Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote:I don't see Homer as winning anything, just "being there" culturally.

In my example (the plural boats), it seems to me that Homer wins; not really any other way to put it. Psalm 107 is "there", too, but is not being recognized. Homer is held out as the solution to the mystery: why does Mark 4.36b go out of its way to mention other boats?

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Shalishah is a noun, not a verb; this town appears only twice in the Hebrew scriptures, and Jewish exegetes were not averse to cross referencing like that.

I meant to write 'word' but for some reason I wrote verb. Re cross referencing, if that's what they liked to do then it is worthy of consideration.

I do not think the man who brought the food to Elisha figures into the idea. (But I have read only the same summary as you, I think, the one posted above. The actual argumentation comes earlier in the book, I believe.) I think it is the servant/boy in the Saul story and the boy in John 6 that are being compared.

Ok. I read both passages (John and 1 Samuel) and I sure don't see a reasonable comparison with regard to the two boys, but that doesn't mean one wasn't made.

You may be right. But I have not read the actual argument yet. I hope to order the book soon from Interlibrary Loan.

Ok, I'm almost a drive-by here on this, so hope I didn't offend. I'd be interested if you decide there is something to these comparisons w 1 Samuel.

Thanks. Ted

Ben C. Smith wrote: I think the argument to be made there will involve the presence of baskets and people "from all the towns" at the feeding of the 5000.

Ben.

But that's a comparison with the Talmud and not 1 Samuel - so are you referring to a different argument or am I missing the point? If it is an argument comparing 2 Kings and John or Mark I have no beef with that.

Ben,

I had the impression that you meant MacDonald thinks Homer wins in your example, but all I meant is that I think the OT wins in the big picture because I see Mark as being written by Gentiles who were leaving their paganism for (a version of) Judaism and it explicitly cites the OT. In MacDonald's theory Jesus is better than Odysseus. And as Paul said regarding ingrafted Gentiles in Rom. 11, "do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you."

When I get time I will give an example from MacDonald that stands out to me, but regarding your example, another reviewer copied MacDonald's synopsis from page 61:

Odyssey 10.1-69

1. Odysseus's crew boarded and sat down.

2. On a floating island Odysseus told stories to Aeolus

3. After a month he took his leave, boarded, and sailed with 12 ships

4. Odysseus slept

5. The greedy crew opened sack, "All the winds rushed out."

6. The crew groaned.

7. Odysseus woke and gave up hope

8. Odysseus complained of his crew's folly.

9. Aeolus was master of the winds.

Mark 4:35-41

1. Jesus boarded and sat down to teach

2. On a floating boat Jesus told his stories to the crowds

3. When it was late, he took his leave; "Other boats were with him."

4. Jesus slept.

5. A storm arose: "[A]nd there was a great gale of wind."

6. The disciples were helpless and afraid.

7. Jesus awoke and stilled the storm

8. Jesus rebuked his disciples for lack of faith.

9. Jesus was master of the winds and sea.

http://www.ibiblio.org/GMark/afr/HomerorNotHomer.htm

MrMacSon wrote:

Michael BG wrote: Some of my major problems with the idea that Mark based his gospel on Homer’s Odyssey are my lack of knowledge of the Odyssey, the question of who the gospel was written for, and the failure of others Matthew and especially Luke to see it.

The failure of others to see that Mark was based on Odyssey? or failure of others to see something else?

Lots of other people have failed to see that Mark was based on the Odyssey including according to MacDonald Matthew and Luke was the point I was making.

MrMacSon wrote:

Michael BG wrote: ... some would argue that some of Acts is also based on Homer’s Odyssey.

That's interesting.

I was thinking of the Acts Seminar, but I see the “Cameo Essays” on these areas were written by Dennis R MacDonald. But they were convinced by his argument (e.g. the “we” passages and the shipwrecking of Paul).

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:I could only see page one and the first three points so I don’t know what these other points are.

And now I can only see the first 7 points, whereas yesterday I could see 8. Google Books can be weird. Here is a (composite) screenshot of the 7 I can still see:
...
I can no longer recall what the eighth was, unfortunately.

Ben.

Thank you Ben.

neilgodfrey wrote: Screen Shot

Thank you Neil.

TedM wrote: This is the kind of stretch of interpretation - piecing together of stuff to try and find patterns where they don't exist - that gets under my skin.

SECOND: What is the significance of the man from Baalshalishah in the Elisha-feeding story? It isn't Elisha, nor is it some man that is to become king. As I read it, this man is simply someone who brought Elisha the food that was served. IOW he wasn't a king, nor is he analogous to Jesus in the NT story. I don't see that he or the place he was from is of any significance.

This is seen as some kind of indication that Shalisha is special? I don't see it . It seems to be mentioned only as one of the 4 lands that Saul and his servant passed through on his way to the city in which Samuel told Saul he was to be king. It isn't where Saul is from, and isn't even where Samuel was at, nor was it even the first land Saul passed through. It seems unimportant to the Saul story.

Thank you Ted you have convinced me that Roger David Aus is wrong with regard to his eighth point. If there was an independent tradition behind John it is unlikely that it got boy and making Jesus king as suggested by Aus.

Ben C. Smith wrote: But I have not read the actual argument yet. I hope to order the book soon from Interlibrary Loan.

I have looked at the chapter headings and subheadings – there is a lot there. Hopefully once you have read the book you can tell us about it.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Here is a mention of Ba'al Shalishah in the Talmud, at Sanhedrin 11b-12a:

The Mishnah contains instructions and traditions regarding the 'omer at Menachot 10 (as point 3 from the list mentions):

I think the argument to be made there will involve the presence of baskets and people "from all the towns" at the feeding of the 5000.

I am quite happy to see the baskets as secondary. And have no problem if they are in the tradition before it reached Mark. I am not bothered if “and they ran there on foot from all the towns, and got there ahead of them” (6:33) is secondary or Marcan, but my gut says Marcan. If John doesn’t have a separate tradition then he added “barley”.

I am interested in what other evidence Aus considers before reaching his conclusion in point 4 that συμπόσια - sumposia comes from a particular Semitic narrative regarding the festival meal at Passover, which might only be attested in Philo. I looked up συμπόσια in the Septuagint and only found it in 3 Maccabees 4:16 for feast, which I think was written in Greek. It seems possible that it could be used for any feast rather then the Passover meal, but this would mean it would not have any military significance which was what I could remember from reading Brandon over 30 years ago, but now I am thinking I might be mistaken.

TedM wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: I think the argument to be made there will involve the presence of baskets and people "from all the towns" at the feeding of the 5000.

Ben.

But that's a comparison with the Talmud and not 1 Samuel - so are you referring to a different argument or am I missing the point? If it is an argument comparing 2 Kings and John or Mark I have no beef with that.

Yes, this was a different (though somewhat related) argument. This was about point 3 on the list, whereas the business with Shalishah was about point 8.

Michael BG wrote:I am quite happy to see the baskets as secondary. And have no problem if they are in the tradition before it reached Mark. I am not bothered if “and they ran there on foot from all the towns, and got there ahead of them” (6:33) is secondary or Marcan, but my gut says Marcan. If John doesn’t have a separate tradition then he added “barley”.

This kind of goes back to your point about the other evangelists apparently not "getting" Mark's Homeric references, because they did "get" a lot (most?) of his scriptural references. In this case, "barley" is a connection back to the bread that Elisha multiplied; Mark lacks this detail, but John has it. John knew his Bible, too, though, so it ought not to be surprising in the least to see him strengthening the connections.

I am interested in what other evidence Aus considers before reaching his conclusion in point 4 that συμπόσια - sumposia comes from a particular Semitic narrative regarding the festival meal at Passover, which might only be attested in Philo.

To be clear, it sounded to me like the thing that was "only" attested in Philo was, not the event itself, but rather the use of the word symposium to represent the particular Hebrew word related to that event.

I looked up συμπόσια in the Septuagint and only found it in 3 Maccabees 4:16 for feast, which I think was written in Greek. It seems possible that it could be used for any feast rather then the Passover meal, but this would mean it would not have any military significance which was what I could remember from reading Brandon over 30 years ago, but now I am thinking I might be mistaken.

Well, the word symposium is not military; that much seems clear. The military aspects of the feeding of the 5000 do not derive from symposium, which evokes a very different world of imagery.

Symposia were common events in Greco-Roman culture. That Mark should use the word at all is not in and of itself a surprise; it is the Semitic doubling of that word in a particular context that I think Aus is going to talk about. Symposium is a weird word to use of groups of people sitting on the grass with no alcohol at hand. But it may become less weird if Philo provides evidence that a particular Passover custom can be expressed using that word.

Ben.

TedM wrote:Ok. I read both passages (John and 1 Samuel) and I sure don't see a reasonable comparison with regard to the two boys, but that doesn't mean one wasn't made.

I do not see one (yet), either. It feels like a stretch. But I hate to commit to that before reading the actual chapter.

Wikipedia explains Symposium as derived from συμπίνειν, which Perseus defines as
A.“σύμπωθι” Alc.54:—drink together

But that synonym, σύμπωθι, just means "together anytime", which I'd take to mean "take a break" from something.

If the Gospels use "symposia symposia" not in the classical sense of "drinking party" but as "groups taking a break from work", then the thing that they took breaks from I'd take to be farming, perhaps explaining the "garden rows" alternative.

DCH

I have another take on the calming of the sea (from http://historical-jesus.info/hjes2.html, where I discussed most of the extraordinary miracles by Jesus, according to gMark):

>> Mk:4:37-41 "A furious squall
["sudden gust of wind; short storm", according to my dictionary. Later, "Matthew" replaced "squall" by "storm" (Mt8:24)]
` came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
[how could Jesus sleep through the squall on a small boat?]
` He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!"
[similar wording as "be quiet" (to the man in the synagogue, Mk1:25); the waves are being "exorcised"! Later, "Matthew" removed this exorcism]
` Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
[most storms in the sea of Galilee are known to be very short (as just squalls)]
` He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?" They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!"
[that "proves" that Jesus has powers which are not human!]"

What happened?
First, let's consider this: "Mark" considerably borrowed from Jnh1:4-12: in it, Jonah is also sleeping during the storm, then also awakened and then also accused of indifference. And in Mk 4:41, the disciples "were terrified" ('feared with great fear': ephobethesan phobon megan). In Jnh1:10 (LXX), we have 'feared the men with great fear': ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan.

Looking at the similarities, one may wonder: did "Mark" wholly invented 'Jesus calming the sea' from 'Jonah'?
What more did he use?
a) Likely a known fact, that Jesus occasionally slept on his friends' boat "in the stern, ... on a cushion" (not part of Jonah's story).
b) The knowledge of a particular "squall" (and not a long-lasting storm) vanishing after putting the boat in trouble.
c) Mark's patented exorcism, but here somewhat ridiculous, with Jesus rebuking the wind.
d) An alleged statement from the disciples implying Jesus is more than human (see the similarity with Mk1:27b!).

Note: in Jnh1:6b, Jonah is requested to contact his god in order to, possibly, avoid the catastrophy. But in Mk4:41, Jesus himself appears to be that god!

Consequently the original story might have been no more than just about a squall which almost sunk the followers' boat, with Jesus on board and possibly cursing (as in Mk11:21) at the weather event; but the little storm "miraculously" calmed down before it was too late. And this short story must have been told to anxious early Christians who wanted to see evidence of divinity in the earthly Jesus. <<

What about the other boats? Maybe "Mark" posited some people came by boats to hear Jesus. And when he departed, those people did the same in their boats.

Cordially, Bernard