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.