Speaking in 'tongues'

[jeremyp]

Are you serious?

Of course.  The disciples are not questioning the fact that Jesus may be about to perform a miracle for gentiles but the possibility that they can feed the people at all.

You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.

[Spud]

Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?

9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?

9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

You've got to give some sort of explanation as to why you have given the disciples almost the same lines on two occasions.

Matthew, by the way, was merely copying Mark.

[Spud]

Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?

9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

You've got to give some sort of explanation as to why you have given the disciples almost the same lines on two occasions.

Matthew, by the way, was merely copying Mark.

Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').

The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles is their despair because of the remoteness of the place. Can you think of another remote place where a large crowd of people had nothing to eat, and then were miraculously fed? This crowd consisted of 'the Israelites' and 'many other people'.

[jeremyp]

Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').

Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial.  Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.

The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles

Are because one story is a copy of the other.  It symbolises that Jesus came for the gentiles as well as the Jews (but presumably only 80% as good).  It's unlikely that the story depicts a historical event.

[Hope]

Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').

Spud, the generally-accepted dating of Mark's Gospel is between 60 and 70AD; that of Matthew's Gospel is 70-110AD.

[Hope]

Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial.  Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.

I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial.  Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.

I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.

The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible.  That Mark was the first of the three is the generally accepted consensus of most Biblical scholars, although there are dissenting views.

Incidentally, the dating of Matthew you gave to Spud is partly based on the premise that Matthew copied Mark and hence had to be writing later.

[Spud]

Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.

[jeremyp]

Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.

If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.

[Nearly Sane]

Or said and lied perhaps, though I think it would be incorrect to accuse someone of lying, whenever all you know is a statement from someone else, and have no indication of context.

 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Rosenstock-Huessy

[Hope]

The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible. 

Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark.  The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources - including several of the original disciples.   In the case of Matthew, perhaps even Mark, they might conceivably have been reporting things they saw and heard themselves.

[jeremyp]

The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible. 

Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark.  The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources

No, Hope, the evidence is incontrovertible that two of the three authors copied the other. The language used is almost identical through large passages. There is no way this would be the case if the three writer were independently writing down an oral source.

The case for Markan priority (i.e. Mark being the original) is not quite so strong but is still pretty good.

I suggest you try reading The Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre. It's a very accessible survey of the situation.

Also, the Wikipedia page has quite a good introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

[Spud]

Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.

If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.

Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.
Likewise, Luke begins where Mark left off, with 'the mission of the ministers of the word' (Mk 16:20, Lk 1:2). And John begins, 'His own did not receive him...we have beheld his glory' (John 1:11) which is exactly where Luke left off at the end of Acts: the Jews will not listen, but the Gentiles will (Acts 28:28).
This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."

[Alien]

Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.

Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?

Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?

Not so fast, young sir.

If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.

Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.

The Gospel of Alan we always forget that one.

So what was wrong with what I wrote? Have you read the passages?

Nudge for Jakswan.

[Alien]

Are you serious?

Of course.  The disciples are not questioning the fact that Jesus may be about to perform a miracle for gentiles but the possibility that they can feed the people at all.

That doesn't seem to be the case. If you read the feeding of the 4000 in both Matthew and Mark, it has Jesus taking the initiative. The disciples, who have already seen Jesus feed 5000+ miraculously, ask about getting bread for them. A good place to see these side by side is http://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-syn.htm.

Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.

You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.

That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.

I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.

What do you think?"

Any thoughts?

[Alien]

Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').

Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial.  Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.

Or, to put it another way, most NT scholars believe that Matthew (and Luke) had a copy of Mark to hand and copied much of it, but Matthew usually shortened the bits from Mark that he copied.

The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles

Are because one story is a copy of the other.  It symbolises that Jesus came for the gentiles as well as the Jews (but presumably only 80% as good).  It's unlikely that the story depicts a historical event.

Why is it unlikely?

[Alien]

Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial.  Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.

I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.

The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible.  That Mark was the first of the three is the generally accepted consensus of most Biblical scholars, although there are dissenting views.

Incidentally, the dating of Matthew you gave to Spud is partly based on the premise that Matthew copied Mark and hence had to be writing later.

I have to agree with JeremyP on this. A good place to find out more is from Mark Goodacre on his NTPod podcasts where he, teaching at Duke university in the States, has 70 odd short podcasts on Christian origins and a few longer ones, including an early one on the "priority of Mark", i.e. Mark being written first, which is a recording of one of his lessons there. I would not cross every "t" and dot every "i" of what Goodacre says, but he has a heck of a lot of good stuff and it is spoken in a very engaging manner. It is easy listening.

He's also British, another reason for him being easy on the ear.

Try http://podacre.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Mark and listen to NT Pod 24 for a short talk or NT Pod Extended Episode 2: The Synoptic Problem 2.

[Alien]

The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible. 

Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark.  The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources

No, Hope, the evidence is incontrovertible that two of the three authors copied the other. The language used is almost identical through large passages. There is no way this would be the case if the three writer were independently writing down an oral source.

The case for Markan priority (i.e. Mark being the original) is not quite so strong but is still pretty good.

I suggest you try reading The Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre. It's a very accessible survey of the situation.

Also, the Wikipedia page has quite a good introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

Agreed. Remember that Jesus (almost certainly) spoke in Aramaic, but the gospels report that in Greek. The narrative is also in Greek, but some parts are word for word the same in all three gospels in that Greek. When different people translate longish passages into a new language they don't come up with identical text.

Goodacre really is worth a listen/read, folks.

[jeremyp]

Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.

“Stating bluntly that he quotes Matthew” means he explicitly cites Matthew in his narrative e.g. “this is what Matthew says...”  He does not do that. You may argue that he quotes Matthew (you would be wrong) but he never states that he quotes Matthew.

This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."

Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.

[jeremyp]

That doesn't seem to be the case.

Yes it does, unless you are claiming that the words of the disciples that I quoted were mistranslated.

Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.

Yes it does, if my quotation from the second story is accurate.

You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.

That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.

Well, somebody said that the second story mirrors the first but for gentiles. Wasn’t it you? If that is the case, then it seems too artfully constructed to be an account of actual events.

I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.

I didn't want to repeat myself. The words of the disciples do not imply that they were concerned about gentiles so much as feeding people.

[Alien]

That doesn't seem to be the case.

Yes it does, unless you are claiming that the words of the disciples that I quoted were mistranslated.

Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.

Yes it does, if my quotation from the second story is accurate.

You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.

That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.

Well, somebody said that the second story mirrors the first but for gentiles. Wasn’t it you? If that is the case, then it seems too artfully constructed to be an account of actual events.

I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.

I didn't want to repeat myself. The words of the disciples do not imply that they were concerned about gentiles so much as feeding people.

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.


Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

[Spud]

Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.

“Stating bluntly that he quotes Matthew” means he explicitly cites Matthew in his narrative e.g. “this is what Matthew says...”  He does not do that. You may argue that he quotes Matthew (you would be wrong) but he never states that he quotes Matthew.

Well yesterday you said, "If he 'states bluntly', it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is." and now you want an explicit statement. Fair enough, I agree that he doesn't give one.

However, a reasonable question would be: supposing you were reading Mark and you knew that Matthew had already written his gospel. Would you notice the link (suggested by Eugene R-H) between the beginning of Mark and the end of Matthew?

This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."

Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.

Just like that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

Just to not that, in the 21st century, we have someone apparently possessed of at least a modicum of rationality and reasoning power, able to drive a car and work an iPhone, who is apparently in all seriousness and with a straight face discussing a fable about a miracle as if it actually happened.

For once, words fail me...

[Alien]

Alien,

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

Just to not that, in the 21st century, we have someone apparently possessed of at least a modicum of rationality and reasoning power, able to drive a car and work an iPhone, who is apparently in all seriousness and with a straight face discussing a fable about a miracle as if it actually happened.

For once, words fail me...

Posh words, usual guff. I'm an Android man.