The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:26 pm Maybe the presence of fish is related to his identity as Joshua revividus.
The fish are reminiscent of the Messianic banquet upon the flesh of Leviathan.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Bernard Muller »

to ben,
Is your exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000) meant to show that "Mark" was inspired by bits and pieces from the Jewish scriptures (& other sources) in order to write his crowd feeding stories?

Obviously, you did not buy the missing block removed from a copy of gMark that "Luke" worked from (and not knowing its content), despite all the evidence I put forwards. http://historical-jesus.info/appf.htm
But, the feeding of the 4000 is into that missing block, and that would explain why it is not in gLuke.

As for gJohn, the author (knowing then only gMark) only tells about the most spectacular Jesus' miracles in Galilee, and therefore had no need of a feeding of 4000: Jesus' food multiplication ability had already been "demonstrated".

If the Bethsaida mini gospel was retrofitted in gMark, it would be hard to swallow because of the logistic problems. Furthermore, 8:13-21 had to be modified in that case.
If the Bethsaida mini gospel was known by "Mark", how to explain he did not include it in his gospel?

My take on the miraculous feedings, again: http://historical-jesus.info/88.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:44 pmIs your exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000) meant to show that "Mark" was inspired by bits and pieces from the Jewish scriptures (& other sources) in order to write his crowd feeding stories?
No. To characterize the source of inspiration as "bits and pieces" is drastically wrong, on my reading.
Obviously, you did not buy the missing block removed from a copy of gMark that "Luke" worked from (and not knowing its content), despite all the evidence I put forwards. http://historical-jesus.info/appf.htm
But, the feeding of the 4000 is into that missing block, and that would explain why it is not in gLuke.
What? I do not understand.
As for gJohn, the author (knowing then only gMark) only tells about the most spectacular Jesus' miracles in Galilee, and therefore had no need of a feeding of 4000: Jesus' food multiplication ability had already been "demonstrated".
I said so little about the feeding of the 4000 (giving reasons, for better or worse, for not considering it) that I am not sure what this remark is in response to.
If the Bethsaida mini gospel was retrofitted in gMark, it would be hard to swallow because of the logistic problems. Furthermore, 8:13-21 had to be modified in that case.
If the Bethsaida mini gospel was known by "Mark", how to explain he did not include it in his gospel?
Again, I am not tracking you here. I do not know what you are saying.
My take on the miraculous feedings, again: http://historical-jesus.info/88.html
I have read that page several times over the course of a number of years. Thank you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
(all bolding mine)
No. To characterize the source of inspiration as "bits and pieces" is drastically wrong, on my reading.
OK, so you think the source of inspiration came from existing texts then (when gMark was written) or ideas & specific words (some later captured by rabbinic documents).
What? I do not understand.
I was very clear:
"But the feeding of the 4000 is into that missing block, and that would explain why it is not in gLuke."
That reminds me about Mk 6:52:
for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
I said so little about the feeding of the 4000 (giving reasons, for better or worse, for not considering it) that I am not sure what this remark is in response to.
You did consider it in your OP:
I focus on the feeding of the 5000, rather than on that of the 4000, because it appears to me that the latter may just be a doublet of the former. The feeding of the 5000 appears in all four gospels, whereas that of the 4000 appears only in Matthew and in Mark; more importantly, the feeding of the 4000 appears in the Bethsaida section, which seems like it may be detachable, in one way or another, from the rest of the text.
and in another post,
Well, I have highlighted the Bethsaida section before as a fairly special bit of the Marcan text; if mentally removed as superfluous, then of course we are left with only one feeding miracle. And the feeding of the 4000 just feels like a lesser version of the same thing.

But people have argued that Mark himself (whoever that is) has deliberately doubled up certain episodes in the gospel for a handful of reasons (all of them involving a measure of speculation), and several of the pericopes in the Bethsaida section are doublets, including the feeding of the 4000. The doubling up of the feeding miracle is what allows for what I consider to be the cringiest and dumbest pericope in Mark: Jesus' rebuking of the disciples in 8.14-21. Was that the only purpose of the doubling up? I hope not, but it may be. I honestly am not sure. Nothing about the construction of the Bethsaida section is manifest and clear to me yet. That one original feeding story should be floating around, changing a bit in different times and places as it is related, only later to be collected into one text under two slightly different forms, makes perfect sense, too.
Note: the so-called doubling up is best explained by "Mark" working on two separate crowd feedings.
Again, I am not tracking you here. I do not know what you are saying.
How do you explain the Bethsaida section is in gMark & gMatthew (and part of it in gJohn) but not in gLuke?
Can you indicate the route of the Bethsaida section from its start to each gospel (except gLuke), such as: it appears first in gMatthew then got retrofitted in gMark (with 8:14-21 modified)?

Notes:
1) ἔρημον: not necessarily "desert". More so because that "desert" has green grass, just like an uncultivated region fit for pasturage.
2) "Mark" might have got his semitism when in Judea, before moving to a place where he had to learn Greek and bits of Latin, such as Rome then Corinth, or Corinth only where Latin was the main language up to around 50 CE, before being supplanted by Greek.
I am 90% certain that Christians of Corinth was the targeted audience for his gospel. It is also, because he made followers here, quasi certain Peter visited Corinth (and deliver his testimony about a Jesus who was not divine and not a miracle worker extraordinaire). That would explain the make up of gMark:
From http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
B) As already explained in HJ-2a, HJ-2b & HJ-3a, "Mark" had to address eyewitness(es)' "against the grain" reports, duly noted silences on critical points and lack of prior attestations (i.e. on crucial stories generated by the author!).
Why?
Because those testimonies were still remembered by his community. If it was not the case, why create problems & raise doubts!
Here is an abbreviated list of items where "Mark" tried to counteract the embarrassment (E) or explain the silence (S):
a) Disciples NOT saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:42-43) (S)
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
c) Disciples NOT "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (8:17-21) (S)
d) Disciples NOT considering "walking on/by the sea" or/and the following stoppage of the wind as divine miracle(s) (6:52) (S)
e) Disciples NOT claiming Jesus was Christ (8:29-30) (S)
f) Peter NOT comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
g) Disciples NOT telling about the events on the high mountain (9:9-10) (S)
h) Disciples NOT knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
i) Disturbance in the temple (11:17) (E)
j) Peter saying Jesus cursed at a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
k) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
l) Disciples NOT knowing about the empty tomb and Jesus' rising (16:8) (S)
See also http://historical-jesus.info/89.html and http://historical-jesus.info/28.html

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:34 pm to Ben....
I think I understand what you are saying now. You are questioning my treating the two Marcan feedings differently, as if the feeding of the 4000 might not have been original, while the feeding of the 5000 probably is. That is fine, but not the point of the OP. The arguments made would apply to the first feeding no matter what the status of the second feeding might be.

For the record, I think it is possible that a version of Mark existed without the Bethsaida section, and then the Bethsaida section was added, and then Matthew copied from the second version while Luke either copied from the first or had a ripped copy of the second. I suspect that John copied from the first, but I am not sure about any of this. I do not have the Bethsaida section all figured out yet; or, if I do (and by some miracle what I just wrote is basically correct), the solution to the problem is not as clear cut as I would like it to be. Nor do I intend to pursue it here, however, because that is not the point of this thread.
How do you explain the Bethsaida section is in gMark & gMatthew (and part of it in gJohn) but not in gLuke?
Can you indicate the route of the Bethsaida section from its start to each gospel (except gLuke), such as: it appears first in gMatthew then got retrofitted in gMark (with 8:14-21 modified)?
I do not think it appeared first in Matthew. Maybe it did (?), but that is not my current position.
ἔρημον: not necessarily "desert". More so because that "desert" has green grass, just like an uncultivated region fit for pasturage.
Same word as in the Exodus account, early and often. The allusion still works. Use "deserted place" if you have to; "deserted" still has "desert" in it. (I think you are being too literal about that term; I forget that most people are not as into the etymology as I am.)
OK, so you think the source of inspiration came from existing texts then (when gMark was written) or ideas & specific words (some later captured by rabbinic documents).
From an existing story line and interpretive matrix, as it were: a traditional way of reading and interpreting the ancient scriptural accounts. To reduce it to "bits and pieces," or to the question of whether it was written or oral, or to which prooftexts predominated is to miss the point, which is that, given the appropriate background information, we can see what the author or storyteller was trying to do and say.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:26 pm Maybe the presence of fish is related to his identity as Joshua revividus.
Yes the Ichthys.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Secret Alias »

Just a question for Stuart. If the gospel was written as if the main character was Joshua how could the Marcionites have "hated" or been opposed to the Torah?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
(Bolding mine)
For the record, I think it is possible that a version of Mark existed without the Bethsaida section, and then the Bethsaida section was added, and then Matthew copied from the second version while Luke either copied from the first or had a ripped copy of the second. I suspect that John copied from the first, but I am not sure about any of this. I do not have the Bethsaida section all figured out yet; or, if I do (and by some miracle what I just wrote is basically correct), the solution to the problem is not as clear cut as I would like it to be. Nor do I intend to pursue it here, however, because that is not the point of this thread.
Your "two versions" possibility looks rather complicated. A simpler solution is to have "Luke" working from a copy of gMark with the so-called Bethsaida section removed. Occam's razor?

And that section, "which seems like it may be detachable" is not so detachable:
From http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
It seems "Luke" attempted to harmonize Mk6:46 with Mk8:27b, as follows:
Lk9:18 NASB "And it happened that while He was praying alone [as in Mk6:46], the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, "Who do the people say that I am?" [as in Mk8:27b]"
Let's notice the awkwardness of "... alone, the disciples were with Him". And how could Jesus pray and, at the same time, ask a question to his disciples?
Isn't it obvious "Luke" was looking at:
"And when He had sent them [Jesus' disciples] away, He departed to the mountain to pray. He asked His disciples, saying to them, "Who do men say that I am?"" (Mk6:46,8:27b)
From an existing story line and interpretive matrix, as it were: a traditional way of reading and interpreting the ancient scriptural accounts. To reduce it to "bits and pieces," or to the question of whether it was written or oral, or to which prooftexts predominated is to miss the point, which is that, given the appropriate background information, we can see what the author or storyteller was trying to do and say.
I do have difficulty understanding what you mean here.
For example "given the appropriate background information, we can see what the author or storyteller was trying to do and say.": do you mean that, in order to understand Mark's miraculous feeding of the 5000, a exegetical study like yours is necessary.
Or, as your thread title (The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000)) suggests, "Mark" composed his story, inspired by or taking in account the texts and words you indicated in your OP.
According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exegetical:
Synonyms for exegetical ...
elucidative, explanative, explanatory, explicative, explicatory, expositive, expository, illuminative, illustrative, interpretative, interpretive
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

1.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:40 am to Ben,
(Bolding mine)
For the record, I think it is possible that a version of Mark existed without the Bethsaida section, and then the Bethsaida section was added, and then Matthew copied from the second version while Luke either copied from the first or had a ripped copy of the second. I suspect that John copied from the first, but I am not sure about any of this. I do not have the Bethsaida section all figured out yet; or, if I do (and by some miracle what I just wrote is basically correct), the solution to the problem is not as clear cut as I would like it to be. Nor do I intend to pursue it here, however, because that is not the point of this thread.
Your "two versions" possibility looks rather complicated. A simpler solution is to have "Luke" working from a copy of gMark with the so-called Bethsaida section removed. Occam's razor?
I have already given my reply:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:34 pmFor the record, I think it is possible that a version of Mark existed without the Bethsaida section, and then the Bethsaida section was added, and then Matthew copied from the second version while Luke either copied from the first or had a ripped copy of the second. I suspect that John copied from the first, but I am not sure about any of this. I do not have the Bethsaida section all figured out yet; or, if I do (and by some miracle what I just wrote is basically correct), the solution to the problem is not as clear cut as I would like it to be. Nor do I intend to pursue it here, however, because that is not the point of this thread.
2.
And that section, "which seems like it may be detachable" is not so detachable:
From http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
It seems "Luke" attempted to harmonize Mk6:46 with Mk8:27b, as follows:
Lk9:18 NASB "And it happened that while He was praying alone [as in Mk6:46], the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, "Who do the people say that I am?" [as in Mk8:27b]"
Let's notice the awkwardness of "... alone, the disciples were with Him". And how could Jesus pray and, at the same time, ask a question to his disciples?
Isn't it obvious "Luke" was looking at:
"And when He had sent them [Jesus' disciples] away, He departed to the mountain to pray. He asked His disciples, saying to them, "Who do men say that I am?"" (Mk6:46,8:27b)
I have already given my reply:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:34 pmFor the record, I think it is possible that a version of Mark existed without the Bethsaida section, and then the Bethsaida section was added, and then Matthew copied from the second version while Luke either copied from the first or had a ripped copy of the second. I suspect that John copied from the first, but I am not sure about any of this. I do not have the Bethsaida section all figured out yet; or, if I do (and by some miracle what I just wrote is basically correct), the solution to the problem is not as clear cut as I would like it to be. Nor do I intend to pursue it here, however, because that is not the point of this thread.
3.
From an existing story line and interpretive matrix, as it were: a traditional way of reading and interpreting the ancient scriptural accounts. To reduce it to "bits and pieces," or to the question of whether it was written or oral, or to which prooftexts predominated is to miss the point, which is that, given the appropriate background information, we can see what the author or storyteller was trying to do and say.
I do have difficulty understanding what you mean here.
For example "given the appropriate background information, we can see what the author or storyteller was trying to do and say.": do you mean that, in order to understand Mark's miraculous feeding of the 5000, a exegetical study like yours is necessary.
Thank you. This is the point of the thread.

The surface meaning of the text is apprehensible to anyone who can read Greek or a good translation of it. There is no need to dig deeper to get the idea that this fellow named Jesus did some interesting things with a handful of loaves and fish in a grassy spot in Palestine one fine day.

There are also some deeper connections in the story to the rest of the gospel of Mark, and to the rest of the Christian story about Jesus, which do not require a lot of the reader beyond a basic working knowledge of that aspect of early Christianity.

The figuring out of the sources of inspiration for many of the details of that story, however, requires some investigation. These sources are not necessarily something that the storyteller wanted everybody to pick up on, but they are, ex hypothesi, his sources regardless.

As an analogy, imagine that all we had of early Christianity was the gospel of Matthew. We could gain a certain degree of understanding of the text itself all by itself, but there are things we would not know about it until we discovered, say, the gospel of Mark, as well. Now we would have a potential source for Matthew on our hands, and our investigation could proceed along newly opened avenues, whether or not Matthew himself would have wanted us to know about Mark in the first place.

All I am doing in this thread is laying bare the exegetical sources of most or even all of the story of the feeding of the 5000.
Or, as your thread title (The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000)) suggests, "Mark" composed his story, inspired by or taking in account the texts and words you indicated in your OP.
I think that the feeding of the 5000 was composed principally on the basis (A) of the Elisha story and attendant traditions from the Elijah-Elisha cycle, (B) of the Paschal connections sparked by the setting of that miracle story, and (C) of the developing motif of the "meal in the desert" interpretation of the Exodus, which again ties into the Paschal theme. There are details in the story which could just be color or could derive from other sources; but most of the story derives from those three sources and the exegetical traditions which developed around them.

I do not think that there is anything historical behind the story. I cannot eliminate the possibility completely, but I hold that the story can have taken shape entirely without it.
According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exegetical:
Synonyms for exegetical ...
elucidative, explanative, explanatory, explicative, explicatory, expositive, expository, illuminative, illustrative, interpretative, interpretive
Why are you quoting the dictionary definition to me of a word which I used correctly in my native tongue? That is weird.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The exegetical origins of the feeding of the 5000 (or 4000).

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
but I hold that the story can have taken shape entirely without it.
That would entail that "Mark" had done an exegetical study like yours in order to make his story about the feeding of the 5000. In a time there was no internet, no display on the web of Jewish scriptures and no sophisticated search tools.
I cannot imagine that: "Mark" reading a huge number of scrolls (with no punctuation and no space between words) for his story. That would require weeks or rather months to accomplish that.
The surface meaning of the text is apprehensible to anyone who can read Greek or a good translation of it. There is no need to dig deeper to get the idea that this fellow named Jesus did some interesting things with a handful of loaves and fish in a grassy spot in Palestine one fine day.

There are also some deeper connections in the story to the rest of the gospel of Mark, and to the rest of the Christian story about Jesus, which do not require a lot of the reader beyond a basic working knowledge of that aspect of early Christianity.
I agree. Let's not forget the targeted audience was mostly Gentile (many of them not educated), not modern scholars.
The figuring out of the sources of inspiration for many of the details of that story, however, requires some investigation. These sources are not necessarily something that the storyteller wanted everybody to pick up on, but they are, ex hypothesi, his sources regardless.
A lot of tedious & time consuming investigation according to the low technology in antiquity.
Occam's razor again would be against any exegetical study by "Mark".
I think that the feeding of the 5000 was composed principally on the basis (A) of the Elisha story and attendant traditions from the Elijah-Elisha cycle, (B) of the Paschal connections sparked by the setting of that miracle story, and (C) of the developing motif of the "meal in the desert" interpretation of the Exodus, which again ties into the Paschal theme. There are details in the story which could just be color or could derive from other sources; but most of the story derives from those three sources and the exegetical traditions which developed around them.
I think your 3 bases are very far-fetched and, at least for the two last bases, you have to take a long and tortuous route marked by tiny pieces of evidence.
As for basis A, the connections Elijah-Elisha are aimed at John the Baptist as much as at Jesus. And I don't think there are enough connections (even including the far-fetched ones) to claim that gMark follows a Elijah-Elisha cycle.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply