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.
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 »

Walked into that one. Odd that he consistently does that
“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
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: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:18 am Walked into that one. Odd that he consistently does that
Baffling.
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,
Mark 14.12-18: 12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples say to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 13 And He sends two of His disciples and says to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” 16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. 17 When it was evening He comes with the twelve. 18 As they were reclining [ἀνακειμένων] and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me — one who is eating with Me.”

LSJ (ἀνάκειμαι): A. .... III. lie at table, recline, S.Fr. 756, Philippid.30, Arist. Cat.6b12, Fr.607, Diph.40 Mein. (om. Kock), Plb.13.6.8, Ev.Matt. 9.10, al.; cf. Phryn.191.
The Greek word used in 14:18 (& 16:14) (root ἀνάκεῖμαι) is different than the ones used in 6:39 (root ἀνάκλίνω) and 6:40 (& 8:6) (root ἀναπίπτω).
So "Mark" did a bad job about connecting the miraculous feedings to the Passover meal.
Furthermore, ἀνάκεῖμαι rarely means 'incline" but rather normal seating (as is 16:14).

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: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:04 pm to Ben,
Mark 14.12-18: 12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples say to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 13 And He sends two of His disciples and says to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” 16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. 17 When it was evening He comes with the twelve. 18 As they were reclining [ἀνακειμένων] and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me — one who is eating with Me.”

LSJ (ἀνάκειμαι): A. .... III. lie at table, recline, S.Fr. 756, Philippid.30, Arist. Cat.6b12, Fr.607, Diph.40 Mein. (om. Kock), Plb.13.6.8, Ev.Matt. 9.10, al.; cf. Phryn.191.
The Greek word used in 14:18 (& 16:14) (root ἀνάκεῖμαι) is different than the ones used in 6:39 (root ἀνάκλίνω) and 6:40 (& 8:6) (root ἀναπίπτω).
So "Mark" did a bad job about connecting the miraculous feedings to the Passover meal.
Furthermore, ἀνάκεῖμαι rarely means 'incline" but rather normal seating (as is 16:14).
Please stop pretending that studying and knowing Greek does not matter. It is painful to watch/read. :tombstone:
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,
So am I right or wrong on my last post?

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: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:06 pm to Ben,
So am I right or wrong on my last post?
You are wrong:
Furthermore, ἀνάκεῖμαι rarely means 'incline" but rather normal seating (as is 16:14).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:10 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:06 pm to Ben,
So am I right or wrong on my last post?
You are wrong:
Furthermore, ἀνάκεῖμαι rarely means 'incline" but rather normal seating (as is 16:14).
I even gave you the definition of ἀνάκεῖμαι from the LSJ, and you ignored it, thinking apparently that you could define the word more correctly. I am not playing those games with you. Have at it on your own.
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,
It looks you gave me only two definitions from A ... III. What about the other definitions?
The definition other that "recline" in A ... III is "lie at table" but I doubt it means be horizontal when eating & drinking.
As for "recline", I doubt that chairs then at a table have their back at a considerable angle.
Therefore, "Mark" probably thought about another meaning for ἀνάκεῖμαι rather than "lie at table" or "recline".
The Vine's Expository Dictionary indicates Mar 16:14; ... in Mar 14:18, "sat"

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:18 am 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.
Yes, I think so too - among others. Here's my text, including the rest of Mark 8:
Chapter 8 verses 1 through 10 repeat verses 6:34-44, with a very vague - if obstinate - hint of logion 8c:

(8c) He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty.

8:6 He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground, and he took the seven loaves. Having given thanks, he broke them, and gave them to his disciples to serve, and they served the multitude. 7 They had a few small fish. Having blessed them, he said to serve these also. 8 They ate, and were filled. They took up seven baskets of broken pieces that were left over.

The size of the fish really is irrelevant to the story as it's equally incredible to feed four thousand people with a (guesstimated) dozen or so large fish. My attempt to relate this to Thomas is slightly tongue-in-cheek, I am not counting this one yet it is a telling "miracle" without a doubt.
The next verses serve to temper expectations with an oblique reference to either logion 113a or logion 51a or both, replacing his disciples with the Pharisees: the kingdom won't come any time soon:

(113a) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
(51a) His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"
(51b) He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."

8:11 The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, and testing him. 12 He sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation." 13 He left them, and again entering into the boat, departed to the other side.

Are these verses derived from Thomas or not? It could be anything really, it is to be expected that people are curious for signs with a Messiah in front of them. Thomas saying that the kingdom is already here is of little use to Mark so he would clearly leave that out; only if 51a were largely copied would I have enough distinctive words to attribute it.
Mark seems to have recuperated when he performs a true miracle: making sure of Jesus' mystery by truly mystifying it:

8:14 They forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 He warned them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod." 16 They reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread." 17 Jesus, perceiving it, said to them, "Why do you reason that it's because you have no bread? Don't you perceive yet, neither understand? Is your heart still hardened? 18 Having eyes, don't you see? Having ears, don't you hear? Don't you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They told him, "Twelve." 20 "When the seven loaves fed the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They told him, "Seven." 21 He asked them, "Don't you understand yet?"

No of course they don't understand, I don't understand either; it's as clear as mud. This is the first time Mark makes Jesus unintelligible. What is Mark's goal here, throwing more Thomasine at it?
Logion 96b names the yeast in the loaves but yeast (or rather, leaven) is a popular Tanakh theme with 67 occurrences. The riddling 'Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?' might refer to logion 28c or the first two sentences of logion 17, a and b, but it's a lot more likely that it refers to Isaiah 6:9-10:

(Isaiah 6:9 He said, "Go, and tell this people, 'You hear indeed, but don't understand. You see indeed, but don't perceive.' 10 Make the heart of this people fat. Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.")

Just as a hardened heart pertains to the ample references to the Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, but most importantly Isaiah 63:17:

(Isaiah 63:17 O Yahweh, why do you make us wander from your ways, and harden our heart from your fear? Return for your servants' sake, the tribes of your inheritance.)

The repetition of the question about understanding, as well as the phrase itself, are lovely Thomasine one-liners invented by Mark; he has his weaknesses in copying Thomas but sure does some good stuff - these riddles might inspire readers with awe, and keep up the mystery - stressing the need for teachers and guides to interpret Jesus' words.
Verses 8:22 through 26 have Jesus perform yet another miracle, healing yet another blind. Neatly ending with another instruction to not tell anyone (we all know how that works out, don't we) and using a Thomasine 'don't enter into the village' for that.
It is obvious by now that the multitude of references to senses in Thomas has been integrated into Mark, and undergone a miraculous process: from pure metaphors, each and every one of them, they have been assembled into pragmatic literals in Mark.
Where Thomas means perceiving by seeing, Mark considers it a mere optical process. Where Thomas' hearing means understanding, Mark uses it as purely auditory. Unless, of course, Mark is quoting Isaiah...

Finally and fortunately, verses 8:27 through 30 almost literally copy the convenient parts of logion 13: 13a, 13b, 13c and 13i. With the inevitable twists:

(13a) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
(13b) Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
(13c) Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
(13d) Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
(...)
(13i) Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

8:27 Jesus went out, with his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 28 They told him, "John the Baptizer, and others say Elijah, but others, one of the prophets." 29 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." 30 He commanded them that they should tell no one about him.

John the Baptist and Elijah get thrown in of course, work our way through to the prophecy we must... It is no coincidence that these two get clubbed together: that's part of Project Elijah, another important point in Mark. In Luke and Matthew we will see how more nitty-gritty details of the Isaiah prophecy are handled, and at some point they have to do with John and Elijah and the rather obnoxious prophecy of Malachi 4:5:

(Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes.)

It was rather difficult to fulfil that prophecy as Elijah was taken up to heaven around the 9th century BCE. This is a splendid example of a prophecy that is equally as required to fulfil as it is impossible: whoever might show up claiming to be Elijah, there would be no one else to credibly confirm that he in fact is Elijah. He could raise someone from the dead, that would certainly lend him credibility, because Elijah raised a widow's son (1 Kings 17:17-24). Jesus does exactly the same in Luke 7:12-15, which adds to the confusion about who's the new Elijah.
It has become clear that from the very beginning John the Baptist has been chosen to be portrayed as Elijah, and the name-dropping of the two right here serves to further that cause.
Mark shows good understanding of story telling here: where Peter is first in Thomas, labelling him merely an angel (or messenger), in Mark it is Peter who must come last because he has the final say in it, stating the most important message: Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed one.
Jesus next predicts his own end for the first time in Mark. Matthew will correct him for saying 'after three days' instead of 'on the third day'; one of Mark's minor mistakes.
Chapter 8 ends with logion 55:

(55b) And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me."

8:34 He called the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, "Whoever wants to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for my sake and the sake of the Good News will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? 37 For what will a man give in exchange for his life? 38 For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him, when he comes in his Father's glory, with the holy angels."

Hating of brothers and sisters is too cryptic and undesired and turned into 'deny himself', and it's steered into the proper direction in verse 38: Judgment Day. Good effort from Mark to change the negative 'not worthy of me' into the very tempting 'follow me'.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

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

Post by schillingklaus »

This proves once more the extreme falsity of Markan prioritism, as Mark's gospel is a late patchwork, greedily and illogically integrating features of Matthew's and Luke's, betraying the existence of pre-synoptic gospels.

Only obstinate apologists believe in real events, magical or not, behind the feeding miracles. It is all doctrinal fiction from front to back.

The original feeding story was gnostic and equalled Jesus to the serpent in paradise who fed the fruit of the tree of knowledge to Adam and Eve; which is the very origin of the sacrament of the Eucharist. As a consequence, late church fathers still know a sect who lets real snakes wallow among the breads, making it sacred.

Original features have been maintained uncautiously by the Roman Catholic church until the second Vaticanum, for example the sending home of the participants, the Sancta (blessed remainders),...

The fish are part and parcel of Judaization. In the synoptics, the bread is the manna of Exodus. The little fish refer to the quails of Numbers, there understood as substitute for little fish in Egypt. Jesus becomes a new prophet like Moses.

The big fish are the marine monsters slain by the messiah at the end of times and fed to the participants in the eschatological banquet. Jesus becomes the eschatological messiah of Jewish apocalytics. The miracle of the manna is repeated by the messiah at the end of the world.

The pre-Lukan story adds the division of the attenders into troops, similar to some pentateuchal division of Israel into battle units. The pre-Matthean story adds the topic of Jesus as the shephered caring for the lost sheep of Israel, popular among the prophets of old. Mark illogically and greedily usurps both topics in one story.

John rejects the manna and bases his miracle on Elisha's feeding action.
Post Reply