I think Mark is replete with Piscean imagery. I doubt the first disciples were fishermen, as in Mark. They weren’t in John, until you get to chapter 21, a late addition to that text. Why is that? Were they really fishermen, or did Mark invent that detail as part of his Piscean motif?
In Mark, everything seems to evoke imagery related to the Piscean age, which had just dawned in Jesus’ time, and Jesus is portrayed as the master of that age. He calls fishermen to be his disciples. He feeds the multitude with two fish, the sign of Pisces. He walks on water and calms the sea.
And then, when the master of the age’s time is about up, he tells his disciples to find a place in Jerusalem for his last supper by following a man carrying a jug of water, the sign of the next age in the Zodiac — Aquarius.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Greek astrology was all the rage in Mark’s time. Josephus claims that such imagery was incorporated in the Second Temple, and synagoges from shortly after that time have excavated that have a mosaic of the Zodiac embedded in their floor.
The imagery is there in Mark’s gospel, it was intentional, and most of Mark’s contemporaries would have have recognized that imagery, even though modern readers do not.
Samuel4444 said
When feeding the crowd with fish and loaves Jesus makes a point for the disciples to count the number of baskets of bread left over.
Could the two fish represent the sign of Pisces and the twelve baskets left over represent the 12 houses of the zodiac?
The two fish and five loaves represent the two stone tablets and the five books of the Torah. These are divided out with 12 baskets remaining representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
The seven loaves and a few small fish represent the seven books of the prophets plus the 12 minor (small) prophets. These are divided out with 7 baskets remaining representing the seven nations dispossessed when Joshua crossed in to the promised land.
Hey, Sam, good talking with you.
That may be a possibility.
But I think it is more commonly held that the twelve baskets represent the appetites of the twelve tribes of Israel being sated by the meal.
Could it symbolize both?
I guess it depends on how Mark’s 1st century readers would likely have interpreted it.
CEJ said
Hey, Sam, good talking with you.That may be a possibility.
But I think it is more commonly held that the twelve baskets represent the appetites of the twelve tribes of Israel being sated by the meal.
Could it symbolize both?
I guess it depends on how Mark’s 1st century readers would likely have interpreted it.
The commonly held view is incorrect. Matthew is the original writer of the material and it is being read in the Didache as, chapter 9 “Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one … “
the 12 tribes and 7 gentile nations are being brought into unity.
“… so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your eucharitst, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” (all Matthew).
the first century writer of the didache sees Matthew as the authority not Mark.
Much of the material in Mark’s gospel seems to echo the old testament – both Jesus’ feeding miracles exceed elisha’s multiplying loaves.
Another old testament parallel is God providing for the grumbling Israelites in exodus 16 with manna and quail.
In exodus 16 God provides enough to feed the Israelites every day including the Sabbath when they were prohibited from gathering. God is displeased when they harvest too much or too little. Some manna is subsequently kept with the (two) stone tablets.
The loaves certainly correspond to the manna and the #5 probably does represent the five books of Moses.
The fish could be stand-ins for the quail or symbolic of water/baptism (note the emphasis john the baptizer in the original gospel). Or just a just a recognition of proximity to the sea of galilee and river Jordan
The TWO fish might correspond to the double manna the Israelites would have had to gather on the eve of the sabbath. Or simply that 5 (loaves) + 2 = 7 (days in week) : there is full provision for the crowd in galilee as there was for the Israelites in the desert.
brenmcg said
CEJ said
Hey, Sam, good talking with you.
That may be a possibility.
But I think it is more commonly held that the twelve baskets represent the appetites of the twelve tribes of Israel being sated by the meal.
Could it symbolize both?
I guess it depends on how Mark’s 1st century readers would likely have interpreted it.
The commonly held view is incorrect. Matthew is the original writer of the material and it is being read in the Didache as, chapter 9 “Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one … “
the 12 tribes and 7 gentile nations are being brought into unity.
“… so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your eucharitst, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” (all Matthew).
the first century writer of the didache sees Matthew as the authority not Mark.
You are correct, the second feeding of the multitudes and collection of seven baskets is usually seen as a sating of the appetites of the gentile nations, not just because of the number of baskets but also the location of the miracle.
The second feeding miracle is only recorded in Mark and Matthew among the canonical gospels.
But does Matthew or Mark have priority?
The majority view favors Markan priority, and that is my view too. But I have no interest in dissuading you from holding the minority view.
danceswithwombats said
Much of the material in Mark’s gospel seems to echo the old testament – both Jesus’ feeding miracles exceed elisha’s multiplying loaves.Another old testament parallel is God providing for the grumbling Israelites in exodus 16 with manna and quail.
In exodus 16 God provides enough to feed the Israelites every day including the Sabbath when they were prohibited from gathering. God is displeased when they harvest too much or too little. Some manna is subsequently kept with the (two) stone tablets.
The loaves certainly correspond to the manna and the #5 probably does represent the five books of Moses.
The fish could be stand-ins for the quail or symbolic of water/baptism (note the emphasis john the baptizer in the original gospel). Or just a just a recognition of proximity to the sea of galilee and river Jordan
The TWO fish might correspond to the double manna the Israelites would have had to gather on the eve of the sabbath. Or simply that 5 (loaves) + 2 = 7 (days in week) : there is full provision for the crowd in galilee as there was for the Israelites in the desert.
Good post. I think the lesson from all of this is the authors usually have a reason behind the numbers they use.
And it’s often difficult or impossible 2,000 years later to puzzle through what they were trying to tell us with those numbers.
Why are there 153 fish caught in Luke 5 and John 21?
I’ve seen at least 153 explanations but none that seemed satisfactory to me.
brenmcg said
What do you find convincing about Markan priority?
If you want a short explanation for why most scholars give Mark priority, Dr. Ehrman has a post here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I you want a longer discussion that doesn’t require a trip to the library or giving up some spare change to Amazon, the Early Christian Writings web site has one here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As for me, I have no interest in discussing the topic.
CEJ said
brenmcg said
What do you find convincing about Markan priority?
If you want a short explanation for why most scholars give Mark priority, Dr. Ehrman has a post here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I you want a longer discussion that doesn’t require a trip to the library or giving up some spare change to Amazon, the Early Christian Writings web site has one here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As for me, I have no interest in discussing the topic.
Do you find what’s in these two references to be convincing on their own or would you need more than what’s there?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)