Bernard's website: my answer to comments

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I hold out the distinct possibility, yes, and find it to be the most persuasive explanation of the passage I have seen so far, yes; I am not locked in to it; I did say "your mileage may vary," implying that the Galatians reference is not as clear an allusion to Elijah as the Romans reference is.

But tell me: what does that connection say about my methodology?

If, from what Wright wrote, you then deduct that Paul alluded to Elijah in Galatians, and, because of two mentions of Elijah in early epistles (Romans & James) then Elijah was so important in early Christianity....

I added Revelation 11.6, as well. And there are already loads of references to the Elijah/Elisha stuff in the gospels that I did not bother to spell out in detail. Oh, and 1 Clement mentions both Elijah and Elisha somewhere. So all 4 gospels, Paul, John the Revelator, James, and Clement of Rome have stuff about Elijah. Oh, and Justin Martyr mentions both Elijah and Elisha by name. So yes, I think that "pretty popular in the early church" is a good way to characterize the stories about Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings.

...that "Mark" had to have a (fictional) Jesus following some Elijah circle....

"Had to"? I would say probably not. "Wanted to" is probably more like it (either Mark or tradents before him).

...and because of some similarities between Elijah's story (in 2 Kings) and Jesus in the gospel (ch. 6), you deduct that the whole pericope of the feeding of the 5000 is all invented & cannot incorporate some true facts (involving Jesus), then I think your methodology is wrong.

No, I do not deduce in some kind of mathematical sense that the entire pericope was invented; I ask myself what reason I would have for supposing that the handful of details that remain (after removing implausibilities and such) go back to history. I for one am content to settle for two kinds of material in this pericope: non liquet (impossible to tell) and probably invented (the implausible stuff, for example). You are the one seeking a third category here: highly likely to be historical. But that kind of result requires a positive argument.

Your methodology is just here to convince you into believing "Mark" was writing complete fiction with the desire to imitate and copy from the old Jewish scriptures.

No, no, no. I would be more than happy to find bits of historical data going back to an historical Jesus in Mark (or in the other gospels, for that matter). In fact, I think Mark contains some stuff for which historicity is still the better hypothesis (Rufus and Alexander, for example). If something like that were to peek out from the feeding of the 5000, I would be thrilled to acknowledge it as a good candidate for historicity.

I also think you missed my post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2197&start=30#p49009 and you did not read http://historical-jesus.info/88.html

Yes, I did skip over that post of yours for a while, but I discovered it either late last night or early this morning and responded to it here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2197&start=50#p49032. Also, I had read your take on the feeding of the 5000 a long time ago, but no, not recently. But I read and reread it again early this morning and responded to it in the same post.

Incidentally, a bit of poking around based on hazy memories of a conversation between you and Peter Kirby brought up this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1783&p=40044#p40032. I think you will find my criticism of your take on the miraculous feedings and his criticism of your take on Jesus' family profession are pretty similar. I note that he even compared your work to that of Renan, which is exactly the same thing as my comparison of your work to that of the rationalists who came before Strauss.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks for the good discussion.

I think it’s typical of the historical-critical method or from a mythicist standpoint to speak in terms of “modeling” or “copying”.

Maybe we should give room to the thought that the OT-allusions have a literary function and that they are meaningful parts of Mark’s story.

Can you expand a bit on that? What would be a good example of pinpointing a literary function for some of the parallels we have been discussing, as opposed to (merely?) alleging that they were copied from or modeled on scriptural precedents?

Ben.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Can you expand a bit on that? What would be a good example of pinpointing a literary function for some of the parallels we have been discussing, as opposed to (merely?) alleging that they were copied from or modeled on scriptural precedents?

It may be better to start with a more clearer example.

Jesus’ last word and Psalm 22

Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

We could discuss the question whether the dying carpenter himself quoted Psalm 22:1 or whether Mark had put the words in the mouth of Jesus.

If we tend to think that it was Mark, is it then appropriate to say, Mark simply “quoted” Psalm 22:1 or “modeled” Jesus last word on Psalm 22:1?

I think the thought lies near that Mark wished that his readers may understand Jesus’ last word in the greater context of Psalm 22.

If this is the case we should consider whether other OT-allusions could have a similar literary function.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

So here, apparently, the parallels do hold up to close scrutiny. So which of the parallels were "not convincing at all" originally? Where did paraphrasing them lead Neil Godfrey into error?

On the feeding of the 5000, my point has always been there are some similarities, but also other things to consider. And because there are similarities (obviously caused because "Mark" knew about the OT story), that does not prevent something to be true in gMark account (the disciples were able to pick up a significant amount of leftovers, after a crowd had assembled outside to eat a meal).

About Neil, some of the parallels are quite forced:
Two types of food? Does that mean "Mark" avoided three (or one) types because of the two types in 2 Kings?
Of course, it would be leftovers if everybody is full after eating.
Of course, the people would be seated.
Of course they all ate. etc. etc.
Why not specify another similarity saying that in both stories the ones eating are humans?

The paraphrasing allows Neil to put forward all sort of similarities which would not be obvious if the two texts were shown side by side. The paraphrasing gives the impression "Mark" copied 2 Kings closely, even if it is not the case.

You spend time shearing off parts of the story as unrealistic and even "totally absurd", but then I am not sure why you treat what is left the way you do. After doing nothing but getting rid of the implausible parts, you come to the following:

So you read my blog post. Good.

Okay. Plausible and logical or not, why is this more likely than the alternative(s)? Instead of explaining why, you immediately turn around qualify some of the few elements even of this reconstruction:

What alternative(s)?

Point a mitigates your hypothesis that these peasants were gathering for some public feast, and point b shears off yet another part of the story. Nothing so far explaining why your reconstruction should be regarded as probable.

I gave my best shot about saying what I proposed is probable. What is your alternative? Point b is about numbers, looking like an addendum. Are you saying if I keep part of the story as authentic, I should consider the rest as authentic as well?

Yes, there are parallels, you mad parallelomaniac, to this treatment of food in other parts of the gospel, as well as in parts of related gospels. Still nothing on why your reconstruction should be regarded as probable.

Well, this is not too important, but I consider those parallels from gMark & Q as having a good chance to be authentic (except for some embellishments creeping up, as it is almost always the case). And those are very close to what the miraculous feeding story implied: Jesus and/or his disciples are often presented as being hungry poor.
I do use parallels but only if they are direct, obvious & close to what I want to show.

Bernard wrote: 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 (Mk 6:43, 8:8,19-20). This is emphatically acknowledged by the disciples (Mk 6:19-20).
b) In contrast, "Mark" conceded the disciples never "understood" or "saw" the "miraculous feedings" (Mk 6:52, 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 (see for confirmation my next post #89 here and other Markan Jesus' extraordinary miracles here).
d) "Mark" related two different gatherings of left over. Only one would have been enough to "prove" Jesus' food multiplication ability.

Points a, c, and d do nothing to explain why you think your reconstruction is probable;

I gave it my best shot to make my reconstruction plausible & realistic. Why don't you agree with point a, c and d?

point b, however, looks like it may be trying to be one of those "against the grain" arguments: since the miracle is not explicitly recounted as a visual experience, and since the crowd is not recorded as having reacted, you seem to think that Mark has taken a decidedly non miraculous story and spun it into a miracle. But look at 2 Kings 4.42-44 again, which you explicitly acknowledge Mark read and mimicked, at least to some extent. There is no crowd reaction from the 100 there, either; nor is the miracle recounted as a visual experience, with people actually watching one loaf turn into two like stage magic. The two miracles stories share those elements.

Yes, I agree. But you did not mention that I stressed the disciples themselves did not "see" any miraculous feedings, But they are certain they pickup leftovers:

>> 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?"" (Mk 8:4)
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." (Mk 8:7b-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 indicated 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 the miraculous multiplications of food did happen!]"
Notice the present tense. And of course, what is not seen, understood and remembered is very unlikely to be told later! (Mk 8:14-21)

So what significance can these elements have? Did the author of 2 Kings take an originally non miraculous story, too, and turn it into a miracle, like Mark?

Nobody knows about the origin of the story in 2 Kings. Maybe there was something true in that feeding of the 100? Maybe these 100 were only 10 or 20? We will never know.

Does this mean that the empty tomb narrative probably happened, too, since the resurrection itself is not recounted (unlike in the gospel of Peter), just the results, like the leftover fragments?

They are too many discontinuities & oddities in the empty tomb story in order to consider it authentic.
http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
We have to look at all the important pericopes one by one instead of trying to have all of them conform to a general rule. And where did you find parts copied from the OT in it? Maybe, since the OT has so much material, it is almost always possible to find some remote parallels. But I think if the parallel is close, then it is probable the NT author knew about it.

You deem it highly likely that something happened and Mark turned an ordinary event into a miracle; you must, then, deem it highly unlikely that nothing happened and Mark (or some tradent) modeled the entire event after Elisha, including the nonvisual nature of the multiplication. But why? No explanation is given.

Because there are few pertinent similarities (other than "they all ate", etc) and the disciples being adamant they picked up leftovers but did not notice there were any miraculous feedings. So there is more to it than the story in 2 Kings.

Your modus operandi, then, is apparently to read the pericope, cut out the obviously impossible or implausible parts, and then propose a reconstruction out of thin air. There is no need to offer actual evidence for this reconstruction, so long as it does not violate the laws of physics, because there is literally no other option up for consideration, no rival viewpoint to counter point by point on the merits, no competition. Once proposed, your reconstruction becomes the default. My method is a bit different. Hence many of our disagreements, I think.

Not out of thin air: I provided some evidence (I could not find more unfortunately). Actually, according to what 'Mark said or not said, and Philo of Alexandria, I provided a plausible environment for (emphatically exposed) the story of the disciples picking up leftovers in two occasions (while not seeing the miraculous feeding!).
I know your method: if you see some parallels within a OT story, the whole pericope is fiction. Your alternative is "Mark" made a point to always conform with the genre of the OT narratives, and used them as much as he could for inventing whole stories involving Jesus and his disciples.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ulan]

I think the thought lies near that Mark wished that his readers may understand Jesus’ last word in the greater context of Psalm 22.

If this is the case we should consider whether other OT-allusions could have a similar literary function.

Indeed. We already considered this with the Elijah passage in Mark1 above. In principle, full understanding of verse 2 is only possible if you read what's following in the original Malachi passage. The same is true for Psalm 22: Here basically the full text applies.

That probably also means that the substitution of "the prophets" for "Isaiah", like some manuscripts try to correct Mark, is out of place, because the mentioning of Isaiah here wants probably tell us to read that whole chapter in Isaiah, which will tell us what all the following is about.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

So here, apparently, the parallels do hold up to close scrutiny. So which of the parallels were "not convincing at all" originally? Where did paraphrasing them lead Neil Godfrey into error?

On the feeding of the 5000, my point has always been there are some similarities, but also other things to consider. And because there are similarities (obviously caused because "Mark" knew about the OT story), that does not prevent something to be true in gMark account (the disciples were able to pick up a significant amount of leftovers, after a crowd had assembled outside to eat a meal).

I have already agreed that a few OT parallels do not automatically sink the whole pericope. I was pretty clear about that, using at least two different examples (Rufus and Alexander for one, the triumphal entry for another). What I am trying to stress here is that, just because some parts of the pericope do not succumb to parallelism does not make them historical. They may have to remain at the non liquet (we simply cannot tell) level.

About Neil, some of the parallels are quite forced....

I will set aside this part of the discussion, since you do agree that Mark read and used 2 Kings here. No need to get bogged down in unnecessary details.

So you read my blog post. Good.

Why? Do you get paid per page view?

Okay. Plausible and logical or not, why is this more likely than the alternative(s)? Instead of explaining why, you immediately turn around qualify some of the few elements even of this reconstruction:

What alternative(s)?

This goes back to what I said about your greatest strength being your greatest weakness; not reading up on the scholarship puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to pitting your own reconstruction against other good ideas.

However, in this case (as in all), there is an alternative that I think you should have evaluated, since it is an alternative that is always there; that alternative is what I have said several times now: non liquet (we cannot tell). Just because something is possible does not mean it happened.

I gave my best shot about saying what I proposed is probable. What is your alternative? Point b is about numbers, looking like an addendum. Are you saying if I keep part of the story as authentic, I should consider the rest as authentic as well?

No, of course not. I am saying that your points a and b do nothing to establish what you call the high likelihood that the feeding goes back to a real meal that Jesus participated in. You said in your blog post that something was likely, and I simply ran down the rest of your post to see where you may have presented the argument for it being so. Your points a and b were fine for what they were (IIRC); I was just pointing out that they were not yet delivering the goods when it comes to mounting a positive argument in favor of the high likelihood that something happened that fine day in Galilee.

Bernard wrote: 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 (Mk 6:43, 8:8,19-20). This is emphatically acknowledged by the disciples (Mk 6:19-20).
b) In contrast, "Mark" conceded the disciples never "understood" or "saw" the "miraculous feedings" (Mk 6:52, 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 (see for confirmation my next post #89 here and other Markan Jesus' extraordinary miracles here).
d) "Mark" related two different gatherings of left over. Only one would have been enough to "prove" Jesus' food multiplication ability.

Points a, c, and d do nothing to explain why you think your reconstruction is probable;

I gave it my best shot to make my reconstruction plausible & realistic. Why don't you agree with point a, c and d?

I agree with point a (that Mark emphasizes the fragments and that in the story the disciples see them); but point a does nothing to establish why it is highly likely that (some part of) the pericope goes back to history. I agree with point c (that Mark included anecdotal details); but point c does nothing to establish why it is highly likely that (some part of) the pericope goes back to history. I am not all that sure what you mean in point d, to be honest.

Do you see my point here? Just because I say that a certain point does not establish historicity does not mean I disagree with the point. I mean exactly what I say: those points in question do nothing to establish historicity, even if they are true.

point b, however, looks like it may be trying to be one of those "against the grain" arguments: since the miracle is not explicitly recounted as a visual experience, and since the crowd is not recorded as having reacted, you seem to think that Mark has taken a decidedly non miraculous story and spun it into a miracle. But look at 2 Kings 4.42-44 again, which you explicitly acknowledge Mark read and mimicked, at least to some extent. There is no crowd reaction from the 100 there, either; nor is the miracle recounted as a visual experience, with people actually watching one loaf turn into two like stage magic. The two miracles stories share those elements.

Yes, I agree. But you did not mention that I stressed the disciples themselves did not "see" any miraculous feedings, But they are certain they pickup leftovers.

Let me mention it now, then: Bernard, you stressed that the disciples themselves did not "see" the loaves miraculously multiplying, and you stressed that the disciples most certainly picked up leftovers. And, even though/if you are right about that, this does nothing to establish why it is highly likely that (some part of) the pericope goes back to history.

Nobody knows about the origin of the story in 2 Kings. Maybe there was something true in that feeding of the 100? Maybe these 100 were only 10 or 20? We will never know.

What makes you more sure of the origin of the Marcan story than of the origin of the one in 2 Kings?

Not out of thin air: I provided some evidence (I could not find more unfortunately).

Well, it was enough for you to call your conclusion "highly likely".... I would love to have that kind of evidence for all of my pet theories.

I know your method: if you see some parallels within a OT story, the whole pericope is fiction.

That is not my method, as I have now made clear several times.

Your alternative is "Mark" made a point to always conform with the genre of the OT narratives, and used them as much as he could for inventing whole stories involving Jesus and his disciples.

"Always"? No, not at all. But often enough that it is certainly a thing.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Can you expand a bit on that? What would be a good example of pinpointing a literary function for some of the parallels we have been discussing, as opposed to (merely?) alleging that they were copied from or modeled on scriptural precedents?

It may be better to start with a more clearer example.

Jesus’ last word and Psalm 22

Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

We could discuss the question whether the dying carpenter himself quoted Psalm 22:1 or whether Mark had put the words in the mouth of Jesus.

If we tend to think that it was Mark, is it then appropriate to say, Mark simply “quoted” Psalm 22:1 or “modeled” Jesus last word on Psalm 22:1?

I think the thought lies near that Mark wished that his readers may understand Jesus’ last word in the greater context of Psalm 22.

If this is the case we should consider whether other OT-allusions could have a similar literary function.

Oh, if I am understanding you aright now, I agree. (I was not sure what you were saying at first.) Mark is not generally throwing scriptural references into the mix just for fun; he is not composing a cento; there is generally going to be a bigger point at stake.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I added Revelation 11.6, as well. And there are already loads of references to the Elijah/Elisha stuff in the gospels that I did not bother to spell out in detail. Oh, and 1 Clement mentions both Elijah and Elisha somewhere. So all 4 gospels, Paul, John the Revelator, James, and Clement of Rome have stuff about Elijah. Oh, and Justin Martyr mentions both Elijah and Elisha by name. So yes, I think that "pretty popular in the early church" is a good way to characterize the stories about Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings.

But were they popular when gMark was written? Even if they were, would that make "Mark" obligated to have Jesus looked like Elijah/Elisha, more so when he had Jesus saying he is not Elijah, but John the Baptist was. And demonstrating it on the high mountain when Jesus & Elijah are two different entities. I think this evidence is very indirect regarding "Mark" obsessed to have Jesus looking like Elijah by using Elijah's stories.

...that "Mark" had to have a (fictional) Jesus following some Elijah circle....

"Had to"? I would say probably not. "Wanted to" is probably more like it (either Mark or tradents before him).

Why would "Mark" be so preoccupated to have Jesus following some Elijah's circle when his goal was to elevate him way over any other prophets, as the Son of God? And what evidence do you have for tradents before "Mark"?

But that kind of result requires a positive argument.

The positive argument is that "Mark" insisted the disciples picked up leftovers (which is very plausible and easy to do under appropriate circumstances) while not seeing the miraculous feedings. If I created that story, I would have the disciples ecstatic about the multiplication of food (and the crowds too, as in gJohn), not leave heavy doubts that never happened.
My position: "Mark" & his community heard about the disciples picking up leftovers after a crowd ate a meal outside (twice) but were saying nothing about multiplication of food. What's wrong with that?

If something like that were to peek out from the feeding of the 5000, I would be thrilled to acknowledge it as a good candidate for historicity

I think your analysis is too general (just a few parallels with 2 Kings story and it is all solved for you) and you don't look into pertinent details, as I did. Just because "historicity" is not grabbing you, it is not a reason to see overall fiction everywhere and dismiss analysis which shows otherwise.

I note that he even compared your work to that of Renan, which is exactly the same thing as my comparison of your work to that of the rationalists who came before Strauss.

Peter is not God and I vigorously defended myself on that. It was an unjustified accusation. The only thing in common is Renan and I are both historicists (so is Peter now, apparently).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Why would "Mark" be so preoccupated to have Jesus following some Elijah's circle when his goal was to elevate him way over any other prophets, as the Son of God?

I will let you answer your own question. You already agree that Mark knew and used 2 Kings in his story of the miraculous feeding. So... why did Mark do that? Why did Mark model at least part of the pericope after a miracle performed by Elisha?

And what evidence do you have for tradents before "Mark"?

Way too big a question for this thread! Let us tackle that one some other time. (However, I did coincidentally just post a new thread that deals with the issue.)

The positive argument is that "Mark" insisted the disciples picked up leftovers (which is very plausible and easy to do under appropriate circumstances) while not seeing the miraculous feedings. If I created that story, I would have the disciples ecstatic about the multiplication of food (and the crowds too, as in gJohn), not leave heavy doubts that never happened.

Well, you are welcome to view that as positive evidence if you wish. I for one do not, especially since (as I have pointed out) the miracle in 2 Kings also lacks a crowd reaction and also has leftovers without describing a visual multiplication of the food.

My position: "Mark" & his community heard about the disciples picking up leftovers after a crowd ate a meal outside (twice) but were saying nothing about multiplication of food. What's wrong with that?

Nothing... except that you do nothing to show that Mark and his community heard any such thing. Again, your view is certainly possible; I cannot disprove that Mark and his community received such a report at some time. But your claim is that it is highly likely. That is a degree of certainty I would like to see more evidence for than you have produced.

I think your analysis is too general (just a few parallels with 2 Kings story and it is all solved for you) and you don't look into pertinent details, as I did.

It is not all solved for me (I feel I have been over this ground before). Again, much of the pericope fits into the non liquet category; that category, by definition, is unsolved. For all the pericope itself tells us, those parts could have been invented by the author, or those parts could have been grounded in something historical. There is not enough evidence in the pericope itself for me to decide one way or another.

Just because "historicity" is not grabbing you, it is not a reason to see overall fiction everywhere and dismiss analysis which shows otherwise.

I do not see "overall fiction" everywhere; the non liquet category can go either way.

I note that he even compared your work to that of Renan, which is exactly the same thing as my comparison of your work to that of the rationalists who came before Strauss.

Peter is not God and I vigorously defended myself on that. It was an unjustified accusation. The only thing in common is Renan and I are both historicists (so is Peter now, apparently).

Is he?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

I will let you answer your own question. You already agree that Mark knew and used 2 Kings in his story of the miraculous feeding. So... why did Mark do that? Why did Mark model at least part of the pericope after a miracle performed by Elisha?

"Mark" was trying to stick miraculous feedings to the fact the disciples picked up leftovers in two occasions. So of course he looked for ideas in the OT.

Well, you are welcome to view that as positive evidence if you wish. I for one do not, especially since (as I have pointed out) the miracle in 2 Kings also lacks a crowd reaction and also has leftovers without describing a visual multiplication of the food.

The leftovers in 2 Kings are just mentioned to "prove" the 100 had their fill. In gMark, the leftovers are mentioned prominently. Lack of reaction in 2 Kings: Yes. But in gMark, "Mark" had to fight the fact the disciples did not see the miraculous feedings. That's a reaction of some sort. And if they did not see them, we cannot expect a (fictitious) positive reaction from them.

Nothing... except that you do nothing to show that Mark and his community heard any such thing. Again, your view is certainly possible; I cannot disprove that Mark and his community received such a report at some time. But your claim is that it is highly likely. That is a degree of certainty I would like to see more evidence for than you have produced.

If "Mark" community did not hear such a thing, why would "Mark" positively had the disciples not seeing the miraculous feedings but also had the disciples positively saying they picked up leftovers?
Your mind is not about investigation, and you expect historicity has to be served to you on a silver plate: if not, there is none or unproven.

Cordially, Bernard