In a message dated 4/13/2000 12:40:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< >because they are like sheep without a shepherd
This is the focus of the point being made, Leonard; it is in Mark, but not
in Matthew or Luke. [...] Any idea why Mark
alone has the Micaiah ben Imlah reference?>>
My point was that the words ARE in Matt, only a few chapters earlier, where
they appropriately occur just before the transmission of power and authority
from the original leader of Israel (Jesus himself) to his successors as
leaders of Israel (the twelve apostles). This suggests that the primary OT
reference of the expression in Matt 9:35 is to Num 27:17, where the context
is likewise that of the succession of authority in Israel (from Moses to
Jesus son of Nun). I would suggest that Matthew's reference to Jesus'
compassion on the crowds in 14:14 is intended to recall, to the attentive
synchronic reader, the whole of 9:35-36 with its context. In this case,
however, the primary OT reference is most probably to Ezek 34:5, where a
reference to sheep that have no shepherd occurs in the context of a passage
that complains about shepherds who feed themselves and not the sheep (cf.
Ezek 34:9). I am not sure that the 1 Kings 22:17 passage is really in view
here, except perhaps in a secondary way. And certainly Mark, from a 2 GH
perspective, need not even be aware that he is citing the OT in 6:34, where
he seems to merely conflate Matt 9:35 and 14:14. There is an enormous amount
of evidence that Matt is keenly aware of the importance of Ezek 34 for his
theological portrait of Jesus and his followers, the new leaders of Israel. I
don't see that Mark is interested in this question at all. He writes at a
time when "the church" (and probably a mostly Gentile church at that) has
quite fully taken over center stage from Israel. I think that both "the
disciples" and "the crowds" in Mark, in various ways, represent the
Christians in Mark's community and their reactions to "Jesus and the gospel".
>I have no idea what this means.
The common issue between Mark's and John's renderings of the feeding (of
the 5,000) narrative is the connection with the looming Roman presence
(possible perception as a revolt -- companies, I mean "groups," of 50 and
100 being seated; guerrilla season, I mean "springtime;" just the
soldiers, I mean "the men," are counted, etc. -- with the implicit threat
of Roman retaliation in the background) both drawing on OT conquest
motifs. Some of these nuances (for whatever reason) are missing from
Matthew and Luke while more amplified in Mark and John. >>
OK. I find this interesting, to be sure, but it would take more than this to
persuade me that Mark has anything like this in mind, and especially that he
does so because of, or in connection with, a 1 Kings 22:17 background. I hope
you can emphathize with my position, at least if you accept hypothetically,
for a moment, my (minority) Synoptic source theory.
<< I take it to imply Marcan and Johannine proximity to the events themselves
-- and more realistically so, while independent from each other -- which
casts important light on the EGGUS TO PASCHA motif in John.>>
I also find the pairing of Mark and John interesting here, but I am more
inclined to interpret it in the other direction (both are late theological
developments of earlier Synoptic material).
<< It is present
neither for theological nor for chronological reasons in John, but for
chairological ones, suggesting a more realistic set of interpretations
regarding some of the events narrated than some synoptic presentations.>>
I think your interpretation of John here may very well be correct. Though I
think I would prefer to speak of verisimilitude here, rather than
"realistic", if the latter term is intended to suggest historicity in the
strict sense of the term.
<< See also my treatments, if you're interested, Leonard, of John 6:14f. and
Where could I order a copy of your book? Sounds very interesting!