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:
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.Bernard Muller wrote: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?
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 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.Michael BG wrote: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.
A while back, Kunigunde Kreuzerin discussed the term πρασιά in Mark 6.40 and concluded:
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:Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:it means simply an agricultural "bed" (Stop searching for another meaning)
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.DCHindley wrote: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.
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:
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 18.25: 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:
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:
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:
“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:
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:
This parable echoes the metaphor of Israel as an eschatological tree in Ezekiel 17.22-24:
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:
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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
Ben.