Day: February 19, 2022

Saturday Series: Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-10 par

In the previous two studies, we have looked at examples of the so-called “Triple Tradition” in the Synoptic Gospels. The term refers to narrative episodes, sayings of Jesus, and other traditions, that are found in all three Gospels. This is especially challenging for a critical study of the passages in question. On the one hand, the three Gospels all share the same basic tradition, and yet each has handled the tradition in distinctive ways. Occasionally, there are historical traditions that are preserved in all four New Testament Gospels—in the Gospel of John, as well as the Synoptics. One such tradition is the Miraculous Feeding (of the Five Thousand), surely one of the best known (and loved) of all Jesus’ miracles. This is the narrative episode I wish to discuss this week.

As it happens, there are aspects of this tradition which are especially problematic, from the standpoint of New Testament criticism, and which greatly complicate any critical study. Let us begin by addressing the most difficult question first—the occurrence of two Feeding Miracle episodes in the Synoptics (Mark/Matthew), each of which has a very similar outline, and many similar details as well (see below). The main question is: does this reflect two distinct historical events, or two versions of the same event? Most critical commentators hold to the latter view. Not only are the two episodes so closely alike, but, as we shall see, the account in John contains elements and details found in both Synoptic episodes. This would seem to confirm the critical view. However, at the same time, in the Synoptic narrative, Jesus himself refers to both of the miracles, mentioning distinct details from each. If the critical view is accepted, then the episode in Mk 8:14-21 par would have to be regarded as a kind of literary fiction. On the other hand, if one accepts the authenticity (and essential historicity) of Mk 8:14-21, then this would be proof that the two miracle stories reflect two historical episodes. Traditional-conservative commentators, naturally, are more inclined to accept the text—in this case, the Synoptic tradition (including Mk 8:14-21)—at face value.

Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-10

First let us consider the similarities between the two episodes, as they are found in Mark [6:30-44; 8:1-10]:

    • Jesus and his disciples had traveled to a desolate place (6:31-32, 35; 8:4b)
    • A great crowd had followed Jesus there (6:30, 33f; 8:1)
    • Concern for the people, and how they could be fed (6:34-36; 8:2-4) —specifically Jesus is said to have had compassion on them
    • A question from the disciples regarding how food could be found for so many (6:37; 8:4)
    • Jesus asks his disciples “how many loaves do you have?” (6:38a; 8:5)
    • There are on hand only a small number of bread loaves and a few fish (6:38b ; 8:5b, 7a)
    • Jesus directs the people to sit down (6:39; 8:6a)
    • Jesus blesses, breaks and divides the loaves, along with the fish (6:41; 8:6-7)
    • All the people eat and are satisfied (6:42; 8:8a)
    • A number of baskets full of leftovers are gathered [by the disciples] (6:43; 8:8b)
    • The size of the crowd is identified by the (round) number of the men who ate—5000/4000 (6:44; 8:9)
    • Afterwards, Jesus and his disciples are described as getting into a boat, with a specific geographical location indicated, i.e. relative to the lake (6:45; 8:10)

There are also some notable differences:

    • The second episode contains no references to the travels and ministry work of Jesus, as in the first (6:30-34; but compare Matthew 15:29-31)
    • In the first episode, the disciples appear to initiate the concern/effort to feed the people (6:35-36), while in the second this is done by Jesus (8:2-3)
    • In the first episode, Jesus challenges the disciples to give the people something to eat (6:37)
    • The first episode contains detail regarding the people sitting down on the ground in groups (6:39-40)

Clearly, the similarities far outweigh the differences. The two episodes, of course, involve different specific numbers—5 loaves / 12 baskets / 5000 men vs. 7 loaves / 7 baskets / 4000 men—but these are rather minor compared with the overall points of agreement.

How does the Gospel of Mark make use of these two episodes in the context of the narrative? The author was clearly aware of the similarities between them; indeed, this is an important aspect of the symmetry and parallelism of the narrative in 6:14-8:30. I outlined this in a previous note; here it is again:

    • Reaction to Jesus, and his identity: the declaration by Herod—6:14-16 [inclusion of an associated tradition, 6:17-29]
    • Feeding Miracle (5,000): the disciples/12 baskets—6:30-44
      Miracle on the water: Jesus with the disciples in the boat—6:44-52
      (they did not understand about the miraculous loaves)
    • Healing Miracles—6:53-56
    • Conflict/debate with religious authorities over tradition and ritual—7:1-23 including a Parable and explanation by Jesus (vv. 14-16, 17-23)
    • Healing Miracles: 2 episodes—7:24-30, 31-37
    • Feeding Miracle (4,000): the disciples/7 baskets—8:1-10
      Teaching on the water: Jesus with the disciples in the boat—8:11-21
      (they did not understand, re. the miraculous loaves)
    • Healing miracle—8:22-26
    • Reaction to Jesus, and his identity: the confession by Peter—8:27-30

In my view there is a definite (chiastic) symmetry to this section in Mark. Consider first—the framing episodes (6:14-16; 8:27-30) involving the question of Jesus’ identity, in which the general reaction by people to Jesus is noted (i.e. identifying him as “Elijah” or one of the Prophets). At the same time, Herod and Peter each make a declaration regarding Jesus’ identity:

    • Herod—he is John the Baptist raised from the dead (6:16)
    • Peter—”You are the Anointed One” (8:29)

The second pair of (parallel) episodes are the two Feeding Miracles:

    • Reaction to Jesus (declaration by Herod)
      —Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30-44)
      —Feeding of the Four Thousand (8:1-10)
    • Reaction to Jesus (confession by Peter)

The parallelism is reinforced by the inclusion, after the miracle, of an episode where Jesus and his disciples are together on the water (6:44-52; 8:11-21), and reference is made to the bread-loaves of the miraculous feeding (6:52; 8:19ff). The first episode involves a miracle (Jesus’ walking on the water), the second, teaching. A third parallel can be found in the healing miracles of 6:53-56 and 7:24-37:

    • Reaction to Jesus (declaration by Herod)
      • Feeding of the Five Thousand
        —Healing miracles narrated (6:53-56)
        —Healing miracles: 2 episodes (7:24-37)
      • Feeding of the Four Thousand
    • Reaction to Jesus (confession by Peter)

Finally, at the center of the section, we find the debate between Jesus and the religious authorities (Scribes and Pharisees) regarding religious tradition and the interpretation of the Law (7:1-23). This theme carries through the remainder of the section, especially the instruction of Jesus to his disciples in 8:11-21, in which he warns them of “the leaven of the Pharisees [7:1ff] and Herod [6:14-16ff]” (v. 15). It is part of the reaction to Jesus’ ministry that is illustrated in this section. While the people may react to Jesus at one level—viewing him as a miracle working prophet like Elijah (note the allusions in the feeding miracle[s] to 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Kings 4:42-44), or otherwise—his true disciples ultimately will recognize him as “the Anointed One” (and Son of God).

Thus we can see that the two Feeding Miracle episodes play a pivotal role in the Markan narrative, and are important in demonstrating Jesus’ identity—the primary theme of 6:14-8:30. Now let us examine how these traditions were utilized in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 14:13-21; 15:32-39

Matthew follows the Markan narrative in recording both Miraculous Feeding episodes (of the 5,000 and 4,000). Indeed, Matt 14:1-16:20 appears to follow the entire outline of Mk 6:14-8:30 fairly closely. The main differences are:

    • An expanded version of the walking on water episode (cf. 14:28-33)
    • The sayings of Jesus in 15:13-14 and 16:2-3
    • An expanded version of Peter’s confession (with Jesus’ response) in 16:16b-19

The structure of Mk 6:14-8:30, with its rather careful symmetry (see above), I would attribute, on the whole, to the author of the Gospel (trad. Mark), rather than to an earlier stage in the Gospel Tradition. If so, then the presence of the same outline in Matthew would provide strong confirmation, at this point, of the critical hypothesis that Matthew made use of Mark’s Gospel. The author (trad. Matthew) has certainly included episodes corresponding to Mark 6:30-44ff and 8:1-10ff (Matt 14:13-21ff; 15:32-39ff), at more or less the same positions in the narrative. Notably, the basic information from Mk 8:11-21 is repeated in 16:5-12—i.e., Jesus’ own reference to both of the Feeding Miracles.

The differences between Matthew and Mark in the two Miraculous Feeding episodes are relatively slight, the most significant being:

Miracle #1 (14:13-21)

    • A simplified narrative introduction (vv. 13-14; compare with Mk 6:30-34), giving the basic information:
      —That Jesus departed to a “desolate” place, and crowds followed him there (v. 13)
      —and Jesus’ reaction to seeing the people, with the specific detail that he healed the sick among them (v. 14, cf. also Lk 9:11)
    • Matthew’s introduction (v. 13a) also makes a smoother transition with the Baptist episode immediately prior; Mark, by contrast, refers back to the mission of the Twelve.
    • The beginning of the narrative proper (vv. 15-16) is also simpler than in Mark. The author omits, or otherwise does not include, the disciples’ question (Mk 6:37) and Jesus’ question to them in response (6:38a, “How many loaves…?”); however, he also adds the words of Jesus in v. 16a: “They have no business going [i.e. there is no need for them to go] away…”.
    • There is no reference to the crowd sitting down in groups (Mk 6:39-40).
    • Verses 19-21 are very close to Mk, with a small addition in v. 21b.

Overall, Matthew’s narrative is simpler and smoother, with some of the dramatic and local detail of Mark’s account absent.

Miracle #2 (15:32-39)

    • Matthew’s version is framed by specific geographical references, in relation to the sea of Galilee (vv. 29, 39; cp. Mark 7:31).
    • We also have the detail of Jesus going up into the hill(s)/mountain (v. 29b)
    • The references to healing miracles (vv. 30-31) have been integrated more closely into the narrative of the miraculous feeding (cp. Mk 7:32-37).
    • The basic narrative of vv. 32-38 is quite close to Mk 8:1-9, with minor differences in wording.
    • There is a small difference in the geographical location at the close of the episode (v. 39; Mk 8:10).

Again, Matthew’s narrative is a bit simpler and more streamlined, by comparison with Mark. In both miracle episodes, the author adapts the tradition to set it more clearly within the context of Jesus’ ministry—especially the healing miracles of Jesus (cf. 14:13-14; 15:29-31). The second half of the Galilean Period in Matthew covers 10:1-16:20, and has a clearly defined theme of the disciples’ participation in Jesus’ ministry, along with the theme of discipleship. Matthew includes much more traditional material between the mission of the Twelve (10:1-5ff) and the confession of Peter (16:13-20) than do the other Gospels. The author retains the Synoptic (Markan) structure in 14:1-16:20, including the two Feeding Miracles, but sets them within a more developed and expansive narrative outline.

Luke 9:10-17

If Matthew appears to have used the Gospel of Mark at this point (see above), it is less clear in the case of Luke. The main reason is that the author has omitted (or has otherwise not included) the material corresponding to Mark 6:53-8:26, including the second Feeding Miracle (Mk 8:1-10). As a consequence, there is no way of knowing whether he knew of the second episode, and/or what he thought of it. If Luke made use of Mark’s Gospel, then he intentionally omitted that entire section; however, we must also consider the possibility that he inherited a Synoptic narrative that was simpler/shorter than Mark. Insofar as Luke records the Miraculous Feeding tradition, he follows a version that more or less corresponds to the first miracle in Mark (and Matthew). The following points of comparison may be noted:

    • Luke retains the Markan connection with the mission of the Twelve (v. 10; Mk 6:30); the importance of this will be indicated below.
    • Luke uniquely records the geographical reference which locates the miracle in the area around Bethsaida (compare Mark 6:45).
    • Like Matthew (see above), Luke has a simpler narrative introduction (vv. 10-11) than does Mark. Verse 11 would seem to be simplified version of Mk 6:33.
    • As in Matthew, there is incorporated into the narrative a summary reference to Jesus healing the sick in the crowd (v. 11b; Matt 14:14).
    • Luke adds the specific detail that Jesus spoke to the people “about the Kingdom of God” (v. 11); this definitely would seem to be an (editorial) addition by the author (on this theme, and wording, cf. Acts 1:3, also Lk 4:43; 8:1; 9:2; 17:20; 19:11).
    • Verses 12-17 generally follows Mk 6:35-44, but with simpler narration; with Matthew, the two questions in Mk 6:37-38 are omitted. There are a number of other (minor) agreements in wording between Matthew and Luke (cf. vv. 11-14, 17 par).
    • Luke has set the mention of the crowd’s estimated size earlier in the narrative (v. 14); instead, his version of the episode closes with the gathering of the twelve baskets of leftovers (v. 17).

The ‘omission’ of the Synoptic traditions in Mk 6:53-8:26 means that the Lukan account of this portion of the Galilean Period looks very different than it does in Mark or Matthew. Consider that the section from the mission of the Twelve, through to the confession of Peter, takes up just twenty verses in Luke (9:1-20). By comparison, the same relative division of the narrative in Matthew covers nearly seven chapters (10:1-16:20). The outline for this portion of Luke is amazingly simple:

    • Jesus with his disciples—the Mission of the Twelve (9:1-6)
      The reaction to Jesus: the question of Herod (9:7-9)
      • The Twelve return to Jesus, telling him of their mission work (9:10)
        —The Feeding Miracle (9:10-17)
      • The Twelve baskets gathered up (by the Twelve) (9:17)
    • Jesus with his disciples—praying together (with the Twelve) (9:18ff)
      The reaction to Jesus: the confession of Peter (9:18b-20)

The central section in bold represents the Feeding Miracle. Luke’s streamlined account, more than the other Gospels, uses the Feeding Miracle here to represent and summarize the ministry of Jesus. The connection with Jesus’ disciples (the Twelve) is more prominent as well. This is almost certainly the reason why mention of the estimated size of the crowd was moved back to verse 14—so that the feeding miracle would conclude with a reference to the twelve baskets gathered by the disciples (i.e. symbolic of the Twelve). Indeed, the Greek of verse 17 specifically ends with the word dœ¡deka (“twelve”).

Having compared the versions of the Synoptic tradition(s), it now remains to turn to the account of the Feeding Miracle in the Gospel of John. In so doing, we will return to the critical question (i.e. originally one or two miracles?), as well as examine the unique way that the tradition has been adapted in the Fourth Gospel, through its connection with the great “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter 6. This will be the topic of next week’s study.

February 18: Song of Songs 1:7-8

Song of Songs 1:7-8

Verse 7

“Put in front for me, (you) who my soul loves,
where (it is) you herd (the flock),
(and) make them recline in (the) double-bright (sun)!
What? should I be as (one go)ing about wrapped
upon [i.e. among] (the) flocks of your companions?”

The poem in verses 7-8 takes the form of a mini-dialogue, as the young woman (v. 7) is answered by another voice (v. 8), variously identified as that of the young man, the chorus (of ‘daughters of Jerusalem’), or another character—all depending on one’s preferred interpretive scenario. Since the girl is addressing the young man she loves (“[you] whom my soul loves”), it seems best to read verse 8 as the boy’s response.

One way of explaining the setting of this poem is that the two young lovers are making arrangements to meet at the time of the noon rest (or siesta). In any case, that is certainly the idea that the young woman has, for she clearly hopes to meet up with him at this time, while he is pasturing his flock. This verse indicates that the man she loves is a shepherd. However, as with the vineyard motif (cf. the previous note on vv. 5-6), the pastoral milieu (of shepherds and herding) was a common feature of ancient love poetry. Among the earliest examples are the Sumerian poems involving the love between Dumuzi and Inanna (cf. Jacobsen, Harps, pp. 1-84, and Sefati, Love Songs). Though both are deities, they are portrayed in the poems very much in the manner of normal human lovers. Dumuzi took many forms, but that of the shepherd was the most common characterization in the love poems.

In much later times, poems with a pastoral setting were extremely popular among the Greek and Roman poets (Theocritus, Virgil, etc). Pope (p. 328) cites an Arabic folksong that is indicative of the sexual suggestiveness of this poetic setting:

“Come, a spring pasture I will show thee,
which no man has yet trodden.”

Perhaps the most famous pastoral poem, at least among Jews and Christians (cf. below) is Psalm 23; though not a love poem as such, it certainly can be seen as reflecting the love and devotion between God and His people (the faithful ones). Especially significant here is the setting of noon time (lit. the time of the “double-bright” sun, i.e., when the sun is at its peak), since it is the time of rest, the siesta, when the two lovers have the opportunity to snatch away some moments to spend with each other.

The second part of verse 7 is more difficult to interpret (and translate). The initial word, a compound particle (hm*l*, “for what”, i.e. “why?”) that includes a prefixed relative particle, is actually very hard to translate into English. The basic sense of the line is that, if the young man does not tell her how she can find him (at noon-time), she will be forced to go about all of the grazing spots looking for him. Clearly, he should not want that, since it means that the girl will end up approaching other young men (his companions) in the process.

The precise word hy`f=u)K= is problematic. Literally, it means “like (one) wrapping/covering (herself)”, but, in context, clearly would have to mean, “like (one go)ing about covered up”. According to the cultural standards of the time and place, a young woman going about in public would normally do so covered/veiled. And yet, it would be rather improper for such a woman to go about from man to man, approaching them and making inquiries. The implication seems to be that this would make her look like a prostitute (cf. Gen 38:14)—and surely the young man doesn’t want that to happen!

Some commentators, finding difficulty with this line of interpretation, prefer emending the word from hy`f=u) to hy`u&T), essentially involving only a transposition of two letters. The root hu*T* means “be lost, lose one’s way, go astray”, and here would be used in the rather mundane sense of the woman wandering about from flock to flock. Even if this reading is correct (which I am inclined to doubt, in spite of some versional support for it), the point at issue is still sexual in nature. By wandering about, approaching different young men, there is the possibility that another man would take a liking to her, and might pursue a relationship with her.

Verse 8

“If you do not know yourself,
(you most) beautiful among women,
go out among (the) heel(-mark)s of the flock,
and herd your young goats
upon (the) dwellings of the herders!”

The interpretation of these lines depends almost entirely upon who is speaking them. This is a point debated among commentators; however, as I note above, since the young woman is apparently talking to the young man she loves (in verse 7), it is reasonable to assume that he is the one answering her in verse 8. Is is reply serious, playful, mocking, or some combination of these?

As with the vineyard-motif in verse 6 (cf. the discussion in the previous note), there is a double meaning to the herding motif here—the verb hu*r* refers both to the actual herding of sheep/goats, and figuratively, as a symbol of sexual relations (cf. above on the sexuality of the pastoral setting in ancient love poetry). In this regard, I take the young woman’s jibe in v. 7b to be playful in tone, and the young man’s response to be similar in kind. She depicts the image of a ‘wrapped up’ woman (resembling a prostitute) having to go about from flock to flock (and to different men) looking for him. His jest, in turn, is that she could always go out as (female) shepherd herself (herding female goats), and thus interact with the men without scandal.

At a deeper level, the herding image relates to sexual attraction (and sexual relations). The young man is essentially telling the young woman that she should already know for herself where he ‘herds’ his sheep—i.e., that his love is for her alone. The matter of searching/finding in this regard is symbolic of sexual love and longing. The “heel (print)s” of the young man’s sheep represent the signs of his love for her, and she should be able to follow them. If she cannot, then perhaps she does not really love him—and she should then go ahead and try her luck with the other young (herds)men.

There is a longstanding tradition in Near Eastern poetry of the tracks of nomadic encampments, etc, as a touchpoint for love, longing, and remembrance. It can be seen already in the Sumerian Dumuzi poems (cf. above), and extends down into modern Arabic poetry. An especially beautiful and evocative reflex of this tradition is found in the classical Arabic (Qasida) Ode. In the first part of the Ode (the nas£b), the poet, longing for his departed beloved, is drawn to the remains of her tribe’s encampment. There, those traces, in every detail, are a powerful evocation of his beloved, and the landscape is turned, for him, into a beautiful paradise that matches the beauty of his beloved. This will be discussed further at several upcoming points in the Song, were the sense of longing (of the young woman for her love) is expressed in similar terms.

Jewish and Early Christian Interpretation

Jewish interpretation built upon the traditional motif of Israel as a flock of sheep who would go astray without the guidance of a Shepherd (Psalm 23). Moses, as the intermediary between YHWH and the people, served this role as shepherd, and, subsequently, through the Law (Torah) he gave to Israel at God’s command. The woman longing after the shepherd, and seeking to find him, represented the longing of the righteous ones to follow the precepts of the Torah.

The Targum gives an interesting interpretive paraphrase of verse 8 (God speaking to Moses):

“If the Assembly of Israel, which is compared to a beautiful maiden whom my soul loves, wishes to wipe out the Exile, let her walk in the ways of the righteous…let her teach (or lead) her children, compared to the kids of goats, to go to the Assembly House and to the House of Learning; then by that merit, they will be sustained…until the time when I send the King, the Messiah, who will lead them to rest in their Dwelling, the Sanctuary which David and Solomon, the shepherds of Israel, will build for them.” (Pope, p. 335)

The mixing of metaphors, with both woman/bride and the flock(s) symbolizing the Church, led Origen in his Commentary to draw a distinction between ordinary Christians (the sheep) and those (represented by the bride) whose soul seeks after the deeper truth of the Word of God (Christ). It is significant for him that this searching (and finding) takes place at noon-time, when the light of the sun is brightest, where the purified soul can be enlightened by the “full knowledge” of Christ.

Commentators such as Origen and Gregory Nyssa, following a translation that renders the Hebrew suffixed preposition El* (“for you”) in the sense of “(for) yourself”, drew upon this to emphasize the importance of “knowing oneself”. This self-knowledge by the soul is necessary in order to avoiding the evils and delusions of the world, achieve purity (in virtue and knowledge), and so then be able to attain to a full understanding of the Word of God. The nature of the soul itself reflects this purity, but becomes covered over by the things of the world; the Divine Truth can shine in it again only after it has been cleaned and purified. As Gregory exclaims, regarding the significance of this spiritual awareness and self-knowledge:

“You alone are made in the likeness of that nature which surpasses all understanding; you alone are a similitude of eternal beauty, a receptacle of happiness, and image of the true Light; and if you look up to Him, you will become what He is, imitating Him Who shines within you, Whose glory is reflected in your purity.” (Daniélou, p. 162)

*      *      *      *      *      *

References above marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 7C (1977).
Those marked “Jacobsen, Harps” are to Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps that Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (Yale University Press: 1987).
Those marked “Sefati, Love Songs” are to Yitschak Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture (Bar-Ilan University Press: 1998).
Quotations of Gregory of Nyssa’s sermon cycle (here) come from Jean Daniélou, S. J., From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, translated and edited by Herbert Musurillo, S. J. (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 2001).