The feeding of the 5000.

[Ben C. Smith]

I decided to create this new thread in order to collect and consolidate some of my collected thoughts on this pericope (Matthew 14.15-21 = Mark 6.35-44 = Luke 9.12-17; John 6.3-15), especially the Marcan version.

On a recent thread, Bernard and I debated the merits of his case that the pericope goes back to an historical event. His main argument for this he phrases at one point as follows:

The positive argument is that "Mark" insisted the disciples picked up leftovers (which is very plausible and easy to do under appropriate circumstances) while not seeing the miraculous feedings. If I created that story, I would have the disciples ecstatic about the multiplication of food (and the crowds too, as in gJohn), not leave heavy doubts that never happened.

My position: "Mark" & his community heard about the disciples picking up leftovers after a crowd ate a meal outside (twice) but were saying nothing about multiplication of food. What's wrong with that?

I am sticking to my original instincts on this; it cannot be shown that part of the incident is historical just because the miracle itself is "proven" only in the results (the leftovers) and not displayed with flashes of light and glory. For one thing, both Bernard and I acknowledge that Mark knew and drew from 2 Kings 4.42-44 in this pericope, and it so happens that the feeding miracle in those verses is "proven" just as it is in Mark: in the results (the leftovers). For another, the quintessential miracle in the gospels, the resurrection, is not portrayed; rather, it is "proven" in the results (the empty tomb and a messenger). To respond that "there are too many discontinuities & oddities in the empty tomb story to consider it authentic" says nothing; that is rather the point: in a pericope that we both agree to be most likely fabricated the miracle is not portrayed. That means, without question or qualification, that miracles not being portrayed is not a very good indicator of historicity. If there is history behind this pericope, it is not for the reasons adduced here.

However, on another thread, Michael BG has written about what I consider to be a possibly better argument for something historical at the core of this pericope:

I would like to return to the companies of the 5,000 (Mk 6:30-45 [Jn 6:15]) which should be included when discussing item 27 in Bermejo-Rubio’s list....

It has been suggested that 6:39-40 has Jesus form these men into ranks like a regiment or legion. He commands them to sit down company by company (39) and row (rank) by row (rank) one side being 100 and the other 50 making 5,000 men the size of a Roman legion. It is possible that it took time to assemble this number of men – 8:2 – “they have been with me now for three days”.

It is possible that Jesus decided that this force was too small to start his campaign with and so he dismissed them back home to maybe wait for the right time to start his rebellion.

John has built on to this story (6:15): “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.”

John has added the mountain here and in verse 3, because the setting is still the sea of Galilee (v 1) and the disciples and Jesus still depart by boat (vs 16-17).

Those who believe that John had access to a separate tradition see in 6:15 a historical datum, but it is more likely this is part of John’s misunderstanding motif build on Mark’s similar motif.

It has been suggested that both feeding stories were created out of 1 Kings 18:4 and 2 Kings 4:42-44. The Elijah and Elisha stories are set in times of famine and involve fewer people. However the idea of there was food over afterwards may come from 2 Kings 4:44 and influenced both stories before they reached Mark. It is possible that the addition of 12 baskets of left over food to one story and of 7 baskets to the other have some meaning. It has been suggested that the 12 is a reference to the Jews and their 12 tribes, while 7 is a reference to Gentiles and the 7 Gentile nations who occupied the Promised Land. This has been built on to see the first feeding as the Old Covenant of Israel being replaced with the New Covenant to the Gentiles. If this was Mark’s interpretation then the quantities of left over food are Marcan creations. This idea can be supported if unlike Bernard we see Mk 8:13-21 as a Marcan creation to emphasis that the disciples didn’t understand, a Marcan motif.

I am of two minds on the identification of something seditious in this pericope: on the one hand, the hints of sedition throughout the gospel of Mark might well point to a background story that has been squelched or muffled at the level of the extant text, and this background story might well, as Bermejo-Rubio argues, have some basis in history; on the other hand, however, a lot of these hints can actually be explained as allusions to the Jewish scriptures. Whether they are best explained as such is very much an open question for me, and part of the subject of this thread.

A while back, Kunigunde Kreuzerin discussed the term πρασιά in Mark 6.40 and concluded:

it means simply an agricultural "bed" (Stop searching for another meaning)

The notion here is that the 5000 whom Jesus fed were arranged somewhat like a garden plot of leeks or whatnot. David Hindley made the following contribution:

I think this is meant to work off the parable of the sower in Mark 4. The 50s and 100s sit in garden rows, fertile soil. Only that parable speaks of 30, 60 & 100 fold (as does gMatthew, gLuke speaks of 100 fold). Alternatively, 50s & 100s sounds military like, and Roman military-ish to boot.

Mark is indeed full of agricultural metaphors and references; yet the alternative military interpretation at the end brings us right back to Bermejo-Rubio and those seditious undertones. The question is pressed: is the arrangement of the people on the grass agricultural or military? I will suggest that it may be both.

Mark 6.39-40: And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass [καὶ ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῶ χλωρῶ χόρτῳ]. They sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties [καὶ ἀνέπεσαν πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ κατὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ κατὰ πεντήκοντα].

The word συμπόσια, it should be noted, is neither agricultural nor military: it betokens drinking parties, the coming together to imbibe alcoholic beverages, a fixture of classical Greek culture. I will readily admit that this is an element of this story that will not fit in very well with the rest of what I have to say.

But, as Kunigunde points out, the πρασιαὶ are agricultural rows. I take for granted that the agricultural connections are clear, especially since there are so many such agricultural connections throughout Mark. The question is: are they also in this case reminiscent of military rank and file? The fact that the 5000 are all male may bespeak a military context:

Mark 6.44: And there were five thousand men who ate the loaves [καὶ ἦσαν οἱ φαγόντες τοὺς ἄρτους πεντακισχίλιοι ἄνδρες].

Commonly adduced parallels to the Jewish scriptures also suggest a military tone, specifically one of militia involvement (since all males in Israel were imagined as one great militia, essentially):

Exodus 18.21: Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands and of hundreds and of fifties and of tens [or chiliarchs, hecatontarchs, pentecontarchs, and decadarchs, χιλιάρχους καὶ ἑκατοντάρχους καὶ πεντηκοντάρχους καὶ δεκαδάρχους].

Exodus 18.25: Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands and of hundreds and of fifties and of tens [χιλιάρχους καὶ ἑκατοντάρχους καὶ πεντηκοντάρχους καὶ δεκαδάρχους].

Deuteronomy 1.15: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and appointed them heads over you, leaders of thousands and of hundreds and of fifties and of tens [χιλιάρχους καὶ ἑκατοντάρχους καὶ πεντηκοντάρχους καὶ δεκαδάρχους], and officers for your tribes.

This arrangement was not forgotten by later heirs of such traditions:

1QS 2.19-23: The Priests shall enter first, ranked one after another according to the perfection of their spirit; then the Levites; and thirdly, all the people one after another in their Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Tens, that every Israelite may know his place in the Community of God according to the everlasting design.

1QM 3.13-4.5:

Column 3
....
(13) Rule of the banners of the whole congregation according to their formations. On the grand banner which is at the head of all the people they shall write, "People of God," the names "Israel"
(14) and "Aaron," and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel according to their order of birth. On the banners of the heads of the "camps" of three tribes
(15) they shall write, "the Spirit [of God," and the names of three tribes. O]n the banner of each tribe they shall write, "Standard of God," and the name of the leader of the t[ribe]
(16) of its clans. [.... and] the name of the leader of the ten thousand and the names of the chief[s of ...]
(17) [....] his hundreds. On the banner [....]
(18) [....]
(19) [....]
(20) [....]

Column 4
(1) On the banner of Merari they shall write, "The Offering of God," and the name of the leader of Merari and the names of the chiefs of his thousands. On the banner of the tho[us]and they shall write, "The Anger of God is loosed against
(2) Belial and all the men of his forces without remnant," and the name of the chief of the thousand and the names of the chiefs of his hundreds. And on the banner of the hundred they shall write, "Hundred
(3) of God, the power of war against a sinful flesh," arid the name of the chief of the hundred and the names of the chiefs of his tens. And on the banner of the fifty they shall write, "Ended
(4) is the stand of the wicked [by] the might of God," and the name of the chief of the fifty and the names of the chiefs of his tens. And on the banner of the ten they shall write, "Songs of joy
(5) for God on the ten-stringed harp," and the name of the chief of the ten and the names of the nine men in his command.

Notice, however, that the numbers here are 1000, 100, 50, and 10; Mark has only the middle two values, 100 and 50. Is it a coincidence that these two particular values multiply together to produce 5000, the number of men served at this feeding miracle? If it is not a coincidence, then the numbers do suggest a rectangular formation of 100 by 50 in military rank and file.

There may be another scriptural precedent here:

1 Kings 18.4: For when Jezebel destroyed the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave [ἑκατὸν ἄνδρας προφήτας καὶ ἔκρυψεν αὐτοὺς κατὰ πεντήκοντα ἐν σπηλαίῳ], and provided them with bread and water.

But this has 100 prophets divided into two groups of 50 each, and seems a more distant possibility to me. There are other militaristic connections to be made here. If David Hindley can point out the agricultural parallels to the parables in nearby Mark 4, then one might consider pointing out the military overtones of the exorcism of the Gadarene demoniac in nearby Mark 5 ("my name is Legion, for we are many"). And, when Jesus calls the people "sheep without a shepherd" in Mark 6.34, it hearkens back to passages like 1 Kings 22.15-17:

15 When he came to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” And he answered him, “Go up and succeed, and the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” 16 Then the king said to him, “How many times must I adjure you to speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?” 17 So he said,

“I saw all Israel
Scattered on the mountains,
Like sheep which have no shepherd.
And the Lord said, ‘These have no master.
Let each of them return to his house in peace.’”

Now, since Israel as a whole (well, the male part of Israel, at any rate) was theoretically or ideally organized by militaristic numbers, it seems likely to me that the men fed by this miraculous feast do not just represent military structure in general but rather represent Israel in nuce (a metaphor I have not chosen randomly). Israel is more than just a militia; but it includes a militia. The 5000 serving as a vicarious Israel would explain the possible connection in Mark 6.35-37 (in which the disciples suggest decidedly nonmiraculous ways to feed the crowd) to Numbers 11.21-23:

21 But Moses said, “The people, among whom I am, are 600,000 on foot; yet You have said, ‘I will give them meat, so that they may eat for a whole month.’ 22 Should flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to be sufficient for them? Or should all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to be sufficient for them?” 23 The Lord said to Moses, “Is the Lord’s power limited? Now you shall see whether My word will come true for you or not.”

Israel, as I said, is more than just a militia; it is also the land of milk and honey, a country based principally upon agriculture; one ought not to think mainly of professional soldiers in a standing army when one thinks of Israel's ideal military state; one ought rather to think of farmers and shepherds and vinedressers pounding their implements into swords when enemies impinge upon the borders.

And I think that the parable of the mustard seed in Mark 4.30-32 may serve to unite the military with the agricultural:

30 And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, 32 yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that the birds [τὰ πετεινὰ] of heaven can nest under its shade [ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν].”

This parable echoes the metaphor of Israel as an eschatological tree in Ezekiel 17.22-24:

22 Thus says the Lord God, “I will also take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar and set it out; I will pluck from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one and I will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. 23 On the high mountain of Israel I will plant it, that it may bring forth boughs and bear fruit and become a stately cedar. And birds of every kind [πᾶν πετεινὸν] will nest under it; they will nest under the shade [ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν] of its branches. 24 All the trees of the field will know that I am the Lord; I bring down the high tree, exalt the low tree, dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will perform it.”

The image of a seemingly innocuous little seed growing into a tree big enough to house birds may veil a bit of guerrilla violence. What if the 5000 men on that grass are supposed to be the mustard seed? Not enough on its own to overthrow those Roman legions ready to do bloody business in the Eastern half of the Empire (Fulminata, Fretensis, Macedonica, Apollinaris, Deiotariana), but enough to either start or further the process, growing like a weed until it fills its entire purview and has muscled all other trees out?

In this connection it may be of interest to note that 5000 Galilean fighters were part of a growing military campaign led by Josephus in the war against Rome. Life 42-43 §208-215:

42. But wonderful it was what a dream I saw that very night; for when I had betaken myself to my bed, as grieved and disturbed at the news that had been written to me, it seemed to me, that a certain person stood by me, and said, "O Josephus! leave off to afflict thy soul, and put away all fear; for what now grieves thee will render thee very considerable, and in all respects most happy; for thou shalt get over not only these difficulties, but many others, with great success. However, be not cast down, but remember that thou art to fight with the Romans." When I had seen this dream, I got up with an intention of going down to the plain. Now, when the whole multitude of the Galileans, among whom were the women and children, saw me, they threw themselves down upon their faces, and, with tears in their eyes, besought me not to leave them exposed to their enemies, nor to go away and permit their country to be injured by them. But when I did not comply, with their entreaties, they compelled me to take an oath, that I would stay with them: they also cast abundance of reproaches upon the people of Jerusalem, that they would not let their country enjoy peace.

43. When I heard this, and saw what sorrow the people were in, I was moved with compassion to them, and thought it became me to undergo the most manifest hazards for the sake of so great a multitude; so I let them know I would stay with them. And when I had given order that five thousand off them should come to me armed [πεντακισχιλίους ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁπλίτας ἥκειν], and with provisions for their maintenance, I sent the rest away to their own homes; and when those five thousand were come, I took them, together with three thousand of the soldiers that were with me before, and eighty horsemen, and marched to the village of Chabolo, situated in the confines of Ptolimias, and there kept my forces together, pretending to get ready to fight with Placidus, who was come with two cohorts of footmen, and one troop of horsemen, and was sent thither by Cestius Gallus to burn those villages of Galilee that were near Ptolemais. Upon whose casting up a bank before the city Ptolemais, I also pitched my camp at about the distance of sixty furlongs from that village. And now we frequently brought out our forces as if we would fight, but proceeded no further than skirmishes at a distance; for when Placidus perceived that I was earnest to come to a battle, he was afraid, and avoided it. Yet did he not remove from the neighborhood of Ptolemais.

My quandary can be summed up as a list of questions:

1. Since virtually every detail of the feeding of the 5000 can be derived from scriptural precedents, should we derive them all from those precedents and proclaim the entire pericope unhistorical?
2. Since participants in historical events are free agents and may do as they please (within obvious limits), should we instead imagine Jesus himself, for example, acting out some of those scriptural precedents (such as using an organizational scheme reminiscent of scriptural organizational systems) and the earliest tradents (if there are any before Mark) dutifully including the seditious details simply because they were there?
3. Is Bermejo-Rubio correct about there being a pattern of seditious material just under the surface of the gospel, credible as historical information precisely because it does not conform with the evangelist's overall theme?
4. Is the term συμπόσια an attempt to tone down the militarism in the pericope by comparing the gathering to a Greek drinking party? Alternately, is it an innocent authorial glossing or rewriting of a tradition that he or she did not fully understand, assuming the gathering to be peaceful when it was really much more than that?

Anyone want to take on one or more of these questions and give me an answer I can take to the bank?

Ben.

[neilgodfrey]

What would Bayes say?

(Or what would we expect the evidence to be with each of the scenarios.... then compare.)

[iskander]

Why don't you show us how to apply Bayes to this miracle?. please

[Charles Wilson]

Ben-
Nice Post-

I can give a few hints at a resolution to these problems. I used to be more sure but am less so today.

1. I still believe that the Mark 6 passage is from around Antonia in 4 BCE *BUT* I'm not going to press the issue (much) because of the peculiar statements. (OK, OK, I believe the five loaves are the Torah and the 2 fish are the students immolated at the Golden Eagle incident. However...)

2. [37] But he answered them, "You give them something to eat." And they said to him, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?"
Somebody tell me how much "200 denarii" would buy and where could that money be spent? In 4 BCE. 33 CE. 100 CE. Is any of this realistic given the commands:

[8] He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
[9] but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.

Is this "Here's $1.27, go buy enough bread to feed 5000". Or is it "Here's $250,000, go buy some bread." What audience is reading this? When?
Curious.

2. Here's the real oddity for me: "[39] Then he commanded them all to sit down by companies upon the green grass." The "Roman Warming" was in full swing here. Herod hocked everything and went to the Procurator of Egypt, Petronius, to buy grain and have it shipped to Caesarea because of a severe famine - No rain, no grain, no crops:

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

This is Herod. He dropped "millstones of a donkey" in the sea at Caesarea to make a "Safe Harbor" for the boats filled with Egyptian grain (Josephus). Hence the Joke:

Matthew 7: 9 (RSV):
[9] Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?

It is blistering Famine of very large proportions. It's why the agricultural dimension mentioned in your Post is of interest. "Green grass"? I believe it is a clue but its significance is puzzling.

[43] And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish.

Broken pieces of bread - and then the fishes? Very awkward phrasing. Why?

3. Mark 8 begins with "In those days..." and that is a clue of a rewrite in the making. How far back does the text go? "[4] And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?" " No "green grass" here. The first response is that these 2 Stories were originally one with one Group arguing for one reading, another arguing for the other, with approval coming for both versions with cosmetic changes. "[6] And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground" Not as militant as in Chapter 6.


[10] And he sent them away; and immediately he got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanu'tha. An interesting statement here. "He got into the boat..." is a marker for Antonia for me but look at "Dalmanutha". The Vic Alexander Aramaic Translation has:

10. And at once he climbed aboard the vessel with his disciples and came to the land of oppression*.
[Note]: *8:10 Lit. Aramaic: "Dalmanutha."

Sounds like The Condo Antonia where the Pharisees lived to me! Which leads to the final oddity in these odd Stories:

[14] Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.
[15] And he cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."
[16] And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread."
[17] And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
[18] Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?

When you read about the stupidity of the Disciples, look to see if there is the (Symbolic) possibility that the Story was ripped from an UnTransvalued time, a time before the supposed time of "Jesus". "Oh! I forgot!"

"Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

It's HEROD! Yes, of course. So, what are to we to make of this? It reads to me as a botched set of stories where the message of a Passover has been submerged under a wreck of a story of Titus. It is Military. Titus was in Antonia with his troops and generals on the ground as he gave orders (Josephus). It's just...poorly written.

CW

[Bernard Muller]

I want to say that the disciples not seeing the miraculous feedings is part of a pattern in gMark where these disciples are allegedly given a gag order, or ignorant, or very dumb/blind on the most important things "proving" Jesus having divine power and being Son of God & Christ.

- Disciples getting gag order from Jesus:
a) NOT saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:43)
b) NOT claiming Jesus was Christ (8:30)
c) NOT telling about the events on the high mountain, which include transfiguration, God saying Jesus is his Son and Moses & Elijah alive in bodily forms (9:9-10)

- Disciples being ignorant or kept in ignorance:
a) NOT aware of the (Christian) meaning of Jesus' future passion (8:33)
b) NOT understanding what "rising from the dead" meant (right after seeing Moses & Elijah!) (9:10)
c) NOT asking about the meaning of (among other things) Jesus' future rising (9:32b)
d) NOT told about the Empty Tomb (16:8)

- Disciples being too dumb to notice extraordinary events:
a) NOT "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (6:52, 8:4, 17-21)
b) NOT considering "walking on the sea" or/and the following stoppage of the wind as divine miracle(s) (6:52)
http://historical-jesus.info/89.html

Also in Mk 6:41 & 8:6, "Mark" did not dare to clearly mention a distribution of the food by the disciples: "And having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, having looked up to the heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves, and was giving to his disciples, that they may set before them, and the two fishes divided he to all," (YLT)

Also, when Jesus is talking about the two events where the disciples picked up left overs, "Mark" never mentioned any multiplication of food, nor distribution by the disciples, just that Jesus broke bread (Mk 8:17b-20):
"... do ye not yet perceive, nor understand, yet have ye your heart hardened?
Having eyes, do ye not see? and having ears, do ye not hear? and do ye not remember?
When the five loaves I did brake to the five thousand, how many hand-baskets full of broken pieces took ye up?' they say to him, 'Twelve.'
'And when the seven to the four thousand, how many hand-baskets full of broken pieces took ye up?' and they said, 'Seven.'" (I think all the numbers were invented by "Mark". None were heard from the disciple(s))

All of these remarks tell me "Mark" used the habit of Jesus to break in small pieces the available food to share with his followers then (so everyone eat about the same amount, if they help themselves in turn, one piece for each time), plus the fact, in two occasions, the disciples picked up left overs after a crowd assembled outside to feast, plus some inspiration from the OT, in order to fabricate his miraculous feedings, with some mundane elements already heard by his community from disciple(s), used to project an air of authenticity into these fantastic stories.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Why don't you show us how to apply Bayes to this miracle?. please

I did. Read the second sentence and go from there.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
According to your OP, I think you pushed your parallelomania to the extreme.
Why would "Mark" compose a fantastic story from bits and pieces of Jewish scriptures, and, most of the time, totally out-of-context at that? He still had to, and did, fill big holes between these bits he allegedly picked up.
Why bother? Why do so much research through scrolls in order to get so little? Why would he feel he had to do that?
To adopt the genre of ancient Jewish writings? really?

Yes, I fully agree about the (Mark's fabricated) parable of the mustard seed was inspired by Ezekiel 17.22-24. The parallels are close between the two (see http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html), but it's no reason to generalize. And we are far from the stories of the miraculous feedings.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
According to your OP, I think you pushed your parallelomania to the extreme.
Why would "Mark" compose a fantastic story from bits and pieces of Jewish scriptures, and, most of the time, totally out-of-context at that? He still had to, and did, fill big holes between these bits he allegedly picked up.
Why bother? Why do so much research through scrolls in order to get so little? Why would he feel he had to do that?
To adopt the genre of ancient Jewish writings? really?

I am comparing two approaches:

1. The author invented the pericope using scriptural precedents (implying nonhistoricity).
2. The author included telling details that point to a seditious layer just beneath the surface of the text (possibly implying some degree of historicity).

I was very clear that I am undecided, and that I am open to arguments for or against both sides, or for something in the middle. However, your arguments from personal incredulity do not fit the bill for me.

As for specifics, the reason for borrowing each bit of scripture differs from example to example. I presume that even you would have no problem with borrowing the numbers 100 and 50 in order to make the assembled crowd a de facto representation of Israel. That kind of number play can be found all over the place. (Twelve disciples, one for each tribe of Israel, for starters.) It makes eminent sense. The payoff is obvious and huge.

The link to Numbers 11.21-23 I called a possible connection. The payoff is much less substantial.

I doubt the connection to Josephus is anything but simple coincidence.

Were there others that troubled you?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I am comparing two approaches:

The author invented the pericope using scriptural precedents (implying nonhistoricity).
The author included telling details that point to a seditious layer just beneath the surface of the text (possibly implying some degree of historicity).
I was very clear that I am undecided, and that I am open to arguments for or against both sides, or for something in the middle. However, your arguments from personal incredulity do not fit the bill for me.

Gee, why did you leave my approach out of your evaluation? reminder: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2223#p49526
And I think seeing a seditious layer in the pericope is extremely far-fetched.

As for specifics, the reason for borrowing each bit of scripture differs from example to example. I presume that even you would have no problem with borrowing the numbers 100 and 50 in order to make the assembled crowd a de facto representation of Israel. That kind of number play can be found all over the place. (Twelve disciples, one for each tribe of Israel, for starters.) It makes eminent sense. The payoff is obvious and huge.

These numbers, plus thousands and tens, are mentioned in the OT as the people assigned to leaders, and not for a military purpose. There is no mention of leaders being assigned to the 100's & 50's in Mark's miraculous feedings.

The link to Numbers 11.21-23 I called a possible connection. The payoff is much less substantial.

Possible connection (but I don't even agree with that: way too remote), but is it probable? If you are an adept of extreme parallelomania, indeed, you will find these possible connections almost everywhere. But you have a computer with access to the Jewish scriptures by a few clicks of the mouse. And the FIND function of your browser is very handy into finding key words everywhere. But "Mark" did not have all that.

I doubt the connection to Josephus is anything but simple coincidence.

How far-fetched! Furthermore 'Life' was published decades after gMark and I doubt "Mark" would have known of this detail (about 5000 Jewish warriors) through oral tradition.

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

Bernard wrote:

"I want to say that the disciples not seeing the miraculous feedings is part of a pattern in gMark where these disciples are allegedly given a gag order, or ignorant, or very dumb/blind on the most important things "proving" Jesus having divine power and being Son of God & Christ."

I agree, and MacDonald persuades me that this pattern is due to Mark imitating Homer. As he puts it in the Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, "A comparison of the Gospel [of Mark] with the Odyssey suggests an elegant solution. Homer highlighted Odysseus' endurance, courage, and wisdom by contrasting him with other characters, especially the comrades who sailed with him ... The poet lost no time establishing the foolishness of Odysseus' crew as a major theme of the epic" (pg. 21).

I'm also persuaded by his argument that Homer is the source of the feeding of the 5000 (which he discusses in chapter 10). For an example, he compares Odyssey 3.63-68 with Mark 6:41-42:

"... the staunch son of Odysseus prayed. Then when they had roasted the outer flesh and drawn it off the spits, they divided the portions and partook of the glorious feast"; "Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up into heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. And all ate, and were filled."

There are other similarities like this, and as Carrier points out in his review, "there is evidence of so many plausible connections, that even though any one of them could perhaps with effort be argued away, the fact that there are so many more makes it increasingly unlikely that MacDonald is seeing an illusion."

http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... dmark.html