...What ho.
It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.
As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?
As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."
If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?
Well, I thought you must be aware that I don't think the historical Jesus was terribly concerned about spreading his message to the Gentiles, anyway. There are certain texts which clearly indicate his reluctance to do so, and those gentiles who did believe in him were already interested in Judaism. All of which re-affirms for me the idea that these stories were literary constructs inserted to promote the idea that he had come to 'be a light unto the Gentiles' (and spiritual food for them). And Spud has kindly provided us with a reference to Ezekiel which reinforces the idea that these fables were deliberate constructs inspired by references from the OT.
Yes, I am aware of your opinion, though it is good that you reminded me. Yes, there are certain texts which indicated his reluctance to go to the gentiles in any significant way
during his earthly mission, though not for his followers afterwards. Call me skeptical if you like, but it seems a bit off to dismiss stuff where Jesus says things which disagree with your conclusions, because, well, they disagree with your conclusions. A kind of "that can't be evidence for X" because X is not what Jesus taught. Do you see what I mean? Is there anything in Jesus' teaching which says that the good news should remain for the Jews alone?
I think you are being evasive about the reference to Jesus saying that 'this generation' should be given no sign
(or in another gospel 'no sign except the sign of Jonah'). These miracles are clearly 'signs', and his only reference is to 'this generation', which would include Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, not just the Pharisees. In short, mythology or metaphor at most.
I'm not being evasive on that as we haven't discussed it yet, have we (or have I just missed that post)? Let's look at this. In Matthew 12 Jesus uses this term, but I can't see that it has any reference to whether his mission and that of his followers later would/should only be to the Jews. What have I missed? If anything, Mt 12:41 is referring to gentiles repenting. Ditto the start of Matthew 16. Where it is reported in Luke 11 Jesus speaks of the Ninevehites repenting and of the Queen of the South (no, not the football team, folks), so, if anything, he is saying that (some) gentiles will have repented. He was speaking of ones who had repented in the past, but Jonah's task had been to take the message of the need for repentance and accompanying forgiveness to gentiles.
How does this show Jesus not intending the gospel to be taken to the gentiles? I really don't understand your point.
