Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:Nonsense. Mark 4.35-41:

35 On that day, when evening came, He says to them, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd, they take Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him. 37 And there arises a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up. 38 Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they wake Him and say to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

If we add 5:1a to the pericope then we also match another line to Psalm 107:

4:35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” . . .

5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes.

And Psalm 107:30

Then they were glad that the waters were quiet,
and he brought them to their desired haven.

True. And the entire incident with the Gerasene demoniac bears resemblances to the first section of Psalm 107 (especially the remote area and the chains).

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Bernard Muller wrote:
to Ben,
The connection to Jonah is obvious. The connection to Psalm 107 is every bit as obvious, and explains the multiple boats

The mention of other boats in Mk 4:36b is not even a part of the pericope of "calming the sea".

Nonsense. Mark 4.35-41:

35 On that day, when evening came, He says to them, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd, they take Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him. 37 And there arises a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up. 38 Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they wake Him and say to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

Bernard wrote: the mention of other boats in Mk 4:36b is not even a part of the pericope of "calming the sea". In that pericope, "Mark" made no mention about any other boats which may be sunk because of the squall.

But where are the other boats during the squall? Nowhere to be seen: that's was my point.
Did "Mark" mention the other boats when Jesus departs by boat to other shores to be part of his pericope about 'calming the sea'? I see no evidence for that.

As I said: Nonsense. I am not going to try to prove the bleeding obvious to you. There are less obvious points that merit our attention.

to Ben,

If we add 5:1a to the pericope then we also match another line to Psalm 107

4:35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” . . .

5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes.

And Psalm 107:30

Then they were glad that the waters were quiet,
and he brought them to their desired haven.

True.

If boats survived their trip, sure they reach their destination. Do you think "Mark" had to know about Psalm 107:30 in order to write Mk 5:1?

And the entire incident with the Gerasene demoniac bears resemblances to the first section of Psalm 107 (especially the remote area and the chains).

That's pushing parallelomania to the extreme.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
If boats survived their trip, sure they reach their destination. Do you think "Mark" had to know about Psalm 107:30 in order to write Mk 5:1?

Had to? No.

Ben.

Bernard Muller wrote:

If we add 5:1a to the pericope then we also match another line to Psalm 107

4:35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” . . .

5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes.

And Psalm 107:30

Then they were glad that the waters were quiet,
and he brought them to their desired haven.

If boats survived their trip, sure they reach their destination. Do you think "Mark" had to know about Psalm 107:30 in order to write Mk 5:1?

And the entire incident with the Gerasene demoniac bears resemblances to the first section of Psalm 107 (especially the remote area and the chains).

That's pushing parallelomania to the extreme.

Cordially, Bernard

You do not appear to understand the meaning of the term "parallelomania" as originally coined and applied; nor do you appear to understand the most fundamental principles of comparative literature analysis.

To be applying a casuistically logical argument as you seem to be doing it would follow that of course the boats reached their destination and it would have been a wastage of expensive writing tools and an insult to readers' intelligence to even spell out that fact. When you analyse a text and see "parallel" phrases strategically place (parallel being correctly used here) and place these in the context that other evidence indicates is symbolic, and compare with other texts surely known to the author and find the same phrases in the same thematic and motif setting, then it is folly to close one's eyes to the similarity. It is even ad hoc and a misreading of the nature of the documents being studied.

(But I know you'll have the last word on this and deny my point anway.)

to Neil,

casuistically

What does that word mean?

"parallelomania"

What does that word mean according to you?

the boats reached their destination and it would have been a wastage of expensive writing tools and an insult to readers' intelligence to even spell out that fact.

In gMark 5, the boat reached its destination, not as an unnecessary add-on, but because it is the start of another pericope (in a Gentile area). It's a logical element of the narration linking two pericopes. No need to look elsewhere to see why "Mark" wrote 5:1.

When you analyse a text and see "parallel" phrases strategically place (parallel being correctly used here) and place these in the context that other evidence indicates is symbolic, and compare with other texts surely known to the author and find the same phrases in the same thematic and motif setting, then it is folly to close one's eyes to the similarity. It is even ad hoc and a misreading of the nature of the documents being studied.

In the case of Mk 4:35, 5:1 and Psalm 107:30, that does not apply.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,

"parallelomania"

What does that word mean according to you?

The same as it meant to Samuel Sandmel. Your use of the word, on the other hand, is quite different and would wipe out entire fields of comparative literary studies.

When you analyse a text and see "parallel" phrases strategically place (parallel being correctly used here) and place these in the context that other evidence indicates is symbolic, and compare with other texts surely known to the author and find the same phrases in the same thematic and motif setting, then it is folly to close one's eyes to the similarity. It is even ad hoc and a misreading of the nature of the documents being studied.

In the case of Mk 4:35, 5:1 and Psalm 107:30, that does not apply.

Cordially, Bernard

Of course not. It does not serve your own conclusions so naturally it does not apply.

Bernard Muller wrote: What does that word - "parallelomania" - mean according to you?

neilgodfrey wrote: The same as it meant to Samuel Sandmel. Your use of the word, on the other hand, is quite different and would wipe out entire fields of comparative literary studies.

= samuel-sandmels-article-parallelomania-1962

There is a page on Parallelomania on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania
In it, I read:

Sandmel stated that the simple observations of similarity between historical events are often less than valid, but at times lead to a phenomenon where an author first notices a supposed similarity, overdoses on analogy, and then "proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction".

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:There is a page on Parallelomania on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania
In it, I read:

Sandmel stated that the simple observations of similarity between historical events are often less than valid, but at times lead to a phenomenon where an author first notices a supposed similarity, overdoses on analogy, and then "proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction".

Cordially, Bernard

I bolded the gist of the problem. Where you see "historical events", others see religious texts. Also, the direction would indeed be predetermined here. It's not a very difficult proposition in this case to assume that the writer of text B knew text A.

Even if you take the not very likely position that the event itself was historical, that does not mean in any way that the description of the event closely follows history. Which is where the textual parallels come in.