Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: Mark 8:19-21

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    ... Unjustly? Maybe, based on the contents, but perhaps it was the title that was off-putting. I myself tend to shy away from books that have the word St in
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Peterson, Institute for Christian Studies, mentions:

      >... Austin Farrer['s] ... unjustly neglected _St Matthew and St Mark_...

      Unjustly? Maybe, based on the contents, but perhaps it was the title that
      was off-putting. I myself tend to shy away from books that have the word
      'St' in the title. I take it to be a warning-flag that the author is going
      to be a mite too concerned about religious sensitivities for my liking.

      Mike G.
      ------------------------------------
      The Codex II Student Resource Center
      http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
    • Bob Schacht
      ... I dunno. I d rather have the author s biases overt and on the table, than covert, requiring that I go to the work of figuring out his biases for myself. As
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:11 PM 9/1/98 -0400, Mike Grondin wrote:
        >Jeff Peterson, Institute for Christian Studies, mentions:
        >
        >>... Austin Farrer['s] ... unjustly neglected _St Matthew and St Mark_...
        >
        >Unjustly? Maybe, based on the contents, but perhaps it was the title that
        >was off-putting. I myself tend to shy away from books that have the word
        >'St' in the title. I take it to be a warning-flag that the author is going
        >to be a mite too concerned about religious sensitivities for my liking.
        >
        >Mike G.
        >------------------------------------
        >The Codex II Student Resource Center
        >http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
        >

        I dunno. I'd rather have the author's biases overt and on the table, than
        covert, requiring that I go to the work of figuring out his biases for
        myself. As for me, I can more easily deal with Austin Farrer's biases than,
        say, Burton Mack's.

        Bob
        "We all do tend to be hypercritical of the evangelists and take other
        texts at face value."
        --Stevan Davies, Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:26:33
      • INTERPRES
        ... I don t know, but that s the premises the riddle is working with. This question, while interesting in itself, is irrelevant to the riddle as posed. ...
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 1, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          >Jan Sammer writes:
          >> ... the volume of 5 spyrides is the same as that of 12 kophinoi ...
          >
          >Although this goes some way toward explaining the riddle, I think that your
          >analysis cannot be the whole of the story. You have left out of account:
          >
          >1. Why _two_ feedings? Just Markan styling? Or symbols of two missions?
          I don't know, but that's the premises the riddle is working with. This
          question, while interesting in itself, is irrelevant to the riddle as posed.

          >2. What about the fish? (In the 1st feeding, two fish are specified. In the
          >2nd story, a single brief passage mentions fish, but does not say how
          many.)

          The fish do not figure in the riddle as posed. There are many other details
          of the feedings that are left out in the riddle. The riddle consists of two
          parallel questions, containing numerical data about loaves and two types of
          basket. Hence the solution must involve a calculation involving the number
          of loaves and volumes of the baskets. The fish play no part in the riddle as
          posed in Mk 8:19-21, where Jesus himself selects the data that are relevant.

          I may not have solved the riddle, but I certainly did address the issue,
          where most other commentators refuse to deal with the mathematics. They
          interpret the numbers as allegories of apostles, deacons, tribes of Israel.
          But that does not address the riddle at all. In terms of Mark's narrative,
          the numerical answers that Jesus extracts from the apostles have a meaning
          that explains why they should not worry about not having enough bread.

          >To me, the presence of the fish indicates that Mark has a different point
          >in mind than the one you suggest. The loaves must represent, as others have
          >speculated, the original male inner circle - the fish, the females of that
          >same inner circle. Of course we are not talking about literal bread here,
          >but about "the Word" that is brought to the multitude by those who have
          >known Yeshu.

          Sorry, Mike, but this is mere speculation. Reading the account of Feedings
          as an allegory smacks of Neo-Platonism, which similarly interpreted the
          Homeric epics. We are talking about literal bread, and Mark states
          unambiguously that Jesus broke the bread. But in 6:44 Mark carefully avoids
          saying that the multitude ate the bread that Jesus broke; the words "tous
          artous" are an interpolation. Mark only said that the crowds ate. He did not
          say what. And that's the entire point of the story.

          >
          >When the disciples are on the boat after the second feeding, they are
          >worried that they have _only a single loaf_ with them. The one original
          >disciple who outlived the others to such an extent as to be remarkable
          >elsewhere was John. It seems to me that Mark is concerned to soothe the
          >apprehension among the "flock" brought about by the progressive dying off
          >of the first generation of disciples.
          >
          Sorry, cannot follow you in your allegorical reading of Mark. The point of
          Jesus' rebuke to the disciples is that, having witnessed on two separate
          occasions the way that Jesus sustains his followers, have still not grasped
          that in his presence they do not need to worry about sustenance. There is no
          indication the story should be read as an allegory or a parable. The author
          of Mark’s gospel presents it as a straighforward narrative of events events
          that happened in the course of Jesus' ministry.
        • Mike Grondin
          I take note first that Philip Lewis finds a somewhat different symbolism ... parable. ... events ... This is quite an extraordinary position to take, if I
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            I take note first that Philip Lewis finds a somewhat different symbolism
            than I do in Mark's two feeding stories, but we do agree in general that:

            > The Feedings themselves employ symbolic terms. In a way they have to be
            > understood allegorically.

            But Jan Sammer opposes this general view, saying:

            > There is no indication the story should be read as an allegory or a
            parable.
            > The author of Mark�s gospel presents it as a straighforward narrative of
            events
            > that happened in the course of Jesus' ministry.

            This is quite an extraordinary position to take, if I understand it
            correctly. Jan seems to sharply separate Mk 8:19-21 from the two feeding
            stories upon which that passage evidently rests. With respect to the
            former, he wants to regard it as a mathematical puzzle with no connection
            to the details of the stories, other than the numbers of loaves. But if the
            numbers are not symbolic, then they might as well be some other set of
            numbers - the mathematics will be the same, provided that the appropriate
            relationship between the two types of "basket" are maintained. This makes
            no sense to me. Is it just coincidence that Mark has chosen a set of
            numbers so rich in symbolic meaning just to make a little arithmetic
            "in-joke"? I say not.

            Jan's position with respect to the feedings themselves is equally remarkable:

            > We are talking about literal bread, and Mark states unambiguously that
            Jesus broke
            > the bread. But in 6:44 Mark carefully avoids saying that the multitude
            ate the
            > bread that Jesus broke; the words "tous artous" are an interpolation.
            Mark only
            > said that the crowds ate. He did not say what. And that's the entire
            point of the
            > story.

            How much subtlety and cleverness is ascribed to Mark here! On this view, he
            must have expected his audience to grasp the importance of his (allegedly)
            leaving out a few otherwise-insignificant words, yet at the same time to
            recognize that all those richly-symbolic details he does furnish are
            nothing more than "red herrings". Is this the same Mark who has trouble
            with Greek? Is this the same simple Christian audience we have always
            imagined reading Mark? What's wrong with this picture?

            I don't want to put words into Jan's mouth, but he seems to be taking the
            position that Mark's two feeding stories are largely descriptions of actual
            events, and perhaps also that Yeshu's purported words in 8:19-21 are also a
            description of actual events. How very far from the truth this must be is
            beyond my capacity to explain.

            Mike G.
            ------------------------------------
            Center for the Study of NH Codex II.
            http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
          • INTERPRES
            MIKE: Jan seems to sharply separate Mk 8:19-21 from the two feeding stories upon which that passage evidently rests. JAN: I beg to differ. I do no such thing.
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 2, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              MIKE: Jan seems to sharply separate Mk 8:19-21 from the two feeding
              stories upon which that passage evidently rests.
              JAN: I beg to differ. I do no such thing.
              MIKE: With respect to the
              former, he wants to regard it as a mathematical puzzle with no connection
              to the details of the stories, other than the numbers of loaves.
              JAN: On the contrary, the puzzle is fully inherent in the stories; but the
              meaning of the stories is derivable from a subset of the details, which are
              presented in the puzzle. The puzzle is Jesus' reaction to the disciples’
              obtuseness (as presented by Mark). Its intent is to extract the key elements
              of the feedings that demonstrate their meaning .
              MIKE: But if the
              numbers are not symbolic, then they might as well be some other set of
              numbers - the mathematics will be the same, provided that the appropriate
              relationship between the two types of "basket" are maintained.
              JAN: There's only so much bread that will fit into any particular type of
              basket.
              MIKE: This makes
              no sense to me. Is it just coincidence that Mark has chosen a set of
              numbers so rich in symbolic meaning just to make a little arithmetic
              "in-joke"? I say not.
              JAN: Units of measure (such as a dozen) are often "special numbers" rich in
              symbolic meaning.
              Besides, the Kingdom of God is no joke, at least not to the author of Mark.
              Mark really overestimated his readers. He put in Jesus' mouth two simple
              statements, involving measures of volume (two types of basket) and numbers
              of loaves that fill those baskets, the solution of which is not at all
              difficult, but his modern readers seem to think that all they have to do is
              to invent allegories, rather than look for for a straightforward solution.
              The solution must be sought in terms of the problem as posed:

              "Dont' you know or understand yet?
              Are your minds so dull?
              You have eyes- can't you see?
              You have ears-can't you hear?
              Don't you remember when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand
              people?
              How many kophinous of leftover pieces did you take up?"
              "Twelve," they answered
              "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand people," asked
              Jesus
              "how many spyridon of leftover pieces did you take up?"
              "Seven, they answered."
              "And you still don't understand?" he asked them.

              What, according to the author of GMark, did the disciples fail to
              understand?
              That seven deacons were to be appointed in the mission to the Gentiles?
              I don't think so. Mark was not so bad an author to anticipate events so
              crassly.
              That the gentiles were subject to the seven Noahic laws?
              I don't think so. At least I don't see how that follows from the text.
              The solution must be something that follows from the measures and numbers
              given.
              According to the author of GMark, the disciples failed to understand that
              Jesus had fed the multitudes on something other than ordinary bread.

              That is consistent with the Mark's presentation of the feedings and his
              entire presentation of Jesus' mission. It is not allegorical, and it does
              not introduce any divide between the actual feedings and Jesus' explanation
              of them. The disciples had assumed that the crowds were fed with actual
              bread that had somehow been miraculously multiplied. Jesus in forcing them
              to solve the numerical puzzle, was trying to make them realize that no bread
              was consumed by the crowds, and that the sustenance he provided was
              something else than bread. Mark assumed that his readers would grasp the
              solution that the disciples failed to grasp. He couldn't have anticipated
              that his readers would go on wild goose chases and bring in 7 deacons, 7
              Noahic laws, 7 pillars of wisdom, the 7 dwarves, or whatnot. Mark didn't
              expect his readers to be brilliant, but he did expect them to read for
              meaning.

              MIKE: Jan's position with respect to the feedings themselves is equally
              remarkable:
              (quoting JAN:)
              > We are talking about literal bread, and Mark states unambiguously that
              > Jesus broke the bread. But in 6:44 Mark carefully avoids saying that the
              > multitude ate the bread that Jesus broke; the words "tous artous" are an
              > interpolation.
              > Mark only said that the crowds ate. He did not say what.
              > And that's the entire point of the story.

              MIKE: How much subtlety and cleverness is ascribed to Mark here! On this
              view, he
              must have expected his audience to grasp the importance of his (allegedly)
              leaving out a few otherwise-insignificant words, yet at the same time to
              recognize that all those richly-symbolic details he does furnish are
              nothing more than "red herrings".

              JAN: Mark's readers were not expected to grasp the meaning of the feedings
              from the omission of "tous artous"; the only point I was making is that
              "tous artous" is a recognized interpolation and as such is consistent with
              my hypothesis. Mark's audience is supposed to grasp the meaning of the
              feedings on the basis of some of the strongest language in all of the NT.
              The translation I used tones down the intensity of the abuse heaped on the
              disciples by Jesus. Mark has Jesus excoriate the disciples, telling them
              that their brains have turned to stone (pepwrwmenhn exete thn kardian hymwn)
              , for failing to understand the meaning of the feedings, which he then goes
              on to summarize in the cited syllogism.

              MIKE: Is this the same Mark who has trouble
              with Greek? Is this the same simple Christian audience we have always
              imagined reading Mark? What's wrong with this picture?


              JAN: Does Mark have trouble with Greek? The Latinisms and other oddities of
              Mark's Greek are an indication of Mark's milieu, not of his lack of
              education or intelligence. As I said, Mark definitely overestimated his
              latter-day readers. I bet the simple Christian audience for which Mark wrote
              could count their loaves and baskets.

              MIKE: I don't want to put words into Jan's mouth, but he seems to be taking
              the
              position that Mark's two feeding stories are largely descriptions of actual
              events, and perhaps also that Yeshu's purported words in 8:19-21 are also a
              description of actual events. How very far from the truth this must be is
              beyond my capacity to explain.


              JAN: Just how that follows from my statement : "The author
              of Mark’s gospel presents it as a straighforward narrative of events
              that happened in the course of Jesus' ministry" is a mystery to me.
              Let me try to make myself clear:
              Mark presents an account of the course of Jesus' ministry. He also presents
              Jesus as making allegorical statements (parables). That is where I would
              like to draw the sharp line. The accounts of the feedings are not parables
              and they cannot therefore be interpreted allegorically. Things that can be
              interpreted allegorically are things such as the seed sowed by the Sower,
              On the contrary, the feedings are descriptions of purported historical
              events. For the record, I do not believe that Mark's account of Jesus'
              ministry is historically accurate. In fact, I regard it as highly
              tendentious, with not much historical data discernible. What we can and
              ought to do is to analyze its internal logic, as we would in dealing with
              any other work of literature. We should ask, What clues did the author give
              us with respect to the solution of the puzzle he poses? All the clues are
              present in Mk 8:20 and they do not logically lead to seven deacons or seven
              Noahic laws. They do logically lead to the conclusion that no bread was
              consumed in the feedings, a realization that should have occasioned much
              wonderment among the disciples

              Regards,

              Jan
            • PetersnICS@aol.com
              ... The hurrieder I go the behinder I get, but I ll try to comply with Bruce s request tomorrow morning, if he hasn t returned to complete the summary by then.
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 2, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 9/1/98 5:25:11 PM, Bruce Brooks wrote:

                >Jeff, could you complete the summary for me?
                >
                >How does Farrer deal with, or what symbolic resolution does he make of, the
                >
                >5000 plus 4000 equals 9000? Or does he? I see, by skipping ahead, that the
                >
                >end of the chapter includes the line: "We have been led to an answer which
                >
                >has not the neatness necessary for entire convincingness . . . "

                The hurrieder I go the behinder I get, but I'll try to comply with Bruce's
                request tomorrow morning, if he hasn't returned to complete the summary by
                then. In the meantime, if my presence on CrossTalk has encouraged only one
                closer reading of _St Matthew and St Mark_ than the book has previously
                received, I'll consider it time not spent in vain.

                Jeff Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, TX, USA
                e-mail: peterson@...
              • Mike Grondin
                ... Thanks for sharpening the debate, Jan. I could hardly disagree more than I do with the above statement. I can understand your frustration at the seeming
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 3, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jan Sammer writes:

                  >... the meaning of the [feeding] stories is derivable from a subset of the
                  > details, which are presented in the puzzle. The puzzle...['s] intent is to
                  > extract the key elements of the feedings that demonstrate their meaning.

                  Thanks for sharpening the debate, Jan. I could hardly disagree more than I do with the above statement. I can understand your frustration at the seeming impossibility of judging between various sets of proposed symbolic meanings for the two feeding stories, and I take your point that we tend to find meaning when we look for it, yet I think that these considerations are not strong enough to deny altogether the rather obvious Jewish-Gentile contrast evident in the two stories.

                  Take the matter of the "baskets" for example. Your position, as I take it, is that it's the _size_ of the "baskets" that's important. I would say that it's the _type_ of "basket" (i.e., Jewish vs Gentile). In defense of your proposition, you have put forward the following claim:

                  > [Mark's reader] must have known that a spyris is fashioned so as to
                  > carry a single loaf of bread, and that the volume of 5 spyrides is
                  > the same as that of 12 kophinoi.

                  Since much depends on whether this claim is true, I now want to ask for your source. My bet is that this is an "invented fact", which you (or someone else) thinks could be approximately true, and which provides a tidy way of resolving the puzzle. But I cannot imagine any system of measurement wherein a specific number of Jewish kosher "knapsacks" is made to be equivalent to a specific number of market-baskets. In fact, on your own account (above), the numbers don't work out at all. Please explain.

                  As I understand it, you suggest the following exegetical principle: any details of a story not mentioned in Yeshu's "follow-up" statement cannot be important to the meaning of the story. This principle would result, for example, in saying that in the cursing of the fig tree, the fact that it is a _fig tree_ and that it is a _cursing_ has no symbolic meaning, since Yeshu is not made to mention those "details" in his follow-up statement at 11:22-25. Is this really a result that you want?

                  Let me also widen the scope of this discussion slightly, to include the mention of the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Herodians at 8:15. The intertwining of these passages indicates to me that Mark is contrasting their "leaven" with Yeshu's, and that indeed the symbolism of the feedings _does_ include the "multiplying" of loaves and fishes, which is something your analysis denies.

                  Finally (since I have little time to write this morning), I would like to put forward the proposition that a hypothesis cannot be adequate if it does not account for all the known facts. To deny that the specific mention of _males_ and kosher "knapsacks" in the story of the feeding of the 5000 is intended to point to a specifically Jewish event/mission seems to me to be indefensible.

                  Regards,
                  Mike
                  ------------------------------------
                  Center for the Study of NH Codex II.
                  http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
                • INTERPRES
                  MIKE GRONDIN ... to ... do with the above statement. I can understand your frustration at the seeming impossibility of judging between various sets of proposed
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 5, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    MIKE GRONDIN
                    Jan Sammer writes:
                    >
                    >>... the meaning of the [feeding] stories is derivable from a subset of the
                    >> details, which are presented in the puzzle. The puzzle...['s] intent is
                    to
                    >> extract the key elements of the feedings that demonstrate their meaning.
                    >
                    >Thanks for sharpening the debate, Jan. I could hardly disagree more than I
                    do with the above statement. I can understand your frustration at the
                    seeming impossibility of judging between various sets of proposed symbolic
                    meanings for the two feeding stories, and I take your point that we tend to
                    find meaning when we look for it, yet I think that these considerations are
                    not strong enough to deny altogether the rather obvious Jewish-Gentile
                    contrast evident in the two stories.

                    JAN: The element of Jewish-Gentile contrast may be there, but that does not
                    imply that the Feedings are to be read as allegories of the mission to the
                    Jews and the mission to the Gentiles. The Feedings are a most powerful
                    prefiguration of the Kingdom of God, where the monarch of the new age
                    provides for his flock (refer also to Plato's Politicus, or The Statesman).
                    In GJohn the incident of the feeding is immediately followed by the crowds'
                    attempt to make Jesus a king. In this prefiguration Jesus condemns those who
                    try to rely on their own devices, and the pitiful amount of sustenance that
                    they have brought along only signifies their dependence on divine grace.
                    Mark portrays Jesus as being increasingly frustrated with the fact that the
                    disciples do not grasp the simple fact that in the dawning kingdom the
                    divine shepherd will provide for all their needs. Perhaps he's also
                    suggesting that Jews and Gentiles alike will be provided for.

                    MIKE:
                    >Take the matter of the "baskets" for example. Your position, as I take it,
                    is that it's the _size_ of the "baskets" that's important. I would say that
                    it's the _type_ of "basket" (i.e., Jewish vs Gentile). In defense of your
                    proposition, you have put forward the following claim:
                    >
                    >> [Mark's reader] must have known that a spyris is fashioned so as to
                    >> carry a single loaf of bread, and that the volume of 5 spyrides is
                    >> the same as that of 12 kophinoi.
                    >
                    >Since much depends on whether this claim is true, I now want to ask for
                    your source. My bet is that this is an "invented fact", which you (or
                    someone else) thinks could be approximately true, and which provides a tidy
                    way of resolving the puzzle.

                    JAN:
                    Congratulations! The fact that you have challenged me on this point means
                    that (unlike others in the past) you have grasped the argument I tried to
                    present. I freely admit that the 5:12 relation between kophinos and spyris
                    is derived from the text of Mark 8:19-21. I have made some effort at
                    determining whether it is in fact supported by independent evidence, thus
                    far unsuccessfully. Please note, that your position that the TYPE of basket
                    is important is perfectly compatible with my position that the SIZE of
                    basket is important.

                    MIKE:
                    But I cannot imagine any system of measurement wherein a specific number of
                    Jewish kosher "knapsacks" is made to be equivalent to a specific number of
                    market-baskets. In fact, on your own account (above), the numbers don't work
                    out at all. Please explain.

                    JAN:
                    The kophinos and spyris were apparently units of measure, akin to our
                    bushel, also originally a type of basket. Mark's readers would not have to
                    be told how many kophinoi there are to a spyris, just as we do not have to
                    be told how many quarts there are to a gallon, or how many inches to a foot.
                    And why do you say the numbers don't work out? If seven loaves were broken
                    into pieces and collected in seven spyrides, then five loaves would fill
                    five spyrides. Since (ex hypothese) five spyrides equal 12 kophinoi, the
                    mathematics works out
                    perfectly. It may well be that the kophinos was a sexagesimal measure and
                    the spyris a decimal one. Compare the story of Aqihar, which largely hinges
                    on the relation of sexagesimal to decimal measures. I would like to stress
                    that even if my specific solution is wrong, I am at least barking up the
                    right tree, whereas attempts at allegorical solutions are sort of like
                    baying at the moon.

                    MIKE:
                    As I understand it, you suggest the following exegetical principle: any
                    details of a story not mentioned in Yeshu's "follow-up" statement cannot be
                    important to the meaning of the story.

                    JAN:
                    I do not suggest any exegetical principles. Where on earth did you get such
                    an idea?

                    MIKE:
                    This principle would result, for example, in saying that in the cursing of
                    the fig tree, the fact that it is a _fig tree_ and that it is a _cursing_
                    has no symbolic meaning, since Yeshu is not made to mention those "details"
                    in his follow-up statement at 11:22-25. Is this really a result that you
                    want?

                    JAN:
                    Your attempted reductio ad absurdum is invalid, since I have not suggested
                    any exegetical principles. I merely tried to solve the question posed in Mk
                    8:21 and my comments only apply to this passage. I would not dare to presume
                    to generalize them into an exegetical principle.

                    MIKE:
                    Let me also widen the scope of this discussion slightly, to include the
                    mention of the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Herodians at 8:15. The
                    intertwining of these passages indicates to me that Mark is contrasting
                    their "leaven" with Yeshu's, and that indeed the symbolism of the feedings
                    _does_ include the "multiplying" of loaves and fishes, which is something
                    your analysis denies.

                    JAN:
                    On the contrary, it is left for you to explain why Jesus, who speaks against
                    the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, would have used the same
                    for his alleged multiplication miracles. Mark's point here is that the
                    leaven of the Pharisees and of the Herodians is not the sustenance
                    characteristic of the Kingdom of God. It is woefully inadequate for the job
                    of sustaining the people in the wilderness, indicating the foolishness and
                    false pride of the Pharisees and Herodians. Just when it looks that the
                    crowds will starve Jesus assumes the role of the divine shepherd who feeds
                    his flock without recourse to any of this leavened bread. This is made clear
                    by the fact that even though it was offered to them, the crowds ate none of
                    it, and let it be collected again in the spyrides and kophinoi. The
                    disciples did not grasp this fact and later, in the boat, again worry about
                    provisions. Jesus, now exasperated, forces them to repeat the numbers of
                    spyrides and kophinoi and asks, "And you still don't understand?" Doesn't
                    that suggest to you, Mike, that the point he is making has to do with these
                    numbers as measures of bread, rather than as allegories of seven deacons or
                    seven Noahic laws? Mark certainly implies that the disciples should be able
                    to grasp some fact on the basis of the information given. The information
                    given does not include deacons or Noahic laws. According to the structure of
                    this chapter of Mark, what the disciples are expected to grasp should be
                    both easy to figure out and surprising. That condition is satisfied by the
                    hypothesis I have proposed, namely that the pieces of bread broken by Jesus
                    are the very same ones that are later collected in the baskets. The
                    disciples had not realized that up to this point. The questions that Jesus
                    solicits from them virtually give the solution away. It would have been
                    anticlimactic for Mark to spell out the solution, which should obvious to
                    anyone whose brain hasn't turned to stone (paraphrasing the words Mark
                    ascribes to Jesus in 8:17).

                    MIKE:
                    >Finally (since I have little time to write this morning), I would like to
                    put forward the proposition that a hypothesis cannot be adequate if it does
                    not account for all the known facts. To deny that the specific mention of
                    _males_ and kosher "knapsacks" in the story of the feeding of the 5000 is
                    intended to point to a specifically Jewish event/mission seems to me to be
                    indefensible.

                    JAN:
                    As I mentioned above, the story may be indicating something about the
                    position of Jews and Gentiles in the Kingdom of God, but it has nothing to
                    do with missionary activities, as far as I can see.
                  • Mike Grondin
                    Let me first say, Jan, what a pleasure it is to discuss these matters with you. You are an excellent proponent of a viewpoint that I would otherwise take to be
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 5, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Let me first say, Jan, what a pleasure it is to discuss these matters with
                      you. You are an excellent proponent of a viewpoint that I would otherwise
                      take to be hopelessly misguided. There are still many things to be said on
                      this topic, but I want to concentrate on the two types of "basket" for a
                      moment, to see what can be made of their relative size.

                      (the 5000): 5 loaves and two fish --> 12 kophinoi of fragments
                      (the 4000): 7 loaves (+ some fish?) --> 7 spyridoi of fragments

                      Can it be doubted that "multiplication" is going on here? Well, maybe - if
                      your hypotheses are true, viz.:

                      H1: ... a spyris is fashioned so as to carry a single loaf of bread
                      H2: ... the volume of 5 spyrides is the same as that of 12 kophinoi

                      But is H1 true? Well, according to Philip Lewis on this forum:

                      A multitude of four thousand, fed by seven "spyridoi," common market
                      baskets, flat and large enough for Paul to be seated in one as he was let
                      down over the walls of Damascus, was chosen by Mark as the symbol of a
                      Gentile feeding. (end Lewis quote)

                      Obviously, Paul cannot have been "seated" in a basket only large enough to
                      hold a single loaf of bread. But perhaps he only had one foot in it (toe
                      downward?)?

                      Again, there is the pesky matter of those NT translators. Some of them
                      actually translate 'spyridoi' as '_large_ baskets'. A "large" basket
                      holding only a single loaf of bread? How could they be so wildly mistaken?

                      Or again, take your own mathematics: According to H2, spyridoi are _larger_
                      than kophonoi. That makes sense, but when taken together with H1, it
                      results in the conclusion that kophonoi carry less than half a loaf of
                      bread! Is that likely?

                      So evidently, H1 is simply false. I'm not sure whether you would want to
                      try to save it or not. What say you?

                      Mike
                      ------------------------------------
                      The Codex II Student Resource Center
                      http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
                    • INTERPRES
                      ... I think you ve identified some weak spots in my hypothesis, but that these may be clarified by a better understanding of ancient units of volume. Firstly,
                      Message 10 of 20 , Sep 5, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mike Grondin:

                        >Can it be doubted that "multiplication" is going on here? Well, maybe - if
                        >your hypotheses are true, viz.:
                        >
                        >H1: ... a spyris is fashioned so as to carry a single loaf of bread
                        >H2: ... the volume of 5 spyrides is the same as that of 12 kophinoi
                        >
                        >But is H1 true? Well, according to Philip Lewis on this forum:
                        >
                        >A multitude of four thousand, fed by seven "spyridoi," common market
                        >baskets, flat and large enough for Paul to be seated in one as he was let
                        >down over the walls of Damascus, was chosen by Mark as the symbol of a
                        >Gentile feeding. (end Lewis quote)
                        >
                        >Obviously, Paul cannot have been "seated" in a basket only large enough to
                        >hold a single loaf of bread. But perhaps he only had one foot in it (toe
                        >downward?)?
                        >
                        >Again, there is the pesky matter of those NT translators. Some of them
                        >actually translate 'spyridoi' as '_large_ baskets'. A "large" basket
                        >holding only a single loaf of bread? How could they be so wildly mistaken?
                        >
                        >Or again, take your own mathematics: According to H2, spyridoi are _larger_
                        >than kophonoi. That makes sense, but when taken together with H1, it
                        >results in the conclusion that kophonoi carry less than half a loaf of
                        >bread! Is that likely?
                        >
                        >So evidently, H1 is simply false. I'm not sure whether you would want to
                        >try to save it or not. What say you?
                        >
                        I think you've identified some weak spots in my hypothesis, but that these
                        may be clarified by a better understanding of ancient units of volume.

                        Firstly, the kophinos basically contained a daily ration of bread. I can
                        well imagine that this ration was approximately 4/10 of a standard loaf (but
                        see below).

                        Secondly, we do not know how big a standard loaf was. Unfortunately,
                        historical metrology as an academic discipline died an untimely death in the
                        first decades of this century and is now of concern to just a few isolated
                        individuals. For this reason these types of metrological questions are not
                        easy to answer.

                        Thirdly, with respect to the spyris, it is quite possible that a spyris was
                        simply a type of basket when used in one sense of the word, and a specific
                        measure of volume when used in another. Cf. the English word "cup" which may
                        mean a cup of any size or a recognized unit of volume. Therefore the spyris
                        used by Paul in Acts 9:31 may be different from the unit of volume referred
                        to by Mark.

                        Fourthly, the text of Mark does not state that the spyris and the kophinos
                        were ever filled with whole loaves, but rather that they were filled with
                        fragments of loaves. It says that Jesus broke seven loaves and seven
                        spyrides of pieces were collected; he broke five loaves and twelve kophinoi
                        of pieces were collected. The fragments would obviously take up more space
                        than the whole loaves. The volume of a spyris was filled with the fragments
                        from one loaf of bread, and the volume of a kophinos was filled with the
                        fragments of about 4/10 of a loaf of bread.

                        I do need to do my homework in historical metrology.

                        Jan
                      • INTERPRES
                        ... I think you ve identified some weak spots in my hypothesis, but that these may be clarified by a better understanding of ancient units of volume. Firstly,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Sep 5, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike Grondin:

                          >Can it be doubted that "multiplication" is going on here? Well, maybe - if
                          >your hypotheses are true, viz.:
                          >
                          >H1: ... a spyris is fashioned so as to carry a single loaf of bread
                          >H2: ... the volume of 5 spyrides is the same as that of 12 kophinoi
                          >
                          >But is H1 true? Well, according to Philip Lewis on this forum:
                          >
                          >A multitude of four thousand, fed by seven "spyridoi," common market
                          >baskets, flat and large enough for Paul to be seated in one as he was let
                          >down over the walls of Damascus, was chosen by Mark as the symbol of a
                          >Gentile feeding. (end Lewis quote)
                          >
                          >Obviously, Paul cannot have been "seated" in a basket only large enough to
                          >hold a single loaf of bread. But perhaps he only had one foot in it (toe
                          >downward?)?
                          >
                          >Again, there is the pesky matter of those NT translators. Some of them
                          >actually translate 'spyridoi' as '_large_ baskets'. A "large" basket
                          >holding only a single loaf of bread? How could they be so wildly mistaken?
                          >
                          >Or again, take your own mathematics: According to H2, spyridoi are _larger_
                          >than kophonoi. That makes sense, but when taken together with H1, it
                          >results in the conclusion that kophonoi carry less than half a loaf of
                          >bread! Is that likely?
                          >
                          >So evidently, H1 is simply false. I'm not sure whether you would want to
                          >try to save it or not. What say you?
                          >
                          I think you've identified some weak spots in my hypothesis, but that these
                          may be clarified by a better understanding of ancient units of volume.

                          Firstly, the kophinos basically contained a daily ration of bread. I can
                          well imagine that this ration was approximately 4/10 of a standard loaf (but
                          see below).

                          Secondly, we do not know how big a standard loaf was. Unfortunately,
                          historical metrology as an academic discipline died an untimely death in the
                          first decades of this century and is now of concern to just a few isolated
                          individuals. For this reason these types of metrological questions are not
                          easy to answer.

                          Thirdly, with respect to the spyris, it is quite possible that a spyris was
                          simply a type of basket when used in one sense of the word, and a specific
                          measure of volume when used in another. Cf. the English word "cup" which may
                          mean a cup of any size or a recognized unit of volume. Therefore the spyris
                          used by Paul in Acts 9:31 may be different from the unit of volume referred
                          to by Mark.

                          Fourthly, the text of Mark does not state that the spyris and the kophinos
                          were ever filled with whole loaves, but rather that they were filled with
                          fragments of loaves. It says that Jesus broke seven loaves and seven
                          spyrides of pieces were collected; he broke five loaves and twelve kophinoi
                          of pieces were collected. The fragments would obviously take up more space
                          than the whole loaves. The volume of a spyris was filled with the fragments
                          from one loaf of bread, and the volume of a kophinos was filled with the
                          fragments of about 4/10 of a loaf of bread.

                          I do need to do my homework in historical metrology.

                          Jan
                        • INTERPRES
                          YURI: Because he ate the magic sushi, he was able, having already written, according to Jan, the Book of Acts before 60 ad, to *Travel Forward In Time* to ca.
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 6, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            YURI:
                            Because he ate the magic sushi, he was able, having
                            already written, according to Jan, the Book of Acts before 60 ad, to
                            *Travel Forward In Time* to ca. 120 ad. And having found out what the
                            needs of the Church will be in the future, he was able to write, 60 years
                            later, the Gospel of Luke, i.e. Volume One of his two-part treatise (using
                            in part also the Gospel of John, and the other 2 synoptics in the
                            process!).

                            JAN:
                            I have selected this passage out of Yuri's sarcastic outburst, since it
                            contains a scrap of a rational argument, on which I would like to briefly
                            comment. Yuri has apparently boundless admiration for Loisy’s
                            "deconstructive" approach to the NT, and he takes as "gospel truth" the
                            Master's conclusion that GLuke originated after A.D. 120 (actually Loisy
                            guesses 130-140). I would have no quarrel with some interpolations to Luke
                            being late (particularly the so-called Non-Western Non-Interpolations),
                            though definitely not as late as all that, but I do argue that the original
                            GLuke and Acts were written before 58 A.D, just prior to Paul's execution.
                            BTW, Loisy is singularly unconvincing in his attempted explanation of the
                            "Significant Silence of Acts as to the Fate of Paul" in his The Origin of
                            the New Testament. But we've covered this ground before and I'd rather not
                            start another round of fruitless bickering with Yuri, who has evidently
                            still not learned the rules of civilized debate.

                            Jan Sammer
                          • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                            ... Jan, Just as we were beginning to see eye to eye on some of these theories, you re sending me such an unkind note. I m deeply disappointed that you are so
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 7, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, INTERPRES wrote:

                              > YURI:
                              > Because he ate the magic sushi, he was able, having
                              > already written, according to Jan, the Book of Acts before 60 ad, to
                              > *Travel Forward In Time* to ca. 120 ad. And having found out what the
                              > needs of the Church will be in the future, he was able to write, 60 years
                              > later, the Gospel of Luke, i.e. Volume One of his two-part treatise (using
                              > in part also the Gospel of John, and the other 2 synoptics in the
                              > process!).
                              >
                              > JAN:
                              > I have selected this passage out of Yuri's sarcastic outburst, since it
                              > contains a scrap of a rational argument, on which I would like to briefly
                              > comment.

                              Jan,

                              Just as we were beginning to see eye to eye on some of these theories,
                              you're sending me such an unkind note. I'm deeply disappointed that you
                              are so negative towards my Suchi Ur-Eucharist theory. (Of course another
                              poster suggested it should rather be called the Sashimi Eucharist, but I'm
                              still not quite prepared to accept that Jesus couldn't ensure that some
                              steam rice be provided for the public when the occasion demanded it.)

                              And my theory seemed to fit so nicely with your highly intriguing Feeding
                              Basket Size Variation theory (or should it rather be described as the
                              Sammer Basket Case?). Don't be in any hurry to retreat from your Basket
                              Theory, Jan. I'm sure all these small problems Mike Grondin found with it
                              can still be addressed by and by. I may even help you later on with that
                              metrology thing. I suppose metrology just doesn't come easy, one must
                              sruggle for it...

                              > Yuri has apparently boundless admiration for Loisy�s "deconstructive"
                              > approach to the NT, and he takes as "gospel truth" the Master's
                              > conclusion that GLuke originated after A.D. 120 (actually Loisy guesses
                              > 130-140). I would have no quarrel with some interpolations to Luke being
                              > late (particularly the so-called Non-Western Non-Interpolations), though
                              > definitely not as late as all that, but I do argue that the original
                              > GLuke and Acts were written before 58 A.D, just prior to Paul's
                              > execution.

                              So, Jan, are you now going to leave your good friend Steve Davies in the
                              lurch as to the dating of Lk? He agreed with you as to the dating of Acts,
                              so the least you could have done is provide some support for him with his
                              radical redating of Lk/Acts project... Oh, well, this is how it is with
                              you I guess. I suppose you're a man of principle, and will speak the truth
                              without fear or favour, come Hell or High Water...

                              I admire your rectitude, Jan.

                              > BTW, Loisy is singularly unconvincing in his attempted explanation of
                              > the "Significant Silence of Acts as to the Fate of Paul" in his The
                              > Origin of the New Testament. But we've covered this ground before and
                              > I'd rather not start another round of fruitless bickering with Yuri, who
                              > has evidently still not learned the rules of civilized debate.

                              Not at all, Jan. In fact, with your valued help, I may be beginning now to
                              see certain inadequacies in Loisy. I may have to look for a better Master
                              now. If you perchance may reconsider your rather intemperate rejection of
                              my Sushi Ur-Eucharist, maybe you will become my new Master... Who knows?

                              Yours Scientifically,

                              Yuri.
                            • INTERPRES
                              ... Historical Metrology does seems to unnerve some people. I have studied its demise as an academic discipline in the early decades of this century and I was
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 8, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                YURI:

                                > I'm deeply disappointed that you
                                > are so negative towards my Suchi Ur-Eucharist theory. ...
                                > And my theory seemed to fit so nicely with your highly intriguing Feeding
                                > Basket Size Variation theory (or should it rather be described as the
                                > Sammer Basket Case?). Don't be in any hurry to retreat from your Basket
                                > Theory, Jan. ...I suppose metrology just doesn't come easy, one must
                                > sruggle for it...


                                Historical Metrology does seems to unnerve some people. I have studied its
                                demise as an academic discipline in the early decades of this century and I
                                was incredulous to find that the attacks to which it succumbed were at
                                approximately the same degree of rationality as Yuri's. Scholars who had
                                devoted their entire lives to the study of ancient units of weight and
                                volume and were trained in the presentation and rebuttal of factual
                                arguments, were helpless against this tide of unreason.

                                Jan
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.