Forgetful Disciples and Feeding Narratives
Matthew: 15.33 And the disciples said to him, "Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?"
Mark: 8.4 And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?
The Feeding of the Five Thousand occurs in Mark 6:30–44, Matthew 14:13–21, Luke 9:10–17, and John 6:1–15 and the feeding of the four thousand only in Mark 8:1–10 and Matthew 15:32–39.
Mark and Matthew include both stories, while Luke and John only recount the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus himself refers to both feedings separately in Mark 8:19–20, distinguishing between the two events.
So what are we to make of this? The disciples seem to have collective amnesia in the second story (the 4,000) for there is no allusion to the previous miracle story by the disciples. As has been noted, if the miracle occurred twice, the disciples would know what Jesus could do the second time! But somehow they have completely forgotten.
Later Mark (8:19-20) mentions Jesus referring to both events.
I think there are good theological reasons for the two stories, in the symbolism and the location, one is for the Jews, one for the Gentiles. But are we talking about two events or one?
The Old Testament is full of doublets – more than thirty cases of doublets: stories or laws that are repeated in the Torah, sometimes identically, more often with some differences of detail.
These are commonly recognised as variants of the same story, often because they have come from two lines of tradition and sometimes with distinctive theological implications. The Ten Commandments is a notable example of the latter - Exodus version (Exodus 20:1–17), the Deuteronomy version (Deuteronomy 5:6–21), and the ritual decalogue (Exodus 34:11–26).
In more historical narratives, II Samuel 24: 9 and 1 Chronicles 21.5 have the same exact wording of David’s census except with different numbers.
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000 (II Sam; 24.9).
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword (1 Chron. 21.5).
There was clearly just one census, but the numbers differ, perhaps through copyist error, or perhaps deliberately for theological reasons, and the numbers are symbolic.
The collective amnesia of the disciples points, in my opinion, to this being a doublet. This would explain the absence of the tradition in Luke and John. The reference by Jesus to both events only occurs in Matthew and Mark, and could also been seen as an editorial gloss on the collective amnesia of the disciples.
Other instances of variants are the temptation narratives – Matthew and Luke have different orders, and yet present each as an ordered sequence of events. In the story of Jairus daughter, Matthew has her as dead, Mark and Luke at the point of death when he comes to Jesus.
So a careful reading of the text invites critical judgements. One way to look at this is “Fatigue in the Synoptics” (Mark Goodacre’s phrase) which is certainly well established – the Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Matt 25.14-30 / Luke 19.11-27) being a striking example.
It is so often the Matthew version that is read, that the Lucan version which begins with ten servants who all receive one pound, and then later in the parable, there are just three servants.
Matthew: 15.33 And the disciples said to him, "Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?"
Mark: 8.4 And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?
The Feeding of the Five Thousand occurs in Mark 6:30–44, Matthew 14:13–21, Luke 9:10–17, and John 6:1–15 and the feeding of the four thousand only in Mark 8:1–10 and Matthew 15:32–39.
Mark and Matthew include both stories, while Luke and John only recount the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus himself refers to both feedings separately in Mark 8:19–20, distinguishing between the two events.
So what are we to make of this? The disciples seem to have collective amnesia in the second story (the 4,000) for there is no allusion to the previous miracle story by the disciples. As has been noted, if the miracle occurred twice, the disciples would know what Jesus could do the second time! But somehow they have completely forgotten.
Later Mark (8:19-20) mentions Jesus referring to both events.
I think there are good theological reasons for the two stories, in the symbolism and the location, one is for the Jews, one for the Gentiles. But are we talking about two events or one?
The Old Testament is full of doublets – more than thirty cases of doublets: stories or laws that are repeated in the Torah, sometimes identically, more often with some differences of detail.
These are commonly recognised as variants of the same story, often because they have come from two lines of tradition and sometimes with distinctive theological implications. The Ten Commandments is a notable example of the latter - Exodus version (Exodus 20:1–17), the Deuteronomy version (Deuteronomy 5:6–21), and the ritual decalogue (Exodus 34:11–26).
In more historical narratives, II Samuel 24: 9 and 1 Chronicles 21.5 have the same exact wording of David’s census except with different numbers.
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000 (II Sam; 24.9).
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword (1 Chron. 21.5).
There was clearly just one census, but the numbers differ, perhaps through copyist error, or perhaps deliberately for theological reasons, and the numbers are symbolic.
The collective amnesia of the disciples points, in my opinion, to this being a doublet. This would explain the absence of the tradition in Luke and John. The reference by Jesus to both events only occurs in Matthew and Mark, and could also been seen as an editorial gloss on the collective amnesia of the disciples.
Other instances of variants are the temptation narratives – Matthew and Luke have different orders, and yet present each as an ordered sequence of events. In the story of Jairus daughter, Matthew has her as dead, Mark and Luke at the point of death when he comes to Jesus.
So a careful reading of the text invites critical judgements. One way to look at this is “Fatigue in the Synoptics” (Mark Goodacre’s phrase) which is certainly well established – the Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Matt 25.14-30 / Luke 19.11-27) being a striking example.
It is so often the Matthew version that is read, that the Lucan version which begins with ten servants who all receive one pound, and then later in the parable, there are just three servants.
In the Lucan version they receive cities as their reward, but then Luke reverts to Matthew’s version “Take the pound from him and give it to him who has the ten pounds” although as Mark Goodacre points out, the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing!
Goodacre’s suggestion – “Luke has attempted to reframe the parable that he found in Matthew but his ambition, on this occasion, exceeds his capability. Editorial fatigue soon drags the plot of the parable back to Matthew” makes a lot of sense. The role of the writer editing and compiling the stories together (what is technically called “redaction criticism) must not be underestimated.
What are we to make of Jesus referring to both feeding accounts in Mark (8:19-20)? If the story received had Jesus only speaking about the feeding of the five thousand, it would look strange if the four thousand was not included. For whatever reason, the text could have been amended. It is certainly clear – as we see in the case of the Parable, that while the import was there, the Lukan version demonstrated an editorial change.
I have been collecting and collating stories of the German Occupation. These are remembrances of those who were alive, but youngsters at the time. I have no doubt that most of this is accurate, but some can be misremembered, conflated, or even be urban myths that were passed on by word of mouth.
Sometimes what is remembered is impossibly anachronistic. An account of seeing the movie “Mrs Miniver” (a 1942 patriotic war time British film) at the cinema during the Occupation is an example. It would not have happened. But post-war, it would have been one of the first films to be shown.
In the New Testament “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24). But what meaning had the cross before the crucifixion? It is more likely the words were “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and follow me.”, and the words about the cross were a later emendation.
Sometimes an event took place, but not on that date but a day or two later, and events have been conflated together. Listening to Churchill’s speech (broadcast in the Royal Square on May 8th) and seeing the “tommies” coming ashore and formal surrender (May 9th) are often conflated.
The dating of the Last Supper falls into this category. According to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Last Supper was a Passover meal, celebrated on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan, which marked the beginning of Passover. However, the Gospel of John suggests that the Last Supper occurred before the official start of Passover, with Jesus being crucified on the day when the Passover lambs were traditionally slaughtered. There was certainly a supper, but the timing may be misremembered.
And some stories – such as the pig tucked up in a bed wearing Grannies bonnet have no firm historical evidence. It is more likely that the story is an urban myth of the kind which often emerges in times of hardship and oppression, and pokes fun at the enemy.
The story of the cursing of the fig tree, or the coin found in the fish, may well be this kind of story, but of course they are also invested with meaning, just as the parables are. Or they might be parables which lost their way in the telling, and became stories rather than parables.
Goodacre’s suggestion – “Luke has attempted to reframe the parable that he found in Matthew but his ambition, on this occasion, exceeds his capability. Editorial fatigue soon drags the plot of the parable back to Matthew” makes a lot of sense. The role of the writer editing and compiling the stories together (what is technically called “redaction criticism) must not be underestimated.
What are we to make of Jesus referring to both feeding accounts in Mark (8:19-20)? If the story received had Jesus only speaking about the feeding of the five thousand, it would look strange if the four thousand was not included. For whatever reason, the text could have been amended. It is certainly clear – as we see in the case of the Parable, that while the import was there, the Lukan version demonstrated an editorial change.
I have been collecting and collating stories of the German Occupation. These are remembrances of those who were alive, but youngsters at the time. I have no doubt that most of this is accurate, but some can be misremembered, conflated, or even be urban myths that were passed on by word of mouth.
Sometimes what is remembered is impossibly anachronistic. An account of seeing the movie “Mrs Miniver” (a 1942 patriotic war time British film) at the cinema during the Occupation is an example. It would not have happened. But post-war, it would have been one of the first films to be shown.
In the New Testament “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24). But what meaning had the cross before the crucifixion? It is more likely the words were “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and follow me.”, and the words about the cross were a later emendation.
Sometimes an event took place, but not on that date but a day or two later, and events have been conflated together. Listening to Churchill’s speech (broadcast in the Royal Square on May 8th) and seeing the “tommies” coming ashore and formal surrender (May 9th) are often conflated.
The dating of the Last Supper falls into this category. According to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Last Supper was a Passover meal, celebrated on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan, which marked the beginning of Passover. However, the Gospel of John suggests that the Last Supper occurred before the official start of Passover, with Jesus being crucified on the day when the Passover lambs were traditionally slaughtered. There was certainly a supper, but the timing may be misremembered.
And some stories – such as the pig tucked up in a bed wearing Grannies bonnet have no firm historical evidence. It is more likely that the story is an urban myth of the kind which often emerges in times of hardship and oppression, and pokes fun at the enemy.
The story of the cursing of the fig tree, or the coin found in the fish, may well be this kind of story, but of course they are also invested with meaning, just as the parables are. Or they might be parables which lost their way in the telling, and became stories rather than parables.
The coin in a fish also occurs in a number of other works, such as the “Life of Apollonius of Tyana” by Philostratus. In “The Arabian Nights, or One Thousand and One Nights”, there is a story where a fisherman catches a fish, and inside its belly, he finds a gem or coin of great value. But the New Testament accounts are invested with meaning and significance which exists regardless of the historicity of the story.
What we have are variants. This does not mean there is not a core of history behind them, but they are remembered history, and as with all remembrance, retelling, rewriting (and I have experience in reworking material when I write of events to make stories flow sequentially) there is room for variation.
What we have are variants. This does not mean there is not a core of history behind them, but they are remembered history, and as with all remembrance, retelling, rewriting (and I have experience in reworking material when I write of events to make stories flow sequentially) there is room for variation.
The Occupation stories I have been hearing have been told by those were there - often ages 5 to 10 in 1940, and 5 years older at Liberation. That's nearly 80 years ago, and yet the substance of the stories is clearly true. And those were significant years, incidents seared onto the memory. And these stories are not just autobiography, they are invested with significance, of a time of trials, and a glorious liberation.
I tend to follow James D.G. Dunn in thinking the gospel narratives, clearly of great significance to the 12 disciples, would not be forgotten, would be just as significant years as not to be clouded by the passage of time. A largely oral society would not need written texts, not until it was apparent that the generation of those who knew and remembered Jesus were being lost to martyrdom or old age. But that gap would not have been much more than 80 years, probably far less. There would be a similar pattern to that I have seen in stories of the Occupation, some misremembering, some anachronism, and even some kinds of urban myths (as detailed above). But I would opine that the hard core of the stories is trustworthy.
As C.S. Lewis says in “Fernseed and Elephants”, much of the gospel stories are clearly “reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts”.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment