1. It will be better to consider these instances separately, and to treat the feeding of the 5000 in the light of the first three Gospels. The Synoptics agree that the place was .a desert one on the east side of the Sea of Galilee ; .and Lk. fixes it at Bethsaida Julias (see Capernaum). Mk. and Lk. connect the withdrawal to this place with the return of the Twelve and their report, Mt. with the execution of John the Baptist. Mk. seems to be correct, since he gives the specific reason that they needed rest, which they could not otherwise secure. All agree that a \-ast multitude followed them to their place of resort, tlius defeating their purpose, and that it was the disciples who called the attention of Je.sus to the needs of the jieojile. Jesus then commanded His disciples to provide food for the mttltitude. One feels that He was prcp.nring their minds for wlirtt He was about to do. Tlicir .•i-lniiish,,,,.,,! :il HiMi.iiimand led them lol».inl oni llic iiiip'i^sil.ilily. if not absurdity, of till' lri|iiii-iiiiriil, siller tln-y llild liut five loaveS and two lishes. Then follows the :is(un7iding order to seat the people in groups easily acicssilih; to the disciples, the ble.ssing of tlie ln.ivcs and llslies, the disfi-iliiition of the meagre su]iply, tlic ^.-itisfaction .if I 111- hunger of all, and the gathering up of the
uiiiiijits have been made to rob this account I if i(s miraculous character, the favourite method being to assume that the evident determination of Jesus to assuage their hunger induced those in the vast company who had supplies of food, to share, "n tl e p' ''t of Je u tl tl o e 1 o 1 ad none. Tl e d ffic Ity tl tl e pi n t on tl at tl e lis-
1 le 1 o 1 ad eve y oj j t t> of ee n 1 at
do e tl ou 1 t tl at tl e It t le fed
tl tl h 1 1 t i 1 onl-y A a nst
1 I Ml I e dence as
1 II II 1 / / 330) The
1 111 1 o tl at
1 11 J 1 tl I 1 tl 1 t of tl e trans-
a t on a ra lou VI tt „ tl e acle,
some have tl o 1 t to e j la t a a n aculous satisfaction of hunger with a little, rather than as a multiplication of the loaves and fishes. This is contrary to the text in all four of the Gospels, which unite in saying that twelve baskets of fraynients were taken up. This would be more lliiiii llwiv «i- al til.' lif.-innin- (src art. T.ASKET), il.a ^\yuv^\\^ ■ iiliiiiinu' llii- mill I i|il i.vi li..ll. We ;ii ■ -lull iiji. nm 11. I., till' allrnial iM' nf ir,i,'arding ilir iirimiMi :i. li-. .J, .Hilary, m- c'Isi- .-is a iniraculous iiiiilli|ili.ali.iii i.f tlieir'fooil supplv- There are
iiiii.' dilii.nlli.'s in the way of believing it mirac- ulous. (I) 'I'lio i|uestion of Jesus, 'How many lii:i\i's lia\i' vi-'/' reminds one of the question of 1 Elisha (2 K 4-), 'What hast thou in the house ?'
FEEDIXG THE MULTITUDES
FEET
and so suggests an imitation of Elisha's miracle, as in fact the whole process of multiplication suggests the miracle of the meal in the jar and the cruse of oil of 1 K !?"■'*. (2) The record is a trifle obscure. The whole stress is on the loaves, both in the gathered fragments, especially in Jn. , and in the subsequent references of Jesus (see Mk 8"), while the fisli are ignored. (3) Usually, also, Avhen such a miracle wiis perfonned, the observers are said to have been profoundly impressed (see Mk 4^' 5-12 'jjrj^ jjut here no comment follows. (4) Besides, it seems to be in contradiction of His avowed pur- pose not to give the Jews what would be to them a convincing sign. As to all but the last of these difficulties, it may be said that they are, in them- selves, not serious. The fourth assumes that the miracles of healing would not, but that a miracle such as the feeding would convince the Jews, and so be just the kind of si^n the Jews demanded. But, in fact, the sign the Jews required and Jesus refused to grant was some miracle performed to order, and regardless of human need. Such a miracle as the feeding lacked these two character- istics. It was spontaneous, and it met a human want. In favour of the historicity of the miracle is the further fact that it is recorded in all the Gospels. The tradition was not open to question in the mind of any one of the Evangelists.
2. With regard to the second recorded instance, the feeding of the 4000, the case is quite different. It is found in but two of the Gospels. Lk. and Jn. evidently thought of but a single feedin''. It is easy to see how the second account might have grown out of the first, and the similarities are so great as to suggest that it did have its origin there. The question of Jesus concerning the number of loaves, the remarkable circumstance that a second time the disciples had so little food with them, the seating of the people on the ground, the distribu- tion to the Twelve for redistribution among the multitude, the eating until they were filled, tlie gathering of the broken pieces into baskets, are suspiciously like the feeding of the 5000. It is difficult to .see how the disciples, with the memory of the feeding of the 5000 fresh in their minds, could have questioned Jesus as to the source of supply for this second company. And here it is that the narrative as given by Jn. sheds light on the question under consideration. Jn. betrays the fact that the same narrative was diH'erently told, since he combines elements of both narratives as related by Mt. and Mark. Mt. places the second feeding on a mountain ; Jn. locates the feeding on a mountain. Jn. and Mt. and Mk. (second instance) agree that Jesus proposed the feeding. ]\Ik., according to his usual custom of emphasizing the teaching as primary, and of making the miracles secondary, makes Jesus teach the shepherdless sheep out of sympathy, whUe Mt. makes this sympathy prompt Him to heal them, and Lk. combines the two ; this in the first feeding. In the second this sympathy was elicited by their hunger. In the second the point of difficulty with the disciples (according to Mt. and Mk.), or with Je.sus (according to Jn. ), was not tlie expense, as in the first, but that of -ecurin- so uiurli f,.,,,l in a desert place. Tlii^ i rvt.iinU hi.ik^ a-- th'.iii^h .Jn. had heard b..tli arr,,„nt-. and (h-lilHTai.^ly un.ler- took to comliiiii' tliem iiit.i one or I'Nc a~ though the difierences in the account of the same story led Mt. and Mk. to believe that there were two feedings. In any case Lk., by implication, and Jn., almost directly, favour the single feeding— that of the 5000. The only serious difficulty in this elimination of the second feeding is the record in Mk S'"-'"' (cf. Mt le"- '»), according to which Jesus is made to refer to the two feedings as separate events. The denial of the second would