to cienfuegos,
i have spent some time reading your website and blog posts. My first observation, which I think you have heard before, is that it seems to follow a stream of consciousness organization that is difficult at times to follow. After reading some of your arguments, I see how you pull in a lot of background information to support your reconstruction of history, but the problem is that you neglect to anchor any of the core events to actual history.
The problem is I had to take in account a lot of factors and also answer questions and concerns from my readers. My work is not an easy to read novel. Also, some of my readers complimented me:
"Pages are a little long, but easy digest. But most importantly, he usually supports his arguments with evidence, and never indulges in religious rhetoric and baseless speculations."
I think your mind is still about behaving like a traditional historian, rather than a cold case investigator (which I think is preferable in the case of the beginning of Christianity).
My goal was not to determine history, but to spell out the most credible and justifiable reconstruction.
As far as anchoring core events with history, I did it whenever that history is available. Unfortunately, available history of antiquity is not detailed at all and even has many large black holes.
But I make a lot of use of history as mostly known through Josephus' works.
Take for example your blogpost #88 on the feeding of five thousand. You and I would both say that Jesus did not perform a miracle here. However, you make the mistake of thinking there must be some sort of historical core to this story. So you find a way to make it reasonable: it was customary for people to bring their own food to such occasions:
But I did find some evidence from Philo of Alexandria about the practice of the festival of the tabernacles, where people would gather outside and feast (obviously from their own food).
Mark's description, of course, says nothing like this. In fact, Mark reports that there was no food and the people were hungry. You somehow take that as spurious, though.
But this is absurd. Have masses with Jesus for 3 days without food? Why? in order to hear his unexplained parables (according to gMark, the only way Jesus was communicating with crowds)? when it is most likely Jesus never spoke in parables:
http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
As I said, process of elimination.
Instead of questioning the authenticity of the entire story, you decide that the fact that the people were hungry was just made up to make the miracle seem more astounding.
But I do question the authenticity of the story. And I eliminated a lot of it.
I do not make this people hungry, "Mark" did.
The writer tips his hand again, though, when he admits that all Jesus really did was break bread and set it before the crowd.
I also note "Mark" did not dare to say Jesus multiplied food.
First, apparently the writer Mark is in on the deception here, as were the other disciples who would clearly know that Jesus performed no miracle.
Exactly. And it is obvious, according to "Mark" own story, the disciples were not aware Jesus performed a (huge) miracle, consequently that multiplication was not heard from them but was invented later. Everything points to the disciples saying they collected basketfuls of rest of a meal taken collectively by people outside, at two occasions, and that's it. No miracle. "Mark" made use of that and 2 Kings 4:42-44 in order to concoct his story.
To me this is all convoluted rationalization to make the event a true historical happening, while stripping it of the miraculous.
My purpose was to find the basis of the tale, not stripping the miraculous. Actually, despite his effort otherwise, "Mark" did it for me.
There is an easier solution: Mark is writing an allegory, as suggest by RG Price here:
Allegory again! I addressed 2 Kings 4:42-44. I admitted it was part of "Mark"'s inspiration. That does not mean Mark's story was only based on the OT passage.
You haven't applied source criticism to prevent yourself from applying your methodology to a completely fictional story (one that is not attested outside Gospel literature).
How can you be sure it is an entirely fictional story? I certainly practice source criticism. What would source criticism falsify my reconstruction of the so-called miraculous feeding?
Of course it is not attested outside the gospels (but it would have to be if the miraculous feedings really happened).
I reproduce below what I wrote on the matter:
After the "exorcism" in the synagogue & the mother-in-law back on her feet and the "leper" being cured, the crowds went "ballistic". But let's observe the crowd's reaction after the alleged miraculous feeding of the five thousand:
"Immediately He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while He sent the multitude away. And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray." (Mk6:45-46)
It does not seem the crowd noticed anything special, nor his disciples, who the night after:
Mk6:52
"... they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened."
This "non-understanding" is confirmed later, when Jesus allegedly announced his intention to feed the four thousand:
"... [the disciples] answered,
"But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?"" (Mk8:4)
And after:
"[Jesus]
told the disciples to distribute them [seven loaves and a few fish]. The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that was left over." (Mk8:7b-8)
the disciples could only remember the basketfuls of fragments of fish and bread they picked up:
"The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod." They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no ['not enough', according to the context: they have one loaf!]
bread."
Aware of their discussion they had,
[which indicates the disciples still do not know Jesus can multiply bread!]
` Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
["minds closed (or blinded)". That would explain why the disciples did not report on the two miraculous feedings!]
` Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember [the two past miraculous feedings]
?
When I broke
[let's notice
"broke" (easy to do for anyone) and not "multiplied" (a miraculous and extraordinary/divine action)]
` the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied. "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" They answered, "Seven." He said to them, "Do you still not understand? [that miraculous multiplications of food happened!]
"
[notice the present tense. And of course, what is not seen, understood and remembered is very unlikely to be told later!]
" (Mk8:14-21)
Notes:
a) Let's say that one basket could contain about ten meals. Then, a grand total of nineteen (12 + 7) basketfuls would represent less than two hundred meals. Therefore, why stress these few basketfuls if allegedly as many as nine thousand (5000 + 4000) men were miraculously fed?
b) In GMark, and unequivocally, what the disciples do not "understand" are the miraculous feedings. But "Matthew" did his best to correct the situation:
Mt16:11-12
"How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Let's go back to the alleged miraculous feeding of the five thousand:
Mk6:41-43
"Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people [5000 of them!]
. He also divided the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish."
Any suggestion of "multiplication" is non-existent:
a) The broken loaves (and fish) are just set before the people: no distribution is mentioned.
b) The provenance of the food that the people ate is not specified.
The only allusion to
miraculous feeding is from the preceding and highly unrealistic dialogue:
Mk6:35-37
"By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. "This is a remote place," they said, "and it's already very late. Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat." But he answered, "You give them something to eat." They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?""
Notes:
a) How could Jesus be so disconnected with the realities of life, which include the price of food?
b) Even if enough grain, caught fish and paid help could be found nearby, the preparation of large quantity of bread would take many hours (from grinding the grain). And going to villages, making the arrangements and bringing back the food to the gathering would take more time!
c) Could the disciples have enough money on them in order to contemplate making such a large purchase? Could they even afford it? Very unlikely on both points.
Overall, the proposition in Mk6:35-37 is totally absurd and made up to give the impression a miracle occurs later.
So what happened?
A plausible and logical explanation is as follows:
a) Villagers would meet outside their dirty and cramped villages. But why?
b) The occasion was probably a festival, like the eight days autumnal one of the tabernacles & its associated feasts. But few Galilean peasants could afford to go to Jerusalem (3-4 days walk away) to celebrate it. Instead, they would go to a near ground outside their village/town.
c) These folks would bring with them more food than they could eat (as for any feast!). However it seems the occasion of the gatherings and the provenance of the food (naturally from the people there!) were never mentioned by the teller(s)!
d) Jesus' disciples picked up the scraps not eaten by the feasters, filling up baskets. And they were telling about it later, probably presenting these collections as a gift from God. According to the NIV Study Bible footnote on Mk6:43:
"... Bread was regarded by Jews as a gift of God, and it was required that scraps that fell on the ground during a meal be picked up. The fragments were collected in small wicker baskets that were carried as a part of daily attire."
Remarks:
a) No confirmation can be found about this practice (i.e. collective villagers' feast in the outdoors). But very little has been written about Judean and Galilean peasants (and more generally about lower class people, in the whole ancient literature). However, Philo of Alexandria wrote that during the festival of the tabernacles:
"the people are commanded to pass the whole period of the feast [festival]
under tents [outside their home!]
... They honor God in songs and words ... [the eighth day]
a kind of crowning feast, not only as it would seem to this festival, but also to all the feasts of the year ..." (The special laws, II, ch.XXXIII)
b) The five/four thousand men are mentioned at the end of each one of the two "miraculous feedings" stories, consequently appearing to be just addendum from "Mark", not an integral part of the main account. The number of gathered people was probably not estimated by the eyewitness(es).
c) The disciples picking up scraps from the meals of others would suggest they were (hungry) poor. And Jesus or disciples helping themselves on available food is not unique:
- The fig tree (Mk11:12-13)
- Heads of grain (Mk2:23)
Furthermore, the gathering of this left over food is very much in line with:
Lk11:9a
"So I [Jesus]
say to you: ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you..."
and:
Lk11:3
"[God]
Give us each day our daily bread"
"Mark" had evidently read:
2Ki4:42-44
"A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said. "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked. But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: `They will eat and have some left over.' "Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over,
[no mention the left over were picked up by anyone. They are just the proof the men had enough to eat]
` according to the word of the LORD."
However, let's consider the following points:
a) "Mark" put a lot of importance on the
fragments (bread, NOT specified from barley, and
fish) that were
picked up by the basketful (Mk6:43,8:8,19-20). This is emphatically acknowledged by the disciples (Mk6:19-20).
b) In contrast, "Mark" conceded the disciples never "understood" or "saw" the "miraculous feedings" (Mk6:52,8:4,17-18). And the reaction by the crowds is non-existent!
c) The gatherings of left over food fit well within the pattern of anecdotal material included (for credibility purpose) by "Mark" in the narration of alleged supernatural events (as shown already).
d) "Mark" related two different gatherings of left over. Only one would have been enough to "prove" Jesus' food multiplication ability.
Therefore, it is highly likely that collections by the basketful of "broken pieces" did occur indeed during two peasants' outdoor feasts. And "Mark" used 2Ki4:42-44
"set it before them", as also the custom of Jesus about breaking the bread (as practiced later by "Nazarenes" --Ac2:42-- and early Christians --1Co10:16, Ac20:7).
Cordially, Bernard
