better with controlling the forces of nature, exorcising demons, and healing
the sick. These are the only two options the story seems to legitimate: she is
dead (Mark 5:35); she is asleep (Mark 5:39). Finding Jarius's Daughter among
such a collection of remarkable superhuman events hard presses a reader to see
the event in the story as anything less than a resuscitation of the girl from the
dead. That the exorcising of the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9:14-27 is
generally not regarded as a resuscitation, although it reflects language similar to
Jairus's Daughter (9:26: "he is like a corpse"; "he is dead"; 9:27: "took him by
the hand . . . he arose"), is a testimony to the subtle influence of Mark's setting
on readers of Jairus's Daughter.

. EARLY CHRISTIAN AND MODERN INTERPRETATIONS

The story is regularly understood as Jesus raising Jairus's daughter from
the dead,10 one of three such stories in the canonical gospels in which Jesus
raises the dead. The other two are the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17) and

10

For example, Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 214-15; Michaels,

Servant and Son, 197-98; E. P. Gould, The Gospel According to St. Mark (New York:
Scribners, 1922) 99; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1973) 120-21; J. J. Kilgallen, A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
(New York: Paulist Press, 1989) 103; D. L. Juel, Augsburg Commentary on the Gospel
of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 86.

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

222
11

Lazarus (John 11-.1-46). Other readers have pointed out, however, that it is
12
not absolutely certain that Jairus's daughter is dead.
Modern interpretations that the young girl is dead are clearly influenced
by Mark's setting for the story and by the "readings" given the story by Mark's
13
earliest interpreters, Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke read Mark's story
as a resuscitation of the dead girl. In Matthew the girl's father brings news to
Jesus at the outset that his daughter is already dead (9:18) and Luke corrects any
possible confusion over the girl's condition at the conclusion of the story by
having her spirit return (8:55; cf. 8:53).

IV. THE POETICS OF THE STORY

The story is prosaically told. The text does not consciously employ any
prosodie strategies. The narrator generally tells the story in the present tense
(exceptions to this practice are: 5:37 .1]; 5:43 [V.7.9]),14 and leads
independent sentences with verbs or participles (exceptions are: 5:36 [.4]; 5:40,
41 [V.1.6]) most often introduced by the simple connective (one exception
is 5:35 [.1]), and twice with (5:36 [.4]; 5:40 [V.l]). The result is a
paratactic style, typical of the Gospel of Mark,15 that gives the text a sense of
animation and rapid movement. In subordinate clauses, specifically in direct and
indirect discourse, however, the narrator slows down the speed of narration,
breaking the paratactic style by leading sentences with subjects (5:23 [1.4]; 5:35
[.2]; 5:39 [IV.5]; 5:41 [V.6]; 5:43 [VI.2]). Why this is done is unclear; but it
does serve to focus attention on the discourse.

Also one finds in Matt 10:8 that Jesus directs his disciples to raise the dead, and
in Matt ll:5=Luke 7:22 it is implied that Jesus raised the dead.
12

Taylor, Gospel According to St. Mark, 285-86; E. Klostermann, Das MarkusEvangelium (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1926) 61; . Holtzmann, HandCommentar zum Neuen Testament. Die Synoptiker (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1901) 75; E. Mcmillan, The Gospel According to Mark (Austin TX: Sweet,
1973) 73; C. S. Mann, Mark. A New Translation and Commentary, AB 27 (Garden City
NY: Doubleday, 1986) 282-83, 287.
13

I assume the two document hypothesis for reasons too numerous to address here.

14
References are keyed to text/translation given above as well as to chapter and
verse of the biblical text
15

On the historic present see J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae. Contributions to

the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon: 1909) 143.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

223

There are six periods of various clauses each (7,6,2,6,9,3); of these one
period (5:37 []) consists completely of clarifying commentary by the narrator,
"told" as an aside to the reader rather than being "shown" as dramatic action.
Exactly what role Peter, James, and John are supposed to play in the
narrative is unclear. They really seem extraneous to the story of Jairus's
Daughter. One wonders why they are there at all in the light of the secrecy
motif at the end (Mark 5:43). In the story three more "observers" actually
increase the possibility of information about the event eventually getting out,
since they increase the number of observers that must remain silent. Nothing is
made of them in this story by the narrator, and their presence seems to conflict
with the principle of secrecy enjoined at the end of the story (5:43). A reader
will tend to assume that they were part of the small group (5:40 [V.2]="those
with him") that witnessed the event, but it is not clear in the text that such is the
case.
There are also overt narrator's asides in three other places. In 5:22 [LI]
the narrator tells the reader the name of the chief of the synagogue,16 although
he is never referred to by that name again; rather he is regularly referred to by
the awkwardly long tide "Chief of Synagogue" (5:22 [1.1]; 5:35,36 [.1.5]; 5:38
[IV. 1]) and once by his kinship nomenclature "father" (5:40 [V.2]). Once
introduced, the repetitive use of the name "Jairus" would have provided a
cohesiveness to the story on which the narrator fails to capitalize. Does the
narrator avoid the name Jairus for some special effect, out of incompetence, or
is what I have called a narrator's aside in 5:22 (1.1) actually due to the author
who, letting his narrator's guise momentarily slip aside, supplies for the reader
what the narrator did not know, or simply had failed to report?17 In 5:41 (V.6)
the narrator translates a foreign phrase (Aramaic) for the reader, who presumably
would not have known what it meant. Why then does the narrator use the
foreign phrase in the first place? To preserve an original utterance of Jesus? This
is not likely, since Jesus has other direct discourse lines in the story at 5:36
(.6) and 5:39-40 (IV.4-5) without their having been cast in a language foreign
to the principal language in which the story is narrated. Likely it is told that way
for dramatic effect, so as to enhance the pleasure of the reader with a foreign

16

See R. Pesch, "Jairus (Mark 5:22/Luke 8:41)," Biblische Zeitschrift 4.2 (1970):
252-56 on the text-critical question of the name "Jairus."
17

Such clumsy clarifying asides are frequently thought to be "glosses" in a text

introduced by a later editor. See the discussion in C. W. Hedrick, "Authorial Presence
and Narrator in John," 74-93 in J. E. Goehring, C. W. Hedrick, J. T. Sanders, eds.,
Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor ofJames M. Robinson (Sonoma CA:
Polebridge, 1990); and idem, "Unreliable Narration: John on the Story of Jesus; The
Chronicler on the History of Israel" in M. C. Parsons and R. B. Sloan, eds., Perspectives
on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, NABPR Special Studies
Series, 11 (Lewiston NY: Mellen, 1993) 121-43.

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

224

18

expression that gives distinctiveness to the narrative, or possibly in an attempt

19
at "realism."
In 5:42 (V.8) the narrator pauses the action to "tell" the reader what
could not be "shown," that is, that the "child" was scarcely an infant but rather
she was a young girl. The practical effect of this is that it fleshes out the
character of Jairus's daughter, and provides more information to facilitate a more
specific visualization of the story. Why she was cast in the dramatic action as
a young girl rather than an infant or an old woman, and so forth, is left
unclarified. The selection of characters in any story is the deliberate choice of
the implied author; the narrator has to work with those characters the implied
author has selected.
The final period (5:43 [VI]) is actually an epilogue or addendum to the
story. It is not formally part of the plot that concludes with the girl restored to
health. Its character as epilogue to the story suggests that it might be part of the
implied author's strategy, rather than part of the narrator's story.
As with all miracle stories in Mark, the characters in the story are
underdeveloped. Little attempt is made to individualize them. In this story Jairus
is given a name (5:22 [LI]). The reader is also informed that he is chief of
synagogue (5:22 [1.1]) and has a seriously ill daughter (5:23 [1.4]), and hence
a wife (5:40 [V.2]). The daughter is described as twelve years of age (5:42
[V.8]). The narrator also names three disciples who accompany Jesus to the
house (5:37 [.1-2]). But beyond these things no attempt is made to round out
characters. Jesus, for example, is not even named (but compare The Woman
with a Hemorrhage where he is named twice [Mark 5:27, 30]). In the main all
characters in the story are shadowy stick figures whom the narrator for whatever
reason does not find necessary to "flesh out."
There are no interior views of the characters. Lack of interior views is
the very essence of realism, since in real life we never know what people are
thinking; we only know what they tell us they think. In this narrative it is not
made clear, for example, what Jesus thought or what motivated him. Of course
it is clear that the girl's father asked Jesus to come heal his daughter and Jesus
did admonish the father to have faith. A reader might therefore conclude that
Jesus did what he did so as to reward the father's faith, but the reader really
does not know Jesus' mind or his inner motivation. In this story readers are
never privy to what characters are thinking.
The vividness of the historical present gives the story a certain timeless
quality, a sense of "being there."20 Passage of time is indicated, however, by

18

See Aristotle, Poetics, XXI. 1-6; ; Rhetoric, ffl.ii.1-5.

19

See Aristotle, Poetics, XVII. 1.

^See. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

225

the trip that Jesus and the father must make to another location to see the sick
girl. A sense of the passing of time is also evoked by the father's early
statement that the girl is at the point of death (5:23 [1.4]) and the subsequent
report that she had died (5:35 [.2]).
There is a certain surrealistic quality to the story. Like Alice's looking
glass, things are not all they appear to be. The chief of synagogue upon seeing
Jesus "falls at his feet." In order for this to be a realistic portrayal of the
behavior of a distraught father one must assume the information, drawn from
earlier parts of Mark's narrative, that Jesus' reputation had preceded him (for
example, Mark 2:28, 33, 37, 39, 45; 3:7-11; 5:33), and that the poor fellow is
so upset over his daughter's illness that he throws himself at Jesus' feet as an
act of desperation. But such is really not the case, for with two exceptions (1:40;
10:17; ), all other instances of such "body language" in Mark's story
world have an element of Christian worship or adoration involved: Mark 5:6-7
("Jesus, Son of the most high God"); 15:19-20 (
ironic); 3:11 ()"you are the Son of God"); 5:33-34
("your faith has made you well"); 7:25.28 ("Lord").
Hence the broader narrative appears to undermine the realism of this particular
story, for in the broader context the father's act appears to be Christian
adoration rather than simply the act of a desperate man. And Jesus' admonition
to the father "to believe" 5:36 (.6) must then also be seen in this connection
as a cloaked invitation to Christian faith, which the narrative does not exploit.
In the light of Jesus' widespread reputation as a healer and exorcist in
Mark's narrative (see above) who draws people to himself, one is simply not
prepared for the reaction of the mourners at Jairus's house. In Mark's narrative
one has been prepared for hostility (Mark 3:6), surprise (Mark 1:22; 2:12);
perplexity (Mark 1:27; 2:16), indignation (Mark 2:7); awe (Mark 4:41), and fear
(Mark 5:14, 17), but not ridicule (Mark 5:40). The laughter in the very room
that had so recently echoed with the wailing and shouting of mourners strikes
a particularly sharp and discordant note.
The narrative reflects little awareness of the possibilities of language to
enhance visualization for the reader, and makes use only of the linguistic
intensifies (5:23 [1.3]; 5:43 [VI.l]) and (5:42 [V.7,9]). For
example, there is no specific description of die young girl's ailment, and hence
the narrator misses an opportunity to visualize, for example, the girl's pale color,
labored breathing, motionless state, and so forth. Failure to describe the mother's
grief (5:40 [V.2]) is also another missed opportunity to visualize the story for
the reader. Had the issue of faith (5:36 [.6]; and see below) been of prime
concern to the narrator, such an emphasis could have easily been incorporated

1961) para. 321; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 866-69.

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

226

into 5:40 (V.2) by noting that the parents were holding on to faith as Jesus had
admonished them, or the narrator could have had them make some confession,
such as is done in Mark 9:24. These missed opportunities tend to "flatten" the
story and hence reduce its visual intensity.

V. HOW DOES THE STORY WORK?

On the surface, the plot of the story seems simple enough. The
beginning: a leader of the synagogue named Jairus comes to Jesus pleading that
he come and heal his daughter who is at the point of death. The middle: as they
proceed to Jairus's home the message reaches Jairus that his daughter is dead.
The end: when they reach the home of Jairus, Jesus "awakens" the young girl.
It is, however, somewhat more complicated and subtle than this brief plot
analysis would imply.
There are a number of ambiguities and inconsistances in the narrative
that a reader is left to resolve as best he or she can. In 5:24 (1.7) apparently only
Jesus leaves with Jairus but in 5:37 (.1-2) and 5:40 (V.2) it is clear that there
are others who went with Jesus to Jairus's house. In 5:35 (.1) the narrator
leaves it up to the reader to supply from 5:24 (1.7) and from the fact that some
had "come from" Jairus's house, that Jesus and Jairus are at that time still on
the road to Jairus's house. Apparently in 5:35 (.1-3), when the messengers
meet up with Jairus and Jesus, they take Jairus aside apart from Jesus to have
a private exchange about the death of his daughter, since Jesus only comes by
the information by "overhearing" what was said (5:36 [.4]). And the reader
then is left to supply the information that the girl apparently died subsequent to
Jairus's departure. In the light of this fact, their query "Why are you still ()
bothering the teacher" (5:35 [.3]), makes little sense; Jairus clearly did not
know the girl had died unless he is lying in 5:23 (1.4); hence he would, of
course, have continued his urgent appeals to Jesus. It would have made better
sense for the messengers to have said: "You need trouble the teacher no further"
(), as Luke actually renders it (8:49: ). 2 1
Jesus, overhearing the report, cryptically says "Do not be frightened;
only believe" (5:36 [.6]). It is not immediately clear how this statement ought
to be understood. Should one understand that Jairus is being encouraged not to

21

Most modern translations render tl as if it were , and simply gloss over

the problem, which apparently Luke clearly recognized. For example, the RS V translates:
"why trouble the teacher any further," a translation in which "any" functions as a
negative adverb (cf. TEV, CEV, NIV, Goodspeed), but Phillips translates: "There is no
need to bother the Master any further." Klostermann, on the other hand, translates: "was
behelligst du den Meister noch" and Weiss: "was bemhst du noch den Meister?" Luther,
however, translates: "was bemhst du weiter den Meister?"

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

227

believe that the messengers' report is true, and that he should hold onto the
belief that the child is yet alive? That understanding would make good sense in
the light of Jesus' comment at 5:39 (IV.5): "The child is not dead but sleeping."
On the other hand, if it is a subtle call to Christian faith (i.e., "have faith in
me"; see the discussion above), then the narrator of the story really seems to be
unaware of it since nothing in the story is made of the statement as a call
22
to Christian faith. If 5:36 is a call to Christian faith, it would seem to be a
case of the implied author conspiring with the implied reader and undermining
the omniscience of the narrator. Such an explanation puts the reliability of the
23
narrator in question.
It is clear that the actors in the story regard the girl as physically dead
(5:35 [.2]; 5:40 [IV.6]; 5:42 [V.9]) and when Jesus chides them for their
unbridled grief and tells them categorically that the girl is not dead but only
sleeping, they start laughing at him (5:40 [IV.6]); it is equally clear that Jesus
rejects die noon of the girl's death. What is one to make of this discrepancy
in perception, and how does Jesus know the girl is not dead? He had not yet
been to Jairus's home.
It is likewise uncertain what thing (, 5:43 [VI.2]) it is that no one
should know. Matthew and Luke do little to clear up the obscurity. Matthew
omits the entire epilogue (i.e., in Mark 5:43) that enjoins secrecy, replacing it
instead with the notice that this () report went throughout the area
(9:2).24 Luke (8:56) clarifies to some degree by talking about the "thing that
had happened" ( ), but still leaves imprecise what that "thing" was.
Does the Markan epilogue have in view the healing of the girl as 5:23 (1.4),
5:39 (IV.5), and 5:41 (V.6) imply or does it have in view the resuscitation of the
girl from the dead as 5:35 (.2), and 5:40 (IV.6) state? Or might it be die

^Elsewhere in Mark it is usually unclear what one is expected to believe (cf. 2:5;
4:40; 5:34; 9:14-27; 10:52). One, however, should believe in the gospel (1:15), have faith
in God (11:22), and believe what one says (11:22-23). In the only passage where it is
stated that one should "believe on Jesus** (9:42which still does not clarify what it is
about Jesus one should believe!) the expression "on me*' ( ) is of doubtful
authenticity: . M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek-New Testament
(London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 101-02.
^Unreliable narrators are quite common in modem literature and can be found
in ancient literature as well. See Hedrick, "Authorial Presence and Narrator in John** in
Goehring/Hedrick/Sanders, eds., Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings 74-93; and
idem, **Unreliable Narration: John on the Story of Jesus; The Chronicler on the History
of Israel" in Parsons/Sloan, eds., Perspectives on John, 121-43.
^Suggesting that Mark's implied to Matthew a public report about the
incident.

228

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

cryptic secret implied in what it is that Jairus is supposed to believe (5:36

[.6])?
The story is, however, on the whole artfully and subtly arranged.
Excluding the narrator's aside (5:37 []) and the epilogue (5:43 [VI]), each of
die primary periods of the story (5:22-24a [I], 5:35-36 [], 5:38-40a [IV],
5:40b-42 [V]) is tightly organized with an appropriate literary conclusion for
each period. For example, Period one (5:22-24a)Jairus comes and asks Jesus
to come heal his daughterconcludes appropriately "and he goes away with
him." Period (5:35-36)die messengers report to Jairus that his daughter is
deadconcludes appropriately wii Jesus' word of encouragement "Do not be
frightened; only believe." Period IV (5:38-40a)Jesus chides the mourners with
the statement that die child is only sleepingconcludes surprisingly, yet in one
sense appropriately, with Jesus being laughed at by the mourners. Period V
(5:40b-42)Jesus "awakens" the girlconcludes appropriately with the
mourners being absolutely dumbfounded.
Built into the story there are false hints that the story may end
tragically, followed by a sudden surprise reversal diat brings the story finally to
a "comic" conclusion.25 Jairus reports that his daughter is "at die point of
death" (5:23 HA]); the message communicates a sense of urgency. Jesus and
Jairus set out immediately to Jairus's home. While they are on the way, it is
reported that the girl had already died (5:35 [.2]), a statement diat confirms the
earlier sense of urgency in 5:23. Although Jesus holds out hope to die father that
his daughter is yet alive (5:36 [.6]), that prospect seems fairly remote when
they reach the house and witness the extent of the grief, twice emphasized by
the narrator (5:38, 39 [IV.2.4]) and graphically underlined when the mourners
deride Jesus' statement with laughter (5:40 [IV.6]), thus reinforcing the sense of
tragedy. And then surprise and reversal: Jesus calls the young girl to "wake up"
(5:41 [V.6]) and she does (5:42 [V.7])! The narrator provides the reader with a
visually touching scene by having Jesus "awaken" the young girl in precisely
the way the father had requested him to do it: by touching her hand (5:23 [1.5]
= 5:41 [V.4]). And to provide diversity for the reader the narrator uses three
Greek terms to describe Jairus's daughter: (5:23 [1.4]; 5:35 [.2]),
(5:39 [IV.5]; 5:40 [V.2.4]), (5:41.42 [V.6.7]).
Was the young girl actually dead, as Matthew and Luke read the story?
Or is it simply another instance of people in Mark's narrative mistaking some
sort of coma for death, as also occurs at Mark 9:26 (cf. Acts 20:10): "And die
boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said 'he is dead'"? And in that

^The designation "comic" refers to the reintegration of Jairus's daughter "into

society," i.e., she is restored to her parents. See Northrup Frye, Anatomy of Criticism:
Four Essays (Princeton: University Press, 1957), 43-49 and D. O. Via, Jr., The Parables
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 96-98, 145-76.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

229

context Jesus "heals" the boy using virtually the same language as Mark
5:41-42*
Mark 9:27:... . . . . . . . . .
Mark 5:41-42:... . . . ... . . .
Clearly Matthew and Luke believe that it was part of Jesus' program to
raise the dead. To the question of John's disciples: "Are you he who is to
come?" (Matt 11:2; Luke 7:19), both Matthew and Luke have Jesus say (Matt
ll:4-6=Luke 7:22-23): "Go and tell John . . . the dead are raised up"
(). Luke seems to limit this ability to raise the dead to Jesus only,
but Matthew considers it as a gift passed on to the Twelve by Jesus (Matt 10:8).
The only other story in the synoptics describing Jesus raising someone
from the dead is in Luke 7:11-17. As one might suspect from Luke's reading of
Mark's story about Jairus's Daughter, the young man is unambiguously dead
and the story does use to describe Jesus "raising" him (Luke 7:14). In
the story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11 :l-44) is not used, though the
narrative does use the concept of sleep as a cipher for death (11:11-13; but not
the word as used by Mark).
The question is: does the narrator in Mark 5 use these terms
"sleep"-"awaken" in the natural sense of Mark chapter nine, or in the
metaphorical Johannine sense? Or does the narrator deliberately leave the reader
guessing?27 The only word Mark uses for sleep in the gospel is
(4:27,38; 13:36; 14:37(bis),40-41), and it is always used in the natural sense of
sleep.28 Mark never uses it as a metaphor for death. The predominant use of
in Mark is a natural use: that is, usually the word does not refer to
someone rising from the dead (1:31; 2:9, 11, 12; 3:3; 4:27, 38; 9:27; 10:49;
13:8, 22; 14:42). In five instances (6:14, 16; 12:26; 14:28; 16:6) however, it is
usedfigurativelyas a resurrection from the dead. But in each of these instances
the meaning is clear.

"Compare also Mark 1:31: . . . xetpc

27

Mann (Mark, 287) says that "Mark's text appears to be almost deliberately
ambiguous."
^John never uses ; Matthew ( 12:35; 15:5; 26:45) and Luke (22:46) never
use figuratively, unless it is this passage on Jairus's daughter (Matt 9:24; Luke
8:52). Matthew (27:52) and Luke (Acts 13:36) each use once in a figurative
way. John uses (John 11:11-12), (11:13) (11:11, 13)
in afigurativeway.

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

230

It appears to me that the narrative is either deliberately ambiguous on

the issue of the girl's condition or the narrator is simply careless in the showing
of the story. The evidence from the story is simply contradictory. Jesus asserts
that the girl is not dead but merely asleepeven before he had seen her (5:39
[IV.5]). Certain of the mourners, however, who had been with her when she
"died," clearly "know" she is not just asleep (5:35 [.1-2]; 5:40a [IV.6]). The
narrator allows the contradiction to stand with no resolution: at the conclusion
the girl "got up" (, 5:42 [V. 7]). Hence the ambiguity does appear to be
part of the strategy of the narrative, and leads one to the conclusion that the
narrator is deliberately contrasting the popular notion in the story that the girl
29
is dead with Jesus' assertion that the girl is sleeping. Therefore the idea that
Mark's story describes Jesus raising a young girl from the dead would appear
to derive from the influential readings of Matthew and Luke, Mark's literary
context'for the story, as well as from modern popular Christian imagination and
harmonization with the readings of Matthew and Luke. Mark's narrator simply
does not make the story clear.
The epilogue (5:43 [VI. 1-3]) is at cross purposes to a story that on the
surface seems fairly straightforward. With its emphasis on secrecy, the epilogue
leads the reader to interpret the actions of Jesus in the story as a deliberate
attempt to keep the incident quiet. Hence the reader is led to assume that in 5:37
(.1) Jesus deliberately takes only Peter, James, and John along probably to
reduce the number of spectators so as to control the number of reports about the
incident later. (But it does raise the question: why take them at all?) For the
same reason in 5:40 (V.l) he throws everyone out of the house except the
mother and father and those he brought along with him. And for the same
reason Jesus deliberately misrepresents the situation to the mourners in 5:39
(TV.5) by telling them the girl is only asleep, although he knows/suspects full
well she is dead.
One must therefore see the epilogue (5:43 [VI. 1-3]) as a part of the
agenda of the implied author, stressing for the reader a secrecy motif, one of the
distinctive themes of Mark's broader story world. As epilogue to this story, it
functions for the story outside the plot like the evangelists' interpretations to the
parables of Jesus. Like those interpretations it is cast in the words of Jesus
himself and is easily recognizable by virtue of its being subsequent to the
dramatic conclusion of the story (5:42).

29

It is still possible that we are dealing with a careless narrator, however. Compare
Mark 1:4-11 where the Markan narrator performs the story of Jesus' baptism in such a
"careless" way that one could come to the conclusion that Jesus confessed his sins and
repented, and as a resultane received the "baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of
sins'* at the hands of John (cf. 1:4-5.9).

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

231

In the Gospel of Mark it is striking that most of the miracle stories do

not contain an injunction to secrecy.30 There are, however, three that do. In two
of them, the healing of a leper (1:43-44) and a deaf mute (7:35-36), although the
individuals are commanded not to "say anything," they do anyway. The third,
a blind man (8:26), is not enjoined to silence but rather simply sent to his home
which may be taken as an attempt to silence him, but it is not a silencing in a
narrow sense. In a fashion similar to the healing of Jairus's daughter, these
secrecy motifs also come subsequent to the conclusion of the story as an
epilogue to the healing. Matthew (15:29-31) drops Mark's epilogue (7:35-36) to
the healing of the deaf mute and Luke omits the entire story. Matthew (8:1-4)
and Luke (5:12-16) retain in a modified way the secrecy motif in Mark's
epilogue (1:43-45) to the story of the cleansing of the leper. There are also three
exorcisms in Mark in which demons are silenced because they know Jesus'
identity (1:24-25, 34; 3:11-12).31

VI. MARK'S READING OF THE STORY.

The implied author uses the story to provide cloaked indicators to the
divinity of Jesus. One indicator is the statement of Jesus that the girl is not dead
but only asleep (5:39). If the girl is dead, as the mourners think, then Jesus is
either mistaken or lying. If the mourners are mistaken, and the girl is alive, then
Jesus knows something that no one else in the story knows, and he knows it
without ever having seen the girl. This unique knowledge on the part of Jesus
(I do not think the story legitimizes the first option) challenges the realism of
the story, since there is no natural way that Jesus could have come by that
information.
When you add to this observation the body language of Jairus when he
sees Jesus (5:22), and the cryptic statement, "do not fear, only believe" (5:36),
and the epilogue (5:43) where the author is unnecessarily obscure about "this"
that is to be kept secret, then one beqins to see that the real focus of the story
is not the healing/resuscitation, but rather the identity of Jesus. The
healing/resuscitation is merely a means to reveal his identity in a cloaked or
veiled way.
It is striking that no recourse is made to "God" in this story (most of
the miracle stories do not invoke God; but compare Mark 11:22!), whether

^See for healings: 1:29-31; 2:10-12; 3:5-6; 5:34; 6:12 (disciples); 6:53-56; 6:3fr,
9:27; 10:52; for nature "miracles": 4:35-41; 6:41-44; 6:47-56; 8:1-10; for exorcisms:
5:19-20.
31

Compare Mark 9:1-9 and 8:28-30 where it again appears to be his identity that
is at issue.

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

232

through prayer or some other oblique or overt comment. The reason, of course,
is Mark's apparent strategy to push Jesus into the role of absolute authority as
the Holy One (Mark 1:24), the one who forgives sin (Mark 2:5-10), the one who
is "Lord" of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and the one at the "right hand of Power"
(14:62).

VII. ONE MODERN READER'S RESPONSE.

The story evokes a sense of how tenuous life really is, and how
frightened people can become at losing someone they care about deeply. And
I as a modern reader can easily relate to that; nevertheless the story world
violates my own understanding of the nature of the real world. As I experience
the world, people as a general rule are not brought back from imminent death
as easily as the story portrays it. Hence I am forced to conclude that the story
holds out false hope when it asserts that someoneanyoneby simply a touch
or word is able to restore to good health a dying individual at the virtual
threshold of death, or is able to bring someone dead back to life.
On the other hand, the story clearly does hold out genuine hope in its
ambiguity about the precise nature of the young girl's condition. The ambiguity
of the story in this regard affirms that no one really understands the mysteries
of life and death. Hence it is entirely possible that someone at the very door of
death may, in the next moment, be well on the way to recovery. By its
ambiguity the story reinforces the twin mysteries of life and death.
Even in the twentieth century the fragile border that separates life from
death remains a mysterious frontier. It is true that medical science under certain
conditions can to some extent manipulate the border, though medical science
cannot control it. For example, while medical science can mechanically continue
bodily processes necessary to organic existence by "life support systems" when
the human brain ceases to function, medical science does not know how to
reverse the process.32 The "person" "lives" but in a constant vegetative state.
Mark's ambiguity about the precise nature of the girl's condition approximates
modern realism that many ascribing to a modern worldview will find believable.

32

See, for example, Defining Death: A Report on the Medical, Legal, and Ethical
Issues in the Determination of Death. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical
Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Library of Congress
Card number-81-600150. U. S. Government Printing Office. July 1981: "Prior to the
advent of current technology, breathing ceased and death was obvious. Now, however,
certain organic processes in these bodies can be maintained through artificial means,
although they will never recover the capacity for spontaneous breathing or sustained
integration of bodily functions for consciousness, or for other human experiences" (3),
see also 83-84, 162-65.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

233

Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, remove Mark's ambiguity and
claim that Jesus not only understood the border, he could control it with simply
a touch or a word. Few persons holding a modern worldview would make such
claims for physicians. Some would ascribe the ability to manipulate the frontier
that separates life from death to "faith healers" like Robert Tilton and Oral
Roberts. But many moderns are generally skeptical of such practices, and
likewise one who shares the modern worldview would tend to regard the stories
of Matthew and Luke as sentimental fantasy. Mark's brief story, however, that
obscures the young girl's actual condition, challenges the piety of Matthew and
Luke. Mark's narrator simply did not confirmor denyJesus' diagnosis of the
young girl's condition, and thereby Mark's story reaffirms the mysteries of life
and death.
Mark's story also challenges the modern worldview that I share. Is our
cosmic system open or closed? Do things happen inevitably in accordance with
some natural law? Is the world an arena where death occurs inevitably under
certain prescribed conditions? Or is the cosmos open, where things that violate
a supposed inevitable cause-and-effect system are really possible? This story
holds open the possibility that even in an apparently closed world, things may
be other than they seem. Hence the story contrasts two ways of viewing the
world: a closed system in which death is inevitable and always the
victorrepresented by those mourners who laughed at Jesus. And a system
slightly open in which the inevitabilities of the closed system have become
merely possibilitiesrepresented by Jesus and Jairus's daughter. Hence the
story, by affirming the mystery of death and holding open the possibility of life,
calls all people to the courage of an irrational faith, a faith that holds out for the
possibility of new beginnings in spite of the "obvious" inevitability of
conclusions that militate against hope.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.