Bernard Muller wrote: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?
What is so difficult about this question?
If we assume (i) the writing of Mark's gospel in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and (ii) that the author belonged to some kind of Pauline (or similar) community that was promised the return of the victorious Christ in their lifetime, you see a community that has to deal with the fallout of a failed prophesy. Instead of victory, it was total defeat. Their belief system was in shambles. Then the author did exactly that what Paul always claimed to have done in his letters: look for and find the answers in the scripture.
Are you asking me why I left out, in my OP, an approach that you sketched out in a response to the OP?
These numbers, plus thousands and tens, are mentioned in the OT as the people assigned to leaders, and not for a military purpose.
I dealt with that in the OP, agreeing that it is not exclusively military.
Possible connection (but I don't even agree with that: way too remote), but is it probable?
You tell me; I am asking.
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.
What people like Mark may well have had is much handier than a "find" function and a computer. Many students of the scriptures memorized vast portions of them; they read them all the way through on a regular basis; they prayed them; they lived and breathed them.
I grew up in the Sunday Schools of very conservative churches, and I was a good student; I memorized long tracts of the Bible, read and reread the book, became very familiar with it. And I think a lot of the ancients would put me to shame.
I doubt the connection to Josephus is anything but simple coincidence.
How far-fetched!
Just to be clear, are you saying that the possible connection to Josephus is farfetched? Or are you saying that not making such an obvious connection is farfetched? You see, when you reply to a statement of mine with the exclamation, "how farfetched", it makes it sound like you are disagreeing with my stance; yet I suspect you are actually agreeing with me, just more emphatically than I would have phrased it.
Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If we assume (i) the writing of Mark's gospel in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and (ii) that the author belonged to some kind of Pauline (or similar) community that was promised the return of the victorious Christ in their lifetime, you see a community that has to deal with the fallout of a failed prophesy. Instead of victory, it was total defeat. Their belief system was in shambles. Then the author did exactly that what Paul always claimed to have done in his letters: look for and find the answers in the scripture.
Why do you think the pericope about the 5000 miraculous feeding addresses post 70 concerns among Christians? How?
And what bits from scripture passages went into that pericopes? Only a few, in my analysis.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
If we assume (i) the writing of Mark's gospel in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and (ii) that the author belonged to some kind of Pauline (or similar) community that was promised the return of the victorious Christ in their lifetime, you see a community that has to deal with the fallout of a failed prophesy. Instead of victory, it was total defeat. Their belief system was in shambles. Then the author did exactly that what Paul always claimed to have done in his letters: look for and find the answers in the scripture.
Why do you think the pericope about the 5000 miraculous feeding addresses post 70 concerns among Christians? How?
Not in isolation. The whole gospel does. It points in the beginning that we will be looking at Isaiah, and while Isaiah serves as scaffold for the gospel, all those other scenes from different places in the OT fill the scaffold to a whole story, the story about God visiting his house while everyone ignored and finally deserted him. Of course, Isaiah also points to the way out of this, and so does the gospel.
Here in this pericope, we have the proof that Jesus was the "good shepherd" (countless references, see above or M. Thurton) to the people of Israel (the 50s and 100s), who takes care of his flock. However, we also get shown why Jesus' mission here failed, as his disciples acted against his orders. We have again the image that if the whole people works together, the fruit will be manifold. However, the disciples don't understand this.
Bernard Muller wrote:And what bits from scripture passages went into that pericopes? Only a few, in my analysis.
Well, there's the first post of this thread, which shows plenty and doesn't really have anything left that's not taken from the OT. Or take Michael Thurton's approach, which lists quite a few of the same influences.
"... 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."
Then they roasted the outer meat, drew it off the spits, gave every man his portion, and feasted to their hearts' content;
No mention anywhere in the whole book of the staunch son of Odysseus/Ulysses praying.
No mention of left overs here. Also no multiplication of food here, because earlier, we are told many animals were sacrificed for the feast:
They sacrificed the sheep, goats, pigs, and the heifer, and when the inward meats were cooked they served them round.
Another case of acute parellomania.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
"... 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."
Thus she prayed and was herself fulfilling it all. Then she gave Telemachus the handsome two-handled cup, and in like manner 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.
For the record, I too am skeptical of this connection.
Are you asking me why I left out, in my OP, an approach that you sketched out in a response to the OP?
Yes. Why sketched out only? Before my answer to your OP, I dealt a lot on the 5000 miraculous feeding in that thread: "Bernard's website: my answer to comments". It's a lot more than sketched.
What people like Mark may well have had is much handier than a "find" function and a computer. Many students of the scriptures memorized vast portions of them; they read them all the way through on a regular basis; they prayed them; they lived and breathed them.
I grew up in the Sunday Schools of very conservative churches, and I was a good student; I memorized long tracts of the Bible, read and reread the book, became very familiar with it. And I think a lot of the ancients would put me to shame.
Maybe, maybe not. But you got a point. However, I am doubtful "Mark" drew from memory a word here or a few words there in order to integrate them in his largely made up stories.
Just to be clear, are you saying that the possible connection to Josephus is farfetched? Or are you saying that not making such an obvious connection is farfetched? You see, when you reply to a statement of mine with the exclamation, "how farfetched", it makes it sound like you are disagreeing with my stance; yet I suspect you are actually agreeing with me, just more emphatically than I would have phrased it.
Yes, for your first question.
Yes, I am disagreeing with your stance.
I indicated a reason:
Furthermore 'Life' was published decades after gMark and I doubt "Mark" would have known of this detail (about 5000 Jewish warriors) through oral tradition.
Are you thinking now gMark was written after 'Life', published 96 AD at the earliest?
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Are you asking me why I left out, in my OP, an approach that you sketched out in a response to the OP?
Yes. Why sketched out only? Before my answer to your OP, I dealt a lot on the 5000 miraculous feeding in that thread: "Bernard's website: my answer to comments". It's a lot more than sketched.
I dealt with what you presented on the other thread as your main argument for historicity in the OP. What argument or approach did you present that I did not sufficiently address? (And "sketched" was not supposed to be derogatory word.)
However, I am doubtful "Mark" drew from memory a word here or a few words there in order to integrate them in his largely made up stories.
I do not think the words are the ultimate "thing" here. I think Mark was tying his narrative about Jesus into those old narratives about Moses and Elijah and the prophets. The words are only the hook. The message is much broader.
When in the Negro Spirituals slaves would sing of the Jordan or of the Promised Land, they were not simply drawing a word or two here and there from memory as some idle exercise. No, they were comparing their plight to that of the Children of Israel escaping slavery in Egypt for a land of their own. That is the connection to be drawn. The simple phrase "promised land" is just the hook.
But I suppose I must be indulging in excessive parallelomania again....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the possible connection to Josephus is farfetched? Or are you saying that not making such an obvious connection is farfetched? You see, when you reply to a statement of mine with the exclamation, "how farfetched", it makes it sound like you are disagreeing with my stance; yet I suspect you are actually agreeing with me, just more emphatically than I would have phrased it.
Yes, for your first question.
Yes, I am disagreeing with your stance.
My stance, as I have already stated quite clearly, is that the connection to Josephus is a stretch.
If you disagree with my stance, then (bizarrely) you must think that there is indeed a viable connection between the 5000 Galilean militiamen and the 5000 fed by Jesus.
It is in Odyssey 3 (as Ben pointed out), including the reference to Telemachus (the "staunch son" in MacDonald's translation) praying:
"When she had thus made an end of praying, she handed the cup to Telemachus and he prayed likewise. By and by, when the outer meats were roasted and had been taken off the spits, the carvers gave every man his portion
and they all made an excellent dinner ... they had had enough to eat and drink ..."
And this is only one parallel of several. Regarding the others, Carrier summarizes them in his review:
"... the two food miracles, forming a doublet in Mark, contain details that match a similar doublet of feasts in the Odyssey, and contain them in the same respective order ... in the first feasts, the main characters go by sea, but in the second, by land; in the first, only men attend (even though there is no explanation in Mark of why this should be), but in the second there is no distinction; in the first, the masses assemble into smaller groups, and lie on soft spots, but not in the second; more attend the first than the second (and the numbers are about the same: 5000 in Mark, 4500 in Homer). On the other hand, in the second feasts, unlike the first, someone asks the host a discouraging question and yet the host shows compassion anyway-in Mark, this is particularly strange, since after the first miracle the disciples have no excuse to be surprised that Jesus can multiply food, so the doubting question can only be explained by the Homeric parallel; finally, in the second feasts, as opposed to the first, there are two sequential courses-bread, then meat. In both authors, the feasts serve an overt educational role: in the one case to educate the hero's son about hospitality, in the other to educate the disciples about Jesus' power and compassion, drawing attention to the difference in each story's moral values. There are even linguistic parallels-Homer's feasts were called 'symposia' (drinking parties) even though that word usually referred to smaller gatherings; likewise, Mark writes that the first feast was organized by 'symposia,' despite the fact that only food is mentioned, not water or wine. Several of these details in Mark, as noted, are simply odd by themselves, yet make perfect sense when we see the Homeric model, and therein again lies the power of MacDonald's thesis."
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
