Dalmanoutha

[Giuseppe]

I learn that Andreas Bedenbender suggests (2000) that Mark intends Dalmanoutha symbolically (as something like “Doubts-City”) in order to characterize the Pharisees in the pericope that immediately ensues (8:11-13).

The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Matthew 15:39 substitutes “the region of Magadan” for the district of Dalmanoutha.

Bedenbender can't explain why Matthew did change the name.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I learn that Andreas Bedenbender suggests (2000) that Mark intends Dalmanoutha symbolically (as something like “Doubts-City”) in order to characterize the Pharisees in the pericope that immediately ensues (8:11-13).

The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Matthew 15:39 substitutes “the region of Magadan” for the district of Dalmanoutha.

Bedenbender can't explain why Matthew did change the name.

I'm a bit irritated. What's your point here, Giuseppe?

[Giuseppe]

If Matthew did change "Dalmanoutha" in another name possibly more known to his audience, the reason may be that Matthew didn't realize the meaning (and irony) of "Dalmanoutha".

Or he realized it but he didn't like the fact that the reader could doubt about the existence of a "town" (Dalmanoutha) where the people doubted in turn about Jesus's miracles.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

If Matthew did change "Dalmanoutha" in another name possibly more known to his audience, the reason may be that Matthew didn't realize the meaning (and irony) of "Dalmanoutha".

Or he realized it but he didn't like the fact that the reader could doubt about the existence of a "town" (Dalmanoutha) where the people doubted in turn about Jesus's miracles.

Thanks. Bedenbender is a great scholar, but I'm not sure that his explaining of Dalmanoutha is correct.

My tip would be that the topic of Mark 8:10ff is separation. In Mark 7:24 Jesus comes in the "boundaries of Tyrus and Sidon" (what is in a realistic setting not possible, because these are different towns with different borders). imho the geographical "error" explains all minor variants in the mss of Mark 7:24. In GMark Tyrus and Sidon are united towns.

In Mark 8:10 Jesus comes after the feeding of the Gentiles in the "parts of Dalmanoutha", a divided place. There may be a relation to Galatians 2:11. Perhaps Joe can explain it.

No one knows what "Dalmanoutha" means. studylight has a good article about it

[JoeWallack]

JW:
My guess is "Dalmanoutha" refers to Dalmatia and "Mark" (author) is referring to Romans 15:

19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ;

This (Dalmanoutha) is within the "feeding" stories which I think foreshadow the eucharist. Jesus "feeds" disciples/Jews first and the leftovers (Paul) are for the Gentiles. Note that in this part of Romans Paul is talking about dietary Laws ("All things indeed are clean"). I love the contrast "Mark" makes between Jesus feeding the people "bread" and people feeding pigs.

I think it possible that "Mark" originally wrote "Dalmatia". Based on the extant evidence, in general I think it more likely that we are missing what was in original GMark than we are missing a historical narrative source for GMark.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Ben C. Smith]

Based on the extant evidence, in general I think it more likely that we are missing what was in original GMark than we are missing a historical narrative source for GMark.

So you definitely opt for a specifically higher probability in one direction (what I called the scribal model) rather than in other directions (including what I called the editorial model and the accretional model). What extant evidence do you have in mind?

[Joseph D. L.]

So you definitely opt for a specifically higher probability in one direction (what I called the scribal model) rather than in other directions (including what I called the editorial model and the accretional model). What extant evidence do you have in mind?

If I may add a touch of criticism, all of these models may potentially be true, or harmonized with each other, because they all imply the same thing but a different process. The editorial and accretion models can be reconciled in that the added material could have been from A, B, and C sources; while the scribal model could have been inspired by sources A, B, and C. So the question seems more so to me to be one of motivation: what was the motivation behind such reworks and/or additions?

But I'm not a Marcan priority supporter so I guess my opinion isn't worth much with it. My guess would be the editorial, or compilation model.

[Ben C. Smith]

So you definitely opt for a specifically higher probability in one direction (what I called the scribal model) rather than in other directions (including what I called the editorial model and the accretional model). What extant evidence do you have in mind?

If I may add a touch of criticism, all of these models may potentially be true, or harmonized with each other, because they all imply the same thing but a different process.

I agree, which is part of why I wrote: "Are any two or even all three of these processes at work in different ways throughout Mark?" And yes, all three options are shades away from each other; one could easily imagine the editorial model with just one incoming source and then a bunch of scribal additions, which could look exactly like the accretional model with only one ur-Mark and then that same bunch of scribal additions. It is a spectrum, really, the only premise of which is that more than one hand may have contributed to the final result.

The editorial and accretion models can be reconciled in that the added material could have been from A, B, and C sources; while the scribal model could have been inspired by sources A, B, and C.

I absolutely agree here.

So the question seems more so to me to be one of motivation: what was the motivation behind such reworks?

But I'm not a Marcan priority supporter so I guess my opinion isn't worth much with it. My guess would be the editorial, or compilation model.

Well, I think the question when I am in conversation with Neil seems to be, did such reworking happen at all? Or are we justified, right from the start, in treating Mark as a compositional unit from a single creative mind, before even looking at individual units, because of a priori considerations?

If you do not support Marcan priority, what do you think came before Mark? (To answer that Paul and the LXX did does not really count, since the term Marcan priority is agreed upon as meaning that Mark was the first gospel, not necessarily the first Christian or Christian-friendly text.)

[Joseph D. L.]

I agree, which is part of why I wrote: "Are any two or even all three of these processes at work in different ways throughout Mark?" And yes, all three options are shades away from each other; one could easily imagine the editorial model with just one incoming source and then a bunch of scribal additions, which could look exactly like the accretional model with only one ur-Mark and then that same bunch of scribal additions. It is a spectrum, really, the only premise of which is that more than one hand may have contributed to the final result.

Indeed. So we should determine what sources A, B, C could have been, including the motivation of the author(s) and/or editors.

Well, I think the question when I am in conversation with Neil seems to be, did such reworking happen at all? Or are we justified, right from the start, in treating Mark as a compositional unit from a single creative mind, before even looking at individual units, because of a priori considerations?

If you do not support Marcan priority, what do you think came before Mark? (To answer that Paul and the LXX did does not really count, since the term Marcan priority is agreed upon as meaning that Mark was the first gospel, not necessarily the first Christian or Christian-friendly text.)

On the above, I think a level of recalibrating did occur relatively early on. One theory I've read regarding Marcion is that he in fact composed two Gospel texts within a span of fifteen years of each other. (Markus Vinzent). Rewrites, especially back when information was slow to spread, and heavily localized, I think definitely contributed to composition of many texts: not just Mark.

On priority I will say that I don't think any synoptic preceded bar Kochba. That said, I think either Gospel of the Hebrews or a ur-John was extent prior to bar Kochba. Considering immediate requisitions of the theology at the time, I think ur-John is a witness to a text that preceded the Kitos revolt, in which case would be Gospel of the Hebrews, making ur-John secondary. But since the Evangelion was originally as a substitute Torah, Gospel of the Hebrews may itself be a continuation or witness to a translation of Torah or Targum, such as that of Onkelos. The potential that texts may influence each other multiple times also exists. (As in scribe 1 takes from source B, followed by scribe 2 ten years later who also takes from source B).

[Joseph D. L.]

Or texts cross pollinating each other.