Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

[andrewcriddle]

The feeding of the 5 thousand in Mark clearly involves Jews. The feeding of the 4 thousand in Mark may or may not involve Gentiles. (See Feeding 4000 for an argument from a consevative Christian viewpoint that it involves Jews.)

I think it involves Gentiles since Jesus is pagan territories (Decapolis : Mark 7:31).
To deny that this is Gentile territory in Mark 8 is to make the text say what it does not say: that Jesus left the Decapolis.

Even if the feeding of the 4 thousand does involve Gentiles, (and it may well do), this is probably a relatively late doublet of the feeding of the 5 thousand

A late addition to Mark ?
I don't think so. It is only a conjecture once again since all the manuscripts of Mark contain this pericope.

And Paul said: first the Jews then the pagans? Mark knows his classics. First the Jews (Mark 6), then the pagans (Mark 8).
Wasn't one of Mark's agendas to show that the pagans had the right to enter the covenant like the Jews? (the Syro-Phoenician woman, the cross bearer, the Roman centurion)

and not relevant to the question of Gospel tradition at the time of Paul.

By mentioning the multiplication of 4000 or the dining with sinners, I was implying that these events in Mark are legends since Paul makes no mention of them when he argues that kashrut is unnecessary for pagans or that the apostles can dine with pagans. So I think it is relevant to bring it up in the discussion of Paul's doctrinal differences with the Jerusalem apostles.

I don't think eating with Jewish 'sinners' raises the same issues as eating with Gentiles. (Assuming that the Jewish 'sinners' are reasonably kosher and are not serving roast pork).

Mark being a pro-Pauline gospel and rather pro-Pagan as well, I think he had the same view of non-Christian Pagans as Paul did, whom he considered sinners until they were converted to Christ (Galatians 2:15-21)

To clarify.

I was not questioning that the feeding of the 4,000 was part of the original text of Mark. The issue is about pre-Markan material.


IF you regard the feeding stories as Markan invention then there is obviously no pre-Markan material here. However, if you believe that Mark is rewriting earlier material, (which seems necessary in order to see this material as relevant to the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles), then the location of the feeding of the 4,000 in probably Gentile territory is highly likely to be Markan redaction (even if the doubling of the feeding miracle is pre-Markan).

I.E. although there may plausibly have been accounts of feeding miracles by Jesus circulating in the time of Paul, such a miracle is unlikely to have been located in Gentile territory until the post-Pauline period. (Possibly in response to Pauline debates.)

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

The feeding of the 5 thousand in Mark clearly involves Jews. The feeding of the 4 thousand in Mark may or may not involve Gentiles. (See Feeding 4000 for an argument from a consevative Christian viewpoint that it involves Jews.) Even if the feeding of the 4 thousand does involve Gentiles, (and it may well do), this is probably a relatively late doublet of the feeding of the 5 thousand and not relevant to the question of Gospel tradition at the time of Paul.

I don't think eating with Jewish 'sinners' raises the same issues as eating with Gentiles. (Assuming that the Jewish 'sinners' are reasonably kosher and are not serving roast pork).

Andrew Criddle

On what basis do you propose that the feeding of the 4000 is a doublet (late or otherwise)? There's more than exorcism, more than one healing, more than one calming of the winds, more than one voice from the sky, more than one "claivoyant Jesus" episode, more than one unconscious child restored after a crowd pronounces the child dead - why would a second mass feeding be suspect as a departure from the work's authentic design in your view?

One indication is that in both accounts the disciples seem clueless as to how Jesus will handle the problem. If the earliest tradition had two distinct feeding miracles then one would expect a reference within one story to the earlier account.

Mark 8:14-21 refers back to both episodes

14 The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat.
15 “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”

16 They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”

17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
“Twelve,” they replied.

20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
They answered, “Seven.”

21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

but this IMO is rather different.

Even if the stories were originally independent, it would still be highly doubtful whether the location of the feeding of the 4,000 in probably Gentile terrotory was pre-Markan. Without that location, (which has to be deduced from the location of the immediately preceding miracle in Mark 7:31-37), there is nothing in the text of Mark to associate the feeding miracle in Mark 8:1-10 with Gentiles.

Andrew Criddle

[Sinouhe]

To clarify.

I was not questioning that the feeding of the 4,000 was part of the original text of Mark. The issue is about pre-Markan material.


IF you regard the feeding stories as Markan invention then there is obviously no pre-Markan material here. However, if you believe that Mark is rewriting earlier material, (which seems necessary in order to see this material as relevant to the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles), then the location of the feeding of the 4,000 in probably Gentile territory is highly likely to be Markan redaction (even if the doubling of the feeding miracle is pre-Markan).

I.E. although there may plausibly have been accounts of feeding miracles by Jesus circulating in the time of Paul, such a miracle is unlikely to have been located in Gentile territory until the post-Pauline period. (Possibly in response to Pauline debates.)

Andrew Criddle

I am not closed to the idea that there were pre-Markan christian sources in Mark. Paul is one of them.
But I am not convinced that the feeding of the 5000 is part of it. The source that seems to me to be the origin of the multiplication of the loaves is 2 Kings 4:42-44 for the story itself and Isaiah 55:1-3 for the metaphorical message.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Double post.

[Paul the Uncertain]

One indication is that in both accounts the disciples seem clueless as to how Jesus will handle the problem.

I am not following. If there is something unusual about there being two distinguishable miracles of the same type, then the disciples could not be expected to anticipate a "repeat performance." Either a repetition is foreseeable or else there is no basis for disparaging the disciples' "cluelessness."

In any case, it seems to me that verse 8:5 doesn't say that the disciples fail to understand the plan after Jesus has asked them once again about their provisions. Their answering line, "Seven," can be played with dawning realization that Jesus is once more going to provide free eats at industrial scale. It is not as if they pick up on so much else Jesus says with greater dispatch than here.

If the earliest tradition had two distinct feeding miracles then one would expect a reference within one story to the earlier account.

Who's one? I don't recall Mark's Jesus ever saying, "Oh look, here's another demon to exorcise." Even in an extended parallel situation, like when Jesus is jammed in the packed house for the "house divided" speech after having recently been jammed in another packed house where some men dismantled the roof, there is no "Oh no, I hope they leave the roof intact this time."

Mark repeats situations giving them different spins. The restoration of Bar Timmaeus's sight makes different narrative points than the restoration of the nameless blind man at Bethsaida. There is no overt reference to the Bethsaida miracle in the Bar Timmaeus story.

Of course, IMO as always and your mileage may differ. But please do be careful when prescribing what "one" would expect unless you know your conversation partner expects the same as what you expect.

Even if the stories were originally independent, it would still be highly doubtful whether the location of the feeding of the 4,000 in probably Gentile terrotory was pre-Markan.

Fine. What you and I were discussing was whether it was Markan or instead later. There was nothing until now between us about whether it was or wasn't earlier than Mark.

Without that location, (which has to be deduced from the location of the immediately preceding miracle in Mark 7:31-37), there is nothing in the text of Mark to associate the feeding miracle in Mark 8:1-10 with Gentiles.

That, and the repeated contrast in the style of the baskets used for the leftovers.

[davidmartin]

Appreciate your reply, you give good arguments back which i should be able to respond to

Yes but that Jesus is nowhere to be found in Paul.

I'm not convinced the gospels can be ignored as sources to the Jesus Paul is talking about
To ignore is to reject, seems a bit extreme to me without some serious justification

However, you are the one who invokes things that are not found in Paul's letters, while I base my reasoning entirely on them. And I only make logical deductions from what he says. Your problem, like most historicists, is that you are unable to ignore the Jesus of the Gospels. Even when the subject is: THE JESUS OF PAUL.

It looks like you are trying by all means to make your vision of Jesus converging with the Jesus of the Gospels

I think only looking at the Jesus of Paul is interesting but really as above, not sure why he has to be the only source
The subject is whether Jesus existed, to me Paul is just one source out of a collection of sources

Mark is a pro-Pauline gospel. The teachings and parables of Mark's Jesus are essentially based on the teachings of Paul. This contradicts your reasoning. Besides, we can see what he thinks of Peter in his gospel ....
So you will be forced, once again, to invoke a Jesus that is not found in Paul and Mark to try to establish that the other apostles preached a Jesus totally different from Paul's (and therefore Mark's). And this is just one more conjecture.

I would agree that Mark and to an extent all 4 NT gospels have a pro-Pauline element
I'm not convinced all the teaching of Jesus are based on Paul, maybe some of them

Your last sentence though, I need to clarify what I meant previously
I didn't mean the other apostles preached a Jesus totally different from Pauls
I meant there were enough differences for disagreements and splits. Even small differences can lead to quite large disagreements!
I'm very interested in these conjectured differences
I actually think Paul's Jesus is somewhat close to that of the apostles that came before him

So the apostles based their teachings on Jesus and Paul on his own teachings. It doesn't makes sense and it's another speculation.

Paul by his own definition has no teachings that are not his own, since he declares no man gave him anything, and never spent time in the church earlier
So, in that case, what are the other apostles teaching?!!! This is illogical

But Paul contradicts himself, in one breath saying his gospel is unique and revealed from God, in other saying its the same thing that was passed onto him - His own epistles are contradictory. But I think the odds are he is adding something into his gospel to give it a uniqueness compared to others. He wants to leverage that, but he doesn't want to appear to break with tradition. He wants it both ways

What I'm suggesting is the other apostles (maybe not all) already had a gospel, a bunch of teachings, a story and a self-contained set of beliefs. The apostle introduced a variant version of these that was light on historical Jesus elements. He didn't do a complete 180 and innovate from nowhere/nothing, nor did he teach the same identical thing as the other apostles

[GakuseiDon]

I didn't mean the other apostles preached a Jesus totally different from Pauls
I meant there were enough differences for disagreements and splits. Even small differences can lead to quite large disagreements!
I'm very interested in these conjectured differences
I actually think Paul's Jesus is somewhat close to that of the apostles that came before him

So the apostles based their teachings on Jesus and Paul on his own teachings. It doesn't makes sense and it's another speculation.

Paul by his own definition has no teachings that are not his own, since he declares no man gave him anything, and never spent time in the church earlier
So, in that case, what are the other apostles teaching?!!! This is illogical

But Paul contradicts himself, in one breath saying his gospel is unique and revealed from God, in other saying its the same thing that was passed onto him - His own epistles are contradictory.

I haven't followed this part of the thread too closely, but surely Paul isn't being contradictory. He is saying that the gospel message he is preaching comes from no man. That Gospel is that Jesus's death had significance to the Gentiles. That's the extra tang he is adding to the flavor of Jewish Christianity. I don't take him to mean that everything he knew about Jesus came from no man, since it is clear from his letters that there were apostles before him with whom he had agreements.

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Then, when writing to the Galatians outside of Judea, so presumably non-Jewish converts. Paul is complaining about them going to a different gospel. Paul says that his own gospel message comes from God and was ratified by the old guard:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
...
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
...
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
...
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

It's clear (to me at least) that there were apostles running around preaching a gospel of Jesus Christ before Paul's conversion, and they were probably Jewish Christians. Paul has his revelatory experience, whatever that was (maybe just from reading Scriptures over a glass of wine or two), and comes to believe in that Jesus Christ, but in addition that he has been given his own personal gospel message to deliver relevant to the Gentiles.

So there are things he must have known about Jesus Christ (whether Jesus existed as a person or not) before his conversion experience, and then there is the thing that was revealed to him (Gentiles = good) that came from no man. It's not one or the other, it's both.

[Sinouhe]

I'm not convinced the gospels can be ignored as sources to the Jesus Paul is talking about
To ignore is to reject, seems a bit extreme to me without some serious justification

There are several reasons to reject Mark :

- 90% of the narratives are based on the OT and the Pauline epistles
- Most of Jesus's teachings are based on Paul
- The text is anonymous
- The text is not credible
- This is religious propaganda
- No sources are cited, the author never expresses his skepticism.

I would agree that Mark and to an extent all 4 NT gospels have a pro-Pauline element
I'm not convinced all the teaching of Jesus are based on Paul, maybe some of them

Not all of them. But most of them. It is also obvious that the author of Mark also had a message to get across and therefore created teachings and parables of Jesus.

I meant there were enough differences for disagreements and splits. Even small differences can lead to quite large disagreements!
I'm very interested in these conjectured differences
I actually think Paul's Jesus is somewhat close to that of the apostles that came before him

And the differences set forth by Paul are the law for the Gentiles. I don't understand the need to look elsewhere if Paul makes it so clear in his letters.

Paul by his own definition has no teachings that are not his own, since he declares no man gave him anything, and never spent time in the church earlier
So, in that case, what are the other apostles teaching?!!! This is illogical

Being a latecomer to the sect, Paul is forced to sell himself in his letters to make up for the fact that he is not one of the pioneers. Hence the fact that he puts himself forward a lot. But when one enters a sect, obviously one follows in the footsteps of its precursors.

But Paul contradicts himself, in one breath saying his gospel is unique and revealed from God, in other saying its the same thing that was passed onto him - His own epistles are contradictory.

Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3? We can also imagine that he also received a revelation that Jesus was killed and resurrected. But even if he says so, I think he has obviously taken over the doctrines of the sect he "converted" to.

But I think the odds are he is adding something into his gospel to give it a uniqueness compared to others. He wants to leverage that, but he doesn't want to appear to break with tradition.

Yes and being the apostle of the Gentiles, what he added in his gospel is the emptiness of the law for the Gentiles who believe in Christ. He says it everywhere in his letters.

What I'm suggesting is the other apostles (maybe not all) already had a gospel, a bunch of teachings, a story and a self-contained set of beliefs. The apostle introduced a variant version of these that was light on historical Jesus elements. He didn't do a complete 180 and innovate from nowhere/nothing, nor did he teach the same identical thing as the other apostles

I don't think so since I can't find anything in his letters to support this hypothesis.

[davidmartin]

whaaat, i'm only allowed to believe what the epistles say?
seems kind of limiting, is this christianforum.com?

so the apostle is preaching only something unique merely in it's acceptance of gentiles?
that's the big revelation, not all the other stuff he comes out with

All perfectly in agreement with the existing leadership (who he is not taught by but acts independently of)
and when he falls out with the other apostles constantly, it has nothing to do with disagreements over the contents of his gospel?

That he is accepted and given the blessing of the previous leadership is from his own account of it, and still leaves James under a cloud. But these are minor disagreements. Nothing to see here

when we find in his epistles talk of opponents who are other Christians! - who are they?

i feel like the bending over backwards to accomodate all the inconsistencies means never getting past first base in figuring anything out lol
oh well, i tried. never mind

[mlinssen]

whaaat, i'm only allowed to believe what the epistles say?
seems kind of limiting, is this christianforum.com?

so the apostle is preaching only something unique merely in it's acceptance of gentiles?
that's the big revelation, not all the other stuff he comes out with

All perfectly in agreement with the existing leadership (who he is not taught by but acts independently of)
and when he falls out with the other apostles constantly, it has nothing to do with disagreements over the contents of his gospel?

That he is accepted and given the blessing of the previous leadership is from his own account of it, and still leaves James under a cloud. But these are minor disagreements. Nothing to see here

when we find in his epistles talk of opponents who are other Christians! - who are they?

i feel like the bending over backwards to accomodate all the inconsistencies means never getting past first base in figuring anything out lol
oh well, i tried. never mind

Sinouhe likes to close his eyes for everything that contradicts his theory. Yet most importantly to close all other people's eyes too LOL

Mark is 90% Paul! ROFL