PART X, SECTION IV
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
THE LAW
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
For a list of previous parts of Diatessarica, see pp. 574 5] of
this volume.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
EonUon: FETTER LANE, E.G.
lElrinburflj): 100 PRINCES STREET
$efo ^orfe: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
, Calcutta anU iJSaUras : MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
All rights reserved
X?*
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
I SECTION IV
THE LAW
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
BY
EDWIN A. ABBOTT
Honorary Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge
Fellow of the British Academy
''Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ"
The Epistle to the Galatians, vi. 2.
Cambridge :
at the University Press
1916
(Tamim'lrge :
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
THE subject with which this volume begins is Christ's
teaching in parables and His object in thus teaching.
The subject with which it concludes (or draws towards its
conclusion) is Christ's precept to His typical follower:
"Let him deny himself and take up his cross." There
are few Synoptic traditions that are more obscure as to
their meaning and origin than these two. An attempt
will be made in the following pages to shew that the
Fourth Evangelist, who nowhere mentions the word
"parable," and who nowhere represents Jesus as mentioning
the word "cross," constantly refers to Christian thoughts
about both these terms, and helps us not only to under-
stand why he, the writer, left the terms unmentioned,
but also to draw nearer to what we may believe to have
been thought about them by our Lord Himself.
Mark's Gospel is taken as the starting point for inves-
tigation, for three reasons, first, because it has been proved
to contain Synoptic tradition in its earliest form, secondly,
because Matthew and Luke have largely borrowed from it,
and thirdly, for a reason that cannot be quite so briefly
expressed.
It is, that Mark appears to have been, to a surprising
extent, let alone by early editors and scribes. Victor of
Antioch, writing not earlier than the fifth century, complains
that Mark's is the only Gospel on which he has not been
able to find a single continuous commentary. The result
is that Mark often retains, in a brief, rough, and obscure
shape, some tradition, altered or omitted in Matthew, and
PREFACE
still more frequently in Luke, which takes us back, clc
than we are taken by their later and smoother traditions,
to the original thought.
In these cases, where the thought is of importance,
John often intervenes in such a way that he explains
Mark's tradition. The instances of intervention are so
frequent that it has been found expedient to regard such
Johannine intervention as a rule, and to undertake the
task of discussing all important exceptions.
This has added greatly to the bulk of the work, and
must add not a little to the labour of the reader. But it
seemed the only fair course. To select some twenty or
thirty instances where John obviously intervenes in behalf
of Mark would have, been easy, brief, and momentarily
effective. But it would have left the thoughtful reader
unsatisfied and inquiring after he had had time to
reflect "But what about those instances of peculiar
Marcan tradition where John has not intervened?"
By the inclusive method adopted in these pages that
question is anticipated and answered. The answer is
"The instances of peculiar Marcan tradition are all given.
Sometimes it is admitted as, for example, in traditions
relating to the Baptist that John has not intervened.
Sometimes you may think that non-intervention ought to
have been admitted more freely as to other matters.
Sometimes the evidence for intervention may appear to
you thin, tedious, and unsatisfactory. But in any case
you cannot complain that anything is kept back. The
phenomena unfavourable to the theory of Johannine Inter-
vention are to be found in the continuous text of Mark
which you can compare with the texts of Matthew and
Luke in parallel columns. You can judge for yourself.
The facts are placed fully before you."
VI
PREFACE
Take, as an instance, the following tradition about
parables, where Matthew omits part, and Luke the whole,
of a tradition in Mark :
Mt. xiii. 34
All these things
spake Jesus in par-
ables unto the multi-
tudes; and without
a parable spake he
nothing unto them.
Mk iv. 33 4 Mt. xiii. 34 Lk. om.
And with many
such parables spake
he the word unto
them, as they were
able to hear it :
And without a
parable spake he
not unto them : but
privately to his own
disciples he expounded
all things.
John substitutes the word "proverb" for "parable"
when he says about the allegorical parable of the Good
Shepherd "This proverb [i.e. parable] spake he unto them."
He also represents Jesus as saying, on the night before
the Crucifixion, "These things have I spoken unto you in
proverbs [i.e. parables]', the hour cometh when I shall no
longer speak unto you in proverbs [i.e. parables] but shall
tell you plainly of the Father." But the substitution of
a different word does not affect the inference that John
is here intervening as to Synoptic thought. We shall
endeavour to shew that his object was to modify, explain,
and place in its right order, the Marcan tradition omitted
partially by Matthew and wholly by Luke.
It will be maintained that in the Fourth Gospel all
Christ's teaching is regarded as having been of the nature of
parables, proverbs, or dark sayings, to His disciples, until
the Holy Spirit was given to them after His death and
resurrection. According to this view, Mark's tradition
Vll
PREFACE
needed to be placed later. It was a mistake to suppose
that Jesus used parables at any time to make His teaching
obscure. The obscurity was a necessity. In that case,
we may suppose John's interpretation of the motives of
Jesus, and of the historical fact at the bottom of Mark's
tradition, to have been something of the following, kind :
"All the words of the Lord Jesus before His death, not
only those to the multitudes but also those to His disciples,
were of the nature of parables or proverbs, which He spoke
unto them 'as they were able to hear,' in order to lead
those who were willing to be led, step by step, to the
truth. But after His resurrection, after He had been
manifested to those of His household, the disciples, and
after He had bestowed on them the Holy Spirit, from
that time forward He spoke no longer in parables but told
them plainly of the Father. Mark's tradition is based on
fact. But he has placed it before its time. The fact
became fact after the Lord had risen from the dead."
Whether this Johannine intervention is correct is a
point to be discussed later on. The point for us at present
is that John does appear to intervene, and that we ought
not to allow his intervention as to Synoptic thought about
"parables" to be concealed from us by the fact that he
avoids (as he almost always does) the technical Synoptic
word. It may also be added that, whether John is right
or wrong, we gain something by studying the difficult
Synoptic statements about Christ's parables in the light
of his intervention.
Let us now consider what, if anything, John has to
teach us about the second of the two subjects mentioned
at the beginning of this Preface, the command that bids
every Christian "take up his cross." At first sight it
seems that there is nothing Johannine that even remotely
PREFACE
corresponds to this. But it has been urged in a previous
part of Diatessarica that when Jesus said "Take my yoke
upon you/' that is to say, "Take my service upon you,"
He implied a precept that might be expressed in
some circumstances (where the "service" was hard and
dangerous) by the phrase "take my cross upon you."
The original may not have enjoined, and probably did not
enjoin, mere readiness to face death. It enjoined service
to the Son of Man, including service to all the sons of man
whom He came to serve and to save.
Turning to the Fourth Gospel for some command or
precept of this kind some precept enjoining service such
as the Son of Man enjoined many of my readers may be
surprised to find how few commands or precepts that
Gospel contains not more than three or four as com-
pared with the numerous commands recorded by the
Synoptists. Among these three or four by far the most
prominent is that one which Jesus Himself literally fulfilled
for His disciples and then bade them fulfil for one another :
"If I then, the Lord and the Master, have washed your
feet, ye also ought" literally, "ye owe it as a debt"
"to wash one another's feet."
Even this precept is not expressed by an imperative.
The Fourth Evangelist dislikes imperatives. Yet how
much more than an ordinary imperative is implied by this
" owe-it-as-a-debt " may be seen from the Johannine
Epistle, which tells every Christian that "he owes-it-as-a-
debt to walk even as he [i.e. Jesus] walked," and that "we
owe-it-as-a-debt to love one another," and "Hereby know
we love because he [i.e. Jesus] laid down his life for us,
and we also owe-it-as-a-debt to lay down our lives for the
brethren." To the same effect the Epistle to the Romans
says "Owe not a debt to anyone except to love one another,"
ix a 5
PREFACE
and "We that are strong owe-it-as-a-debt to bear t]
weaknesses of those that are not strong."
It may be fairly and reasonably argued that, when
John describes Jesus as thus ministering to His own dis-
ciples, who recline at the table while He waits on them
like a servant, he has in view the tradition of Mark am
Matthew, omitted by Luke, "Verily the Son of man came
not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give
his life a ransom for many." But, apart from this, we
ought to learn much from these Johannine traditions
about " owing-as-a-debt." They connect the "debt" of a
Christian with Christ's "washing the feet" of the disciples;
and with "walking" even as He walked (that is to say
"following" Him); and with "loving one another"; and
with "laying down life for the brethren." Is not this
last phrase equivalent to "taking up the cross for the
brethren"? And are we not thus brought round by these
stages of tradition from the Johannine precept "wash one
another's feet " to the Synoptic precept "take up the cross"
with this new light on the latter, that we perceive its
meaning to be, not, "Face martyrdom, and practise
asceticism that you may save your own souls," but "Follow
the Son of Man whose love of men constrained Him to
make Himself the Servant of those whom He loved"?
It may seem somewhat venturesome to say that Jesus
was "constrained" to do anything. But in reality it is
more reverent, as well as more true, than to say that He
"was not constrained to do anything," or that He "could
do as He pleased." The expressed doctrine of the Fourth
Gospel is that Jesus "was not able to do" anything except
that which He saw the Father doing. And its implied
doctrine is, that the Son, being the incarnate Love of God,
was constrained by His own love to take up the yoke, or
PREFACE
the cross, and to lay down His life for His brethren, to
whom, when He departed from them, He bequeathed
Himself, that is to say, the Spirit of His own " constraining"
love.
The great need of Christendom, at the present time,
is the sense, or rather the indwelling fervour, of this con-
straining love. The Fourth Evangelist and the Apostle of
the Gentiles both speak of it as a "debt." And "debt"
may seem a- cold word to connect with love. So also may
"constraint." But there is no coldness in the Pauline
words "The love of Christ constraineth us: because we
thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and
he died for all, that those who live should no longer live
unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died
and rose again." John takes this fervid doctrine a little
further by saying, in effect, that men "should no longer
live unto themselves but unto the brethren for whose sake
Christ died."
Thinking of this debt, as expressed by these two great
exponents of Christian thought, we perceive at once that
it is not of a commercial character. It may be in-
structively (though not completely) regarded in a military
aspect, as the debt owed by the soldiers of the army of
righteousness, in the first place to their Leader the Prince
of righteousness who both died for them as their comrade,
and led them to victory as their Lord and in the second
place to their fellow-soldiers, whom their Leader identified
with Himself. Even men of the world would admit that
Christians, if they believed in the existence of such a debt,
ought to regard it as "a debt of honour." Yet how very
far are those who are striving to become "sons of the
light" below those who frankly admit that they are "sons
of this world," in feeling a whole-hearted and passionate
xi
PREFACE
determination that, whatever else may remain unpaic
their "debt of honour" shall be discharged!
To inspire Christians with a passionate determination
of this kind, passionate yet not military merging duty in
love, and "I must" in "I will" is (doubtless) the object
of all the Evangelists. But the Fourth, more than the
Three, seems to reveal Jesus as the natural source of such
an inspiration. The Three teach us about the Law of the
Seed and about the Law of the Cross, but separately, and
without much suggestion of their naturalness, or of any
connection between the two. The Fourth combines tl
doctrines, shewing (in one and the same lesson) that the
seed must fall in order to rise, and that the death implied
by the Cross means self-sacrifice for others, not asceticism
for oneself. The seed is drawn up by the sun from the
darkness of its decaying integument into light, life, and
fruitfulness ; so is the crucified and buried Saviour drawn
up to the Father, with power to draw up into Himself and
into His eternal life the souls of those who have shared
His death.
Hence it is that from the Fourth Gospel imperatives are
almost banished, and commands in it are almost superseded
by silent drawing. The "almost" is required by a notable
exception the last of the few Johannine imperatives,
"Follow thou me." As this command was addressed to
Philip at the opening of the Gospel, so it is to the penitent
Peter at its close.
The exception is indeed noteworthy. But we should
also note, in the same passage, an instance of silent "draw-
ing." For there we find, besides Peter, another disciple
following Jesus; and he follows uncommanded. What
made him follow ? We are not told. But we are led, with
Johannine indirectness, to surmise the cause. "Peter,
Xll
PREFACE
turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following/'
We must be dull indeed if we cannot infer that the cause
of that "following" was Christ's "constraining love."
With the following of this unnamed disciple the following
of Peter appears to be both compared and contrasted.
Peter is to have the privilege of "glorifying God" by the
"manner" of his "death." This probably means that he
is to follow literally on the path of the Cross, and to be
a crucified martyr. In any case it means that he is to be
a martyr that is to say, a martus, or "witness."
The other disciple is to have no such privilege of special
following. Perhaps he is not to follow at all in any such
sense but merely to wait ("If I will that he tarry?").
Tertullian said, "The blood of Christians is seed." If that
were the only seed, the unnamed disciple would be no sower.
But may not the life and work of Christians also be " seed " ?
May not this also "witness" for Christ? The Gospel
implies that it may. The unnamed disciple, it says,
"witnesses" in a way of his own: "This is the disciple
that witnesseth concerning these things, and we know that
his witness is true."
And surely, whatever may be its historical defects,
"his witness is true" spiritually, most true. No other
disciple of Christ, not even Paul, has so powerfully helped
us to discern, in the words and deeds and posthumous
influence of Jesus, the Law of the Seed and the Law of the
Cross, and to recognise, beneath both, the Law of eternal
Life and Growth revealed as triumphant through the
transitory appearances of death.
Xlll
PREFACE
I gratefully acknowledge the help of my friends Mr
W. S. Aldis, Mr H. Candler, and Rev. J. Hunter Smith in
revising the proofs of this volume, as also those of preceding
volumes of Diatessarica. Their criticism has enabled me
to see and to correct many obscurities, and some errors,
that would otherwise have escaped my notice.
EDWIN A. ABBOTT.
Wellside, Well Walk
Hampstead, N.W.
20 Dec. 1915.
xiv
CONTENTS
PAGE
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS ..... xxi
CHAPTER I
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
[Mark iv. I 34]
i Christ's " parables " or " things hidden " ... i
2 "Hear ye," in Mark . 8
3 When did the disciples "ask Jesus the parables"? . 10
4 "The mystery of the kingdom," in Mark ... 15
5 "The word," in Mark . ...... 19
6 "The word," in John, how first mentioned by Jesus . 21
7 "There is nothing hid save that it should be mani-
fested," in Mark ....... 27
8 "He knoweth not how," and "the earth beareth fruit
of herself," in Mark 36
9 "Less than all the seeds," and "greater than all the
herbs," in Mark and Matthew . . . . . 41
10 Private "expounding," in Mark ..... 45
11 "The word," in the Fourth Gospel as a whole . 49
CHAPTER II
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
[Mark iv. 35 41]
i Why does John omit this? ..... 52
2 (R.V.) "They take him with them, even as he was, in
the boat," in Mark . . ... . . 55
3 "And other boats were with him," in Mark . . 60
4 "On the cushion," in Mark ..... 62
CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
[Mark v. i 20]
PAGE
i Reasons for discussing this narrative .... 66
2 "Gerasenes," "Gadarenes," or "Gergesenes" . . 71
3 "Two" demoniacs in Matthew, and "two thousand"
swine in Mark ........ 74
4 Why does Matthew omit " legion "? .... 75
5 "Beseeching," "exhorting," or "comforting" . . 78
6 Versions of the narrative in an Apocryphal Gospel . 82
7 "Outside the country" in Mark, and "into the abyss"
in Luke 86
8 "Outside," applied to the "casting out" of "the ruler
of this world," in John 89
CHAPTER IV
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
[Mark v. 21 43]
i Differences in the Synoptic narratives ... 94
2 "Knowing that she was dead" in Luke, "Lazarus is
dead "in John . .... 100
CHAPTER V
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
[Mark vi. i 6 a]
i The agreements and disagreements of the Four
Gospels ......... 107
2 "His country" and "his own country," in all the
Gospels 109
3 "And his disciples follow him," in Mark . . . in
4 "Were astonished" in Mark and Matthew, how
expressed in Luke . . . . . . . 113
5 "Cast down a precipice" and "hang," confused in a
version of Luke . . . . . . . 115
6 Attempts on Christ's life, in John . . . . 118
7 " Wisdom " and " mighty works," in Mark and Matthew 1 19
8 "The carpenter," in Mark and Matthew . . . 120
9 "Offended," in the Synoptists 124
10 "Offended," in John 128
xvi
CONTENTS
PAGE
11 "Not without-honour," in Mark and Matthew . . 133
12 "And he was not able to do there any mighty work,"
in Mark ......... 137
13 " And he marvelled because of their unbelief," in Mark 143
CHAPTER VI
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
[Mark vi. 6b 13]
i Johannine "sending of the apostles" .... 148
2 Jesus "going round the villages in a circle," in Mark . 152
3 "He began to send them out by two and two," in Mark 155
4 "Save a staff only," in Mark ..... 158
5 A parallel from the Essenes . . . . . 161
6 What corresponds to "the staff " in John? . . . 165
7 "Shod (R.V.) with sandals," in Mark . ... 167
8 What corresponds to " sandals " in John ? . . . 168
9 "Scrip," "girdle," "purse" . . . . . 170
10 "Anointing with oil," in Mark and James . . . 175
11 " The sin unto death " ...... 178
12 " Anointing " among the Jews ..... 180
13 " Anointing [with oil] " metaphorical .... 183
14 "Many that were infirm," in Mark .... 184
15 Johannine tradition . . . . . . . 187
CHAPTER VII
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
[Mark vi. 14 29]
i What was said after the Baptist's death . . . 190
2 The cause of the Baptist's death . . . . 195
CHAPTER VIII
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
[Mark vi. 29 44, and see vii. 24 ix. i]
i The complexity of the evidence ..... 203
2 Traces of metaphor underlying the narratives about the
"baskets" ........ 209
3 The immediate sequel of John the Baptist's death . 216
4 "And he saith unto them, Come ye... and rest a
little," in Mark 219
xvii
CONTENTS
PAGE
5 "Come ye, [by] yourselves, apart, into a desert place,"
in Mark 223
6 The concourse of "many," in Mark .... 226
7 "They had no leisure so much as to eat," in Mark 233
8 "To a desert place apart," in Mark and Matthew . 237
9 "In the boat," in Mark ...... 241
10 Signs of conflation in Mark ...... 243
11 "On foot," in Mark and Matthew .... 245
12 "He had compassion," in Mark and Matthew . . 247
13 "They were as sheep not having a shepherd," in Mark
and Matthew 252
14 "Shepherd" (sing.) nowhere mentioned by Luke . 254
15 "And he began to teach them many things," in Mark 256
16 "When the day was now far spent," in Mark . . 261
17 "They continue with me now three days," in Mark
and Matthew 263
1 8 "Buying" or "Whence?" 269
19 "Two hundred pennyworth," in Mark and John . 274
20 "How many loaves have ye? Go [and] see," in Mark 283
21 "There is a lad here," in John ..... 286
22 "Here," in all the Gospels . . 294
23 "By companies," "by ranks," in Mark . . . 296
24 "On the green grass," in Mark . 302
25 "By hundreds and by fifties," in Mark 309
26 "Taking," "blessing," and "looking up to heaven" . 315
27 "Breaking in pieces" or "breaking" . 321
28 "And the two fishes he divided among [them] all," in
Mark 328
29 "Twelve basketfuls" (R.V.), in Mark . 336
30 "They that ate the loaves," in Mark . . 344
31 " Five thousand men " or " about five thousand [men] " 348
32 Irenaeus and Origen on the "five thousand" in the
Acts, and Clement of Alexandria on the " five loaves " 352
33 "Give ye them to eat," why omitted by John . 355
34 "Eating" in the presence of the Lord . . 357
35 "That he should give something to the poor," in John 360
36 "We all partake of the one loaf" . . . 3 6 3
37 " Jesus... taketh the loaf and giveth to them," in John 365
38 Christ's "leaven" .... 37
39 The passionateness of the Eucharist . 375
40 The "kiss of love" ... 37 8
41 " Testament " or " Covenant " . 384
42 " Testament " in the Gospels 392
xvin
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
[Mark vi. 45 52]
PAGE
i The sequel of the Feeding of the Five Thousand 403
2 Christ's journeying in North Palestine . 407
3 "Having (?) bidden them farewell," in Mark . . 413
4 "Distressed" and "the fourth watch of the night," in
Mark and Matthew . . . . . 418
5 " Distressed," differently applied in Mark and Matthew 421
6 How Peter "was grieved" by Jesus .... 426
7 "For they all saw him," in Mark . . . 429
8 "An apparition," in Mark and Matthew . . . 430
9 "But their heart was hardened," in Mark . . . 438
CHAPTER X
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
[Mark vi. 53 vii. 23]
i Jesus is followed at first by the multitudes . . 442
2 Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees concerning the
washing of hands ....... 445
3 The reply of Jesus to the Pharisees, in Mark and
Matthew . . . . . . . . . 451
4 The doctrine of Jesus on "purifying," in Matthew and
Luke . . . . . . . ... . 455
5 Johannine Intervention ...... 458
CHAPTER XI
THE NEW LAW OF SACRIFICE
[Mark vii. 24 ix. i 1 ]
i The Syrophoenician woman ..... 464
2 The first "sighing" of Jesus, in Mark . . . 467
3 The second "sighing" of Jesus, in Mark . . . 474
4 The disciples are said for the second time to have their
"heart hardened," in Mark ..... 478
5 Jesus lays His hands twice on a blind man and heals
him, in Mark ........ 483
1 See p. 464. n. *.
xix
CONTENTS
PAGE
6 The Johannine healing of blindness .... 489
7 "Prophet," "Son of Man," "Christ" .... 493
8 "Get thee behind me, Satan," in Mark and Matthew . 498
9 Variations in the expression of the New Law . . 501
10 " Denying oneself " ....... 506
11 " Taking up the cross " and " following " . . . 507
12 "For my sake and the gospel's," in Mark . . . 511
13 " For what could a man give in exchange for his soul ? "
in Mark and Matthew . . . . . . 512
14 "In this adulterous... generation," in Mark . . . 515
15 "With the angels that are holy," in Mark . . . 518
1 6 "When he cometh in the glory of his Father" . . 522
INDICES
I Scriptural Passages . . . . . . . 520
II English . 543
III Greek 570
xx
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
(i) a. References to the first nine Parts of Diatessarica (as to which
see pp. 574 5) are by paragraphs in black Arabic numbers :
1 272 = Clue.
273 552 = Corrections of Mark.
553 1149 = From Letter to Spirit.
1150 1435 = Paradosis.
1436 1885 = Johannine Vocabulary.
1886 2799 = Johannine Grammar.
2800 2999 = Notes on New Testament Criticism.
30003635 = The Son of Man.
3636 3999 = Light on the Gospel from an ancient Poet.
(i) b. References to the Sections of the Tenth Part of Diatessarica,
entitled The Fourfold Gospel, are by pages. The four Sections
now completed are :
(Section i) Introduction.
(Section 2) The Beginning.
(Section 3) The Proclamation of the New Kingdom.
(Section 4) The Law of the New Kingdom.
(ii) The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary
abbreviations, except where specified below. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer,
wrote this or that, it is to be understood as meaning the writer,
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as meaning
that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.
(iii) The principal Greek MSS are denoted by X, A, B, etc. ;
the Latin versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version
discovered by Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, i.e.
"Sinaitic Syrian." It is always quoted from Prof. Burkitt's
translation. I regret that in the first three vols. of Diates-
sarica Mrs Lewis's name was omitted in connection with this
version.
(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B,
edited by Prof. Swete; of the New, that of Westcott and
Hort.
(v) Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or
author, vol., and page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. vol. iii. p. 343,
col. i.
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
Aq. = Aquila's version of O.T.
Brederek = Brederek's Konkordanz zum Tar gum Onkelos, Giessen,
1906.
Burk. = Prof. F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-mepharreshe t
Cambridge University Press, 1904.
Chr. = Chronicles.
Clem. Alex. 42 = Clement of Alexandria in Potter's page 42.
Dalman, Words = Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902; Aram.
G. = Grammatik des Jiidisch-Paldstinischen Aramdisch, 1894.
En. = Enoch ed. Charles, Clarendon Press, 1893.
Ency. = Encyclopaedia Biblica, A. & C. Black, 1899.
Ephrem = Ephraemus Syrus, ed. Moesinger.
Etheridge = Etheridge's translations of the Targums on the
Pentateuch.
Euseb. = the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
Field = Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford, 1875, also
Otium Norvicense, 1881.
Gesen. = the Oxford edition of Gesenius.
Goldschm. = Der Babylonische Talmud, 1897 1912, ed. Gold-
schmidt.
Goodspeed = Goodspeed's Indices, (i) Patristicus, Leipzig, 1907,
(ii) Apologeticus, Leipzig, 1912.
Hastings = Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Hastings (5 vols.).
Hor. Heb. = Horae Hebraicae, by John Light foot, 1658 74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.
Iren. = the treatise of Irenaeus against Heresies.
Jer. Targ. or Targ. Jer. (abbrev. for Jerusalem Targum), or Jon.
Targ. (i.e. Targum of Jonathan, abbrev. for the Targum of Pseudo-
Jonathan) = the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch, of
which there are two recensions both quoted (Notes on N.T. Criticism,
Pref. p. viii) by ancient authorities under the name "Jerusalem
Targum." The two recensions are severally denoted by Jer. I and
Jer. II. On other books, the Targum is referred to as simply " Targ."
Jon. Targ., see Jer. Targ.
Justin = Justin Martyr (Apol. = his First Apology, Tryph. = the
Dialogue with Trypho) .
K. = Kings.
Krauss = Krauss's Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter etc.,
Part n, Berlin, 1899.
xxn
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Levy = Levy's Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches Worterbuch,
4 vols., Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. = Chalddisches Worterbuch, 2 vols.,
1881.
L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.
Mechilta, see Wii(nsche).
Onk. = the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch.
Origen is referred to variously, e.g. Horn. Exod. ii. 25 = lib. ii.
ch. 25 of Horn. Exod., but Orig. on Exod. ii. 25 = the commentary
ad loc. ; Lomm. iii. 24 = vol. iii. p. 24 of Lommatzsch's edition.
Oxf. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.
Pec. = peculiar to the writer mentioned in the context.
Pesikta, see Wii(nsche).
Philo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii.
234, or, as to Latin treatises, by the Scripture text or Aucher's
pages (P. A.).
Pistis = Pistis Sophia, ed. Petermann (marginal pages).
Ps. Sol. = Psalms of Solomon, ed. Ryle and James, Cambr. 1891.
R., after Gen., Exod., Lev. etc. means Rabboth, and refers to
Wiinsche's edition of the Midrash on the Pentateuch, e.g. Gen. r.
(on Gen. xii. 2, Wii. p. 177).
Rashi, sometimes quoted from Breithaupt's translation, 1714.
S. = Samuel; s. = "see."
Schottg. = Schottgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig,
1733.
Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly
called Ecclesiasticus (see Clue 20 a). The original Hebrew used in
this work is that which has been edited, in part, by Cowley and
Neubauer, Oxf. 1897; in part, by Schechter and Taylor, Cambr.
1899; in part, by G. Margoliouth, Jewish Quart. Rev., Oct. 1899
(also printed in About Hebrew Manuscripts (Frowde, 1905) by
Mr E. N. Adler, who discovered the missing chapters).
SS, see (iii) above.
Steph. Thes. = Stephani Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (Didot).
Sym. = Symmachus's version of O.T.
Targ. (by itself) is used where only one Targum is extant on the
passage quoted.
Targ. Jer., Targ. Jon., and Targ. Onk., see Jer. Targ., Jon. Targ.,
and Onk., above.
Tehillim = Midrash on Psalms, ed. Wiinsche (2 vols.).
Test, xii Patr. = Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ed.
Charles, 1908 (Gk, Clarendon Press, Eng., A. & C. Black).
Theod. = Theodotion's version of O.T.
Thes. Syr. = Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxf. 1901.
Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Tryph. = the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the
Jew.
Walton = Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 1657.
Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam,
W.H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.
Wii. = Wiinsche's translation of Rabboth etc., 1880 1909
(including Mechilta, Pesikta Rab Kahana, Tehillim etc.).
(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following Mk, Mt., etc. indicates
the number of instances in which a word occurs in Mark, Matthew,
etc., e.g. dydTTTi Mk (o), Mt. (i), Lk. (i), Jn (7).
(b) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R.V. is given alone.
(c) In transliterating a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac word,
preference has often, but not invariably, been given to that form
which best reveals the connection between the word in question and
forms of it familiar to English readers. Where a word is not trans-
literated, it is often indicated (for the sake of experts) by a reference
to Gesen., Thes. Syr., Levy, or Levy Ch.
xxiv
CHAPTER I
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
[Mark iv. i 34]
i. Christ's "parables" or "things hidden*"
MATTHEW concludes his exposition of what he calls Christ's
"parables" with the words "That it might be fulfilled which
1 In this chapter it has not been found possible to treat of small
differences of expression in the Synoptic texts printed below. One
of them the passage where Luke (viii. 13) substitutes "in time of
temptation they fall away," for the tradition of Mark (closely
followed by Matthew) "When tribulation or persecution arise th
because of the word, straightway they stumble" will be referred to
later on in discussing Mk vi. 3 "and they were off ended in him."
The present chapter does not enter into verbal detail except where
some Marcan phrase omitted or altered by Luke demands con-
sideration.
In the parallel passages p "in ted below, and for the most part
in others printed in footnotes, ,l.V. text is followed (with a very few
occasional deviations indicated by brackets) as being convenient for
rapid reference enabling the reader to take a broad view of the
subject under consideration. But in the detailed study of the
Greek text, R.V. text is frequently departed from.
Here and elsewhere the parallel Synoptic texts are printed below in
full, not for continuous reading along with the remarks made above,
but for the convenience of rapid reference when the reader desires
to know the context of any passage under discussion.
Mk iv. i2o (R.V.) Mt. xiii. 123 (R.V.) Lk. viii. 415 (R.V.)
(i) And again he (i) On that day (4) And when a
began to teach by the went Jesus out of the great multitude came
sea side. And there house, and sat by the together, and they
is gathered unto him sea side. of every city resorted
a very great multi- (2) And there unto him, he spake
tude, so that he en- were gathered unto by a parable:
tered into a boat, and him great multitudes,
A. L. i (Mark iv. i 20) i
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
was spoken by the prophet, saying, ' I will open my mouth in
Mk iv. i2o (R.V.)
contd.
sat in the sea; and
all the multitude
were by the sea on
the land.
(2) And he taught
them many things in
parables, and said
unto them in his
teaching,
(3) Hearken : Be-
hold, the sower went
forth to sow:
(4) And it came
to pass, as he sowed,
some [seed] fell by
the way side, and
the birds came and
devoured it.
(5) And other
fell on the rocky
[ground] , where it
had not much earth ;
and straightway it
sprang up, because it
had no deepness of
earth :
(6) And when the
sun was risen, it was
scorched ; and be-
cause it had no root,
it withered away.
(7) And other fell
among the thorns*
and the thorns grew
up, and choked it,
and it yielded no
fruit.
(8) And others fell
into the good ground,
and yielded fruit,
growing up and
increasing ; and
brought forth, thirty-
fold, and sixty fold,
and a hundredfold.
(9) And he said,
Who hath ears to
hear, let him hear.
(10) And when he
was alone, they that
Mt. xiii. i 23 (R.V.)
contd.
so that he entered
into a boat, and sat ;
and all the multitude
stood on the beach.
(3) And he spake
to them many things
in parables, saying,
Behold, the sower
went forth to sow ;
(4) And as he
sowed, some [seeds]
fell by the way side,
and the birds came
and devoured them :
(5) And others
fell upon the rocky
places, where they
had not much earth :
and straightway they
sprang up, because
they had no deepness
of earth:
(6) And when the
sun was risen, they
were scorched; and
because they had no
root, they withered
away.
(7) And others fell
upon the thorns ; and
the thorns grew up,
and choked them:
(8) And others
fell upon the good
ground, and yielded
fruit, some a hun-
dredfold, some sixty,
some thirty.
(9) He that hath
ears (some anc. auth.
add to hear), let him
hear.
(10) And the dis-
ciples came, and said
Lk. viii. 4 15 (R.V.)
contd.
(5) The sower
went forth to sow his
seed : and as he
sowed, some fell by
the way side ; and it
was trodden under
foot, and the birds
of the heaven de-
voured it.
(6) And other
fell on the rock ; and
as soon as it grew,
it withered away
because it had no
moisture.
(7) And other fell
amidst the thorns ;
and the thorns grew
with it, and choked
it.
(8) And other fell
into the good ground,
and grew, and
brought forth fruit a
hundredfold. As he
said these things, he
cried, He that hath
ears to hear, let him
hear.
(9) And his dis-
ciples asked him
2 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
parables, I will utter [things] hidden from the foundation [of the
Mk iv. i2o (R.V.)
contd.
were about him with
the twelve asked of
him the parables.
(n) And he said
unto them, Unto you
is given the mystery
of the kingdom of
God : but unto them
that are without, all
things are done in
parables :
(12) That seeing
they may see, and
not perceive ; and
hearing they may
hear, and not under-
stand ; lest haply
they should turn
again, and it should
be forgiven them.
(13) And he saith
unto them, Know ye
not this parable ? and
how shall ye know
all the parables?
(14) The sower
soweth the word.
(15) And these
are they by the way
side, where the word
is sown; and when
they have heard,
straightway cometh
Satan, and taketh
away the word which
hath been sown in
them.
(16) And these
in like manner are
they that are sown
upon the rocky
[places], who, when
they have heard the
word, straightway
receive (Xa^dvova-tv)
it with joy;
(17) And they
have no root in them-
selves, but endure
Mt. xiii. 123 (R.V.)
contd.
unto him, Why
speakest thou unto
them in parables ?
(n) And he an-
swered and said unto
them, Unto you it is
given to know the
mysteries of the king-
dom of heaven, but
to them it is not
given.
(12) For whoso-
ever hath, ... to him . . .
(13) Therefore
speak I to them in
parables ; because
seeing they see not,
and hearing they hear
not, neither do they
understand.
(15) ...Lest haply
they should... and
should turn again,
and I should heal
them.
(18) Hear then
ye the parable of the
sower.
(19) When any
one heareth the word
of the kingdom, and
understandeth it not,
[then] cometh the
evil [one] , and
snatcheth away that
which hath been sown
in his heart. This is
he that was sown by
the way side.
(20) And he that
was sown upon the
rocky places, this is
he that heareth the
word, and straight-
way with joy receiv-
eth (Xa^/3ai/<wi') it;
(21) Yet hath he
Lk. viii. 415 (R.V.)
contd.
what this parable
might be.
(10) And he said,
Unto you it is given
to know the mys-
teries of the kingdom
of God: but to the
rest in parables ; that
seeing they may not
see, and hearing they
may not understand.
(n) Now the
parable is this : The
seed is the word of
God.
(12) And those
by the way side are
they that have heard ;
then cometh the
devil, and taketh
away the word from
their heart, that they
may not believe and
be saved.
(13) And those
on the rock [are] they
which, when they
have heard, receive
(dfxvTcu) the word
with joy; and these
have no root, which
for a while believe,
3 (Mark iv. i 20)
I 2
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
world] 1 .'" This is a free quotation from a Psalm of Asaph, "I
will open my mouth in a parable 2 , I will utter enigmas, or,
riddles of old 8 ." The "riddles" appear to be the mysterious
dispensations by which God is described in this long Psalm as
Mk iv. 120 (R.V.)
contd.
for a while; then,
when tribulation or
persecution ariseth
because of the word,
straightway they
stumble.
(18) And others
are they that are
sown among the
thorns ; these are
they that have heard
the word,
(19) And the cares
of the world (or, age),
and the deceitfulness
of riches, and the
lusts of other things
entering in, choke
the word, and it be-
cometh unfruitful.
(20) And those
are they that were
sown upon the good
ground ; such as hear
the word, and accept
it, and bear fruit,
thirtyfold, and sixty-
fold, and a hundred-
fold.
Mt. xiii. 123 (R.V.) Lk. viii. 415 (R.V.*)
contd. contd.
not root in himself,
but endureth for a
while ; and when
tribulation or perse-
cution ariseth be-
cause of the word,
straightway he stum-
bleth.
(22) And he that
was sown among the
thorns, this is he that
heareth the word ;
and the care of the
world (or, age), and
the deceitfulness of
riches, choke the
word, and he be-
cometh unfruitful.
(23) And he that
was sown upon the
good ground, this is
he that heareth the
word, and under-
standeth it ; who
verily beareth fruit,
and bringeth forth,
some a hundredfold,
some sixty, some
thirty.
and in time of temp-
tation fall away.
(14) And that
which fell among the
thorns, these are they
that have heard, and
as they go on their
way they are choked
with cares and riches
and pleasures of [this]
life, and bring no
fruit to perfection.
(15) And that in
the good ground,
these are such as in
an honest and good
heart, having heard
the word, hold it
fast, and bring forth
fruit with patience.
Mt. xiii. 35
o) eV Trapa/SoXaT? TO oro/ia ftov, pevop.a.i K<pvp.p,fva
2 Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (LXX) dvoigv eV irapafto\aLS (Aq. eV napaftoXf),
Sym. Sia irapoip,ias) TO trro/Lta fj.ov.
3 Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (LXX) <$e-yo^at 7rpo^3Xi7/iara OTT' apx^S 1 , Aq. ofj.ftpr)cr<t)
alviyp-ara e ap^fjdfv^ Sym. ai>a/3Xu(ra> rrpoj3\r]p.aTa dp^ala. The Heb.
m*n=atrryf*a (4), St^y^/za or dt^yrja'is (2), Trpo/SX^/xa (10).
(Judg. xiv. 12 19) means (8 times) "riddle." In Ps. xlix. 4 "I
will open my enigma on the harp," the "enigma" appears to be the
temporary prosperity of those who fear not God and who are (ib. 20)
'like the beasts that perish." Matthew paraphrases "riddle" as
4 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
permitting Israel to rebel against Him and to need His
chastening in the course of their national growth. The growth
went on, but, along with it, there went apparent waste. Isaiah
puts such a "riddle" venturesomely before us when he repre-
sents Israel as crying "O Lord, why dost thou make us to err
from thy ways, and hardenest our heart from thy fear 1 ?"
Isaiah also writes "Thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God
of Israel, the Saviour 2 "; and he represents even the Chosen
Servant, in apparent discouragement, as saying or at all
events as having once said to the Lord "I have laboured in
vain, I have spent my strength for nought and vanity 3 ."
Jesus is brought before us by all the Synoptists, in the
Parable of the Sower, as recognising the danger of converting
the God of Israel into "a God that hides Himself." According
to Mark and Luke, He places this danger before His disciples
in language borrowed from Isaiah about a judicial sentence of
blindness ("in order that, seeing, they may see and yet not
But Paul retains the thought in i Cor. xiii. 12
yap (ipri 81 faroirrpov eV alviy^ari the Only N.T. instance of al
In Mk iv. II (Kfivoig e rot? eco ei> irapa8o\cus ra iravra yiWreu, "for
those outside all things take place in parables," ra TraVra yiWrai has a
force that seems to have escaped Matthew and Luke. The parables
were not wholly "parables" (that is, obscure sayings, as in Ezek.
xx. 49 " Doth he not speak parables (^fiJTD) ? ") to those who had some
power of spiritual hearing and seeing. Jesus endeavoured to teach
with clearness, as the actors in a play try to speak with clearness.
But "all things took place in parables" for those who were deaf
to the voice of the Spirit that inspired the Teacher. Similarly, for
the deaf, in a theatre, "all things take place in dumb show."
1 Is. Ixiii. 17 (where R.V. margin refers us to Is. vi. 10, and
Jn xii. 40). Ibn Ezra accepts the words on the ground that "God
is the highest, first cause of everything," but adds other expla-
nations.
2 Is. xlv. 15, where Ibn Ezra protests against the paraphrase
"an invisible God." Comp. ib. Ivii. 17 "For the iniquity of his
covetousness...! hid [myself]."
3 Is. xlix. 3 4 "He said unto me, Thou art my servant, Israel, in
whom I will be glorified. But I said, I have laboured "
5 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
behold") 1 . The language seems to represent the teaching by
parables as itself causing, and intended to cause, the blindness.
Matthew softens this. John, on the other hand, commenting
on the reasons why the Jews did not accept the teaching of
Jesus, says, "For this cause they were not able to believe, because
Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes and he hardened
their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with
their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them 2 ."
This "riddle," or "dark saying," about the "hardening"
of Israel's heart by God, is one side of what Paul calls a
" mystery " when he says to the Romans " I would not, brethren,
have you ignorant of this mystery . . . that a hardening in pi
hath befallen Israel 3 ." But there is another side, expressed in
the following words "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in" so that the "mystery," as a whole, means the issue of
good out of evil, and of redemption out of stumbling. The
recognition of this particular "mystery" is a comfort to Paul
as a teacher of the Gospel 4 . A similar recognition of the
general "mystery" of the Gospel's success through apparent
failure seems to be implied in the Parable of the Sower, or
rather in the explanation of it subsequently given by Jesus when
He says to the disciples in Mark "Unto you is given the
mystery of the kingdom of God." Justin Martyr says, in his
only reference to this Parable, "As my Lord said, 'The sower
went forth to sow the seed, and some fell . . . and some on good
ground'; I must speak, then, in the hope that there may be
1 So Mk iv. 12 with "in order that," iva...pfj ifioxm/ and sim. Lk.
viii. 10 Lva...p.fj /3XeVa>0-ii>, but Mt. xiii. 13 with "because," ort /SXtVoirfy
Oil f3\(TTOV(riV.
2 Jn xii. 39 40. Comp. ib. ix. 39 "For judgment came I into
this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see
may become blind," with the following question of the Pharisees
"Are we also blind?" and Christ's reply.
3 Rom. xi. 25.
4 Rom. xi. 25 33 concluding "O the depth of the riches both
of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! "
6 . (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
good ground somewhere 1 ." And Origen, quoting words peculiar
to Mark, "He that soweth soweth the word," says "Who are
they that sow? It is those who bring forth the word of God
in the Church. Let the teachers therefore hearken...," and
the context warns us that the word of God must not be "con-
taminated by those who sow it 2 ."
These two ancient references warn us against assuming
that the Parable of the Sower was intended merely to teach
every disciple of Christ to be on his guard against the evil
influences that might destroy the seed of the Gospel in his own
soul. It teaches that, but it teaches also more than that. It
is adapted for him as a preacher of the Gospel which every
disciple of Christ is supposed to be as well as for him as a
hearer of it. In the Psalm already referred to, Asaph begins
by saying "Give ear, O my people, to my law," and terminates
his "riddles," or "dark sayings," by shewing how Israel, through
innumerable failures, was led at last successfully into the fold
of its Shepherd 3 . Jesus, preparing His disciples to proclaim the
New Law, teaches them that there are as many phases of failure
as of success 4 ; and His allusion to Isaiah indicates that He
perceived Israel itself, the Chosen People with its bewildering
mixture of arrogance and ignorance, spiritual possibilities
and carnal realisations to be in some sense a failure and a
"riddle 5 ."
1 Tryph. 125.
2 Origen, Levit. Horn. xii. 7 (Lomm. ix. 396). Origen is referring
to the "contamination" mentioned in Lev. xxi. 14 15. But his
words suggest that the "birds" and "thorns" and other influences
that destroy the seed of the Gospel, might be mentioned in warnings
to teachers as well as to hearers.
3 Ps. Ixxviii. i, 70 72.
4 The three classes of success, recognised in Mk iv. 8 (Mt. xiii. 8),
Mkiv. 20 (Mt. xiii. 23) are not recognised in the parall. Lk. viii. 8, 15.
5 Compare Pope's sceptical couplet on Man as the angels regard
him :
"Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled,
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world."
Essay on Man, ii. 17 18.
7 (Mark iv. I 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
But every Hebrew prophet knew that there was to be a
solution to the "riddle" of Jehovah and a success through His
temporary appearances of failure, so that when Isaiah heard
the astounding message, "Make the heart of this people fat,
and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see
with their eyes, and hear with their ears," he answered at once,
"Lord, how long 1 ? " knowing that this was but a means to an
end. Jesus could not have fallen below this standard of
prophetic hopefulness. The three Synoptists have variously
reported His quotation of Isaiah's words, and the Fourth
Evangelist has quoted them in his own person in a separate
form 2 . These variations must be carefully studied. But we
must study them always on the lines of Hebrew and Jewish
thought, and always in adherence to the rule that, where the
Gospels vary, a difficult and rough Hebraistic tradition is
probably truer than a smooth Hellenistic form of it.
2. "Hear ye," in Mark 3
Matthew and Luke omit this, and so does the Diatessaron.
It might allude to the "hear thou" in Deuteronomy ("Hear
thou, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord 4 "). But there
would seem to be more appropriateness in an allusion to the
Psalm of Asaph above quoted "Hearken thou, O my people, to
my law. . . I will open my mouth in a parable*." Matthew and
1 Is. vi. 10 ii.
2 Jn xii. 40.
3 Mk iv. 2. 3 "...and said unto them in his teaching, Hearken
. . ." om. in Mt. xiii. 3, Lk. viii. 4 5. Comp. the answers
to the question as to which was the " first " or great commandment :
Mk xii. 29 (to "one of the scribes") "The first is, Hear (aicovc), O
Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and thou shalt love...,"
Mt. xxii. 37 (to "a lawyer") "Thou shalt love..." Luke, in a
different context, represents "a lawyer" as replying to Jesus (x. 27)
"Thou shalt love...," without the prefatory "hear."
4 Deut. vi. 4.
5 Ps. Ixxviii. I 2 LXX "attend ye (TT poo-e^ere) ," Aq. eva>ri(ov.
The Heb. = forms of a/covco (3), eV&>Tib/ii (26), irpo(Tf\(i) (7)-
8 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
Luke may have omitted " Hear ye " as being too strong a phrase
to introduce a single parable in a course of parabolic teaching
in which Jesus (as Mark and Matthew say) "taught" the people
"many things in parables." But if the parable introduces
a new spiritual "law" in which two kinds of "hearing" are
distinguished, and the right kind of "hearing" is regarded as
resulting in a regeneration of the hearer, then Mark is justified
in the prominence that he gives to the Saviour's initial com-
mand to "hearken."
John though he never represents Jesus as saying " Hearken
ye," or as quoting the formula "Hear, O Israel " distinguishes
in a very careful and subtle way between passive hearing and
receptive hearing 1 . When Jesus for the first time mentions
"hearing," it is in a dialogue with Nicodemus to whom He is
attempting to explain the doctrine of regeneration through the
Spirit 2 . After first stating it in general terms ("except any one
be born from above") He insists that it applies to Nicodemus
himself and to his associates, the Pharisees, who are deaf to
the inner meaning of the Spirit : "Marvel not that I said unto
thee that thou and thy associates* must be born from above. The
Spirit breatheth, or bloweth, where it willeth 4 , and thou hearest
[the mere sound of] its voice, but knowest not whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth," that is to say its source or motive, and
1 See Joh. Voc. 1614 b c on the Johannine O.K.OVO> with accus.
and with genit. In Jn v. 25 Westcott rightly paraphrases 01 O.K.OV-
a-avres as "those who receive it." The meaning is "those who take
it in through hearing."
2 Jn iii. 3 8.
3 "Thou and thy associates" = vp.as, in Set v^ds yevvrjOrivai civcodev.
^fj-ds is made emphatic by its superfluousness. The natural phrase
would have been del yewrjdrjvai, "one must needs be born." But
Jesus means " You and your friends the Pharisees, who think your-
selves superior to such a need."
4 On the play on the word Trvevpa, see Joh. Voc. 1655, and add
that TrvVfj.a is taken as the Spirit by Origen Num. Horn, xxvii. 13
(Lomm. x. 363), De Princip. i. 4 (Lomm. xxi. 76), and by Jerome
(Letters Iviii. 3).
9 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
its object or purpose. This is an appeal as it were to all the
Scribes or Teachers of Israel, in the person of Nicodemus, to
whom Jesus says "Art thou the teacher of Israel and dost
thou not recognise these things 1 ?"
Later on, an instance of this sound, or voice, of the Spirit,
and of its being misunderstood but on this occasion not by
Pharisees, but by the multitude and by others is presented
dramatically: "There came a voice from heaven, 'I have both
glorified it and will glorify it again.' The multitude therefore
that was standing and heard [it] said that it had thundered;
others said 'An angel hath spoken to him 2 ."' Here the
misunderstood voice follows immediately on a proclamation of
the doctrine about the grain of wheat, "If it die, it beareth
much fruit 3 ." This is, in effect, a brief repetition of the
doctrine of regeneration through the Spirit and at the same
time a suggestion of a new aspect of a detail in the Parables
of Sowing. And both the Johannine passages call attention to
the importance of the right kind of "hearing" as Mark does
in the tradition under discussion.
3. When did the disciples "ask Jesus the parables"?
The Synoptists differ here. Mark writes, "And when he
was alone, they that were about him with the Twelve began
to ask (or, used to ask) [of] him the parables 4 '." Mark has
1 Jn iii. 10. 2 Jn xii. 28 9.
3 Jn xii. 24.
' Mk IV. IO KG! ore e'yeVrro Kara p.6vas ^pomoi/ avrov ot Trept avrbv <rvv
Tnls 8a>ftfKa ras Trapa/SoXdj, Mt. xiii. IO KOL Trpoo~\d6vTS oi fjLadrjTai fiTrav
at>r&>, Aia ri ev irapaftoXals XaXeiy avrols; Lk. viii. 9 ewijpebraw avrov oi
fj,a0T)Tal avrov ris avrrj *rj 17 irapadoXr}. In Mk, Codex D has (instead of
ray Trapa/SoXds) ris 17 Trapa/SoXi^ avrrj^ and SO have a, b, C etc. (see
Swete). Origen (Comm. Matth., Lomm. iv. 193), after quoting Mt.
and Lk. correctly, says "Marcus vero sic, 'Et cum facti fuissent
secreti, interrogabant eum discipuli quae esset parabola haec. "
Diatess. also has "And when they were alone." See p. 45 foil.,
"Private 'expounding' in Mark."
10 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
previously written, "Jesus began (or, used) to teach them
many things in parables, and said to them in [the course of]
his teaching 1 ," after which he places the Parable of the Sower.
The two statements imply that the disciples did not ask the
meaning of the Parable of the Sower separately, and imme-
diately. But the parallel Luke expressly says that they did
("they began to question him what this parable was").
Matthew gives the question quite a different turn, "Why
speakest thou to them in parables?" But he does not say
that the disciples waited to ask this till Jesus was "alone."
He merely says that they " came to " Jesus to ask it. This does
not imply an interval of any long duration. Mark's tradition
appears to have been corrected by Matthew and Luke partly
because of its verbal, and partly because of its historical,
difficulty. Verbally, though "ask" could be used with two
accusatives in such phrases as "ask him the name," "ask him
the meaning," it could hardly be used in "asked him the
parables," unless it meant "asked him what secret meaning
he implied 2 ."
That Mark does actually use "parable" here to mean
"secret meaning of the parable," appears probable from another
passage where Jesus maintains that a man is denied not by
what goes into him but by what comes out of him. Concerning
this astounding paradox as it would appear to most Jews
Mark says that Christ's disciples "questioned him [about] the
parable" where Matthew avoids the word "question" and
1 Mk IV. 2 ttai. f8i8ao-Kv avrovs eV Trapa/SoXaly TroXXa, KOI eXcyev
fv rJ7 diftaxf) avTOV
2 Steph. Thes. in a very long note on f pan-do = "ask concerning,"
quotes only (i) "Aristoph. [?] epeorai/ iroXiv," an error (see Aristoph.
Pax 688), and (2) Plato Pol. 508 A rov fj\u>v epvras. The latter
follows the question "Whom can you mention as the Causer
of light ? " and means " You are asking me [the name of] the
Sun."
1 1 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
represents Peter as saying to Jesus, " Tell us the parable*." In
both narratives, "parable" seems to mean "the secret at the bottom
of the parable."
If that is Mark's meaning, his language may be illustrated
(as often) from Hermas almost the only very early Patristic
writer that uses the word "parable 2 ." Hermas gives us a
whole book of Parables, written down at the direction of the
Shepherd. The sense he sometimes attaches to the word may
be inferred from his replying when the Shepherd tells him that
grief destroys man and crushes out the Holy Spirit " My Lord,
I am of no understanding and do not understand these parables,
for I do not perceive how grief is able to crush and [yet] again
to save 3 ." This usage is not that of literary Greek a fact
that may be illustrated by Justin Martyr's non-use of the
1 Mk vii. 17 Mt. xv. 15
Kat ore fl<Tf)\6(v ds OIKOV a-rro 'ATTOKpitfeis fie 6 IltTpos flirfv
TOU o^Xov, (irrjptoTav avrbv oi p.a6rjTal avTai &pd(rov Tjp-'iv TTJV napa^oXrjv.
ai/TOv rfjv irapaf3o\r)v.
Here Mark describes Jesus as going into a "house" where
Matthew does not ; and it becomes necessary to remember that
"the house of Hillel" would be a familiar phrase for "the disciples
of Hillel" (Son 3460 c).
'EnfptoTav is quoted by Steph. Thes. from Herod, ix. 93 eirfipvTfov
TOVS 7Tpo(J)r)Tas TO airtov, and from Dion. CasS. Ivii. 15 Si(cas...eVfpd)ro)',
"disceptans," but not in such a phrase as Mark's.
2 Besides Hermas, Goodspeed gives only Barn. vi. 10 "What
then is the meaning of (Xtyfi] 'unto the good land...(Exod. xxxiii.
i , 3) ? . . . ' The prophet means (or, says) (Xe-yei) a parable of the Lord
[i.e. Jesus]," and ib. xvii. 2, "If I write to you about things im-
pending or future ye will not understand, because they are involved
in parables (8m TO eV TrapaftoXais KtlvQai)."
3 Herm. Mand. x. i. 3. The context calls such sayings (ib. 4)
ras irapaftoXas rrjs dforrjTos. They may be sometimes called "spiritual
paradoxes." Comp. Mand. xi. 18 foil, "listen, then, to the paradox
(irapafto\r)v) I am going to tell you." It is (among others) this
that a drop of water, which going up from below does nothing,
when coming [down] from above does much; whence we are to
infer that "the divine Spirit coming [down] from above is powerful,"
and to "believe" in that Spirit, but to "abstain" from the other,
i.e. from the spirit of this world.
12 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
word "parable" in his Apologies. In the Dialogue with the
Jew he uses it a dozen times, but in the Apologies not once 1 .
In literary Greek "parable" means comparison or illustration,
without any suggestion of obscurity, paradox, or riddle 2 .
Accepting, then, the Marcan meaning of "parables" to be
something like "dark sayings," "riddles," or "paradoxes," we
have to ask since Matthew and Luke omit the Marcan state-
ment about Christ's being "alone"- -"How and where, if at
all, does John intervene? As regards the word 'parable,' we
know that John never mentions it. But he does introduce
the thought, under the word paroimia, or 'proverb.' What then
has John to say about Christ's use of 'proverbs' to His disciples
either 'when he was alone' (as Mark says) or otherwise? "
John appears to have a definite and consistent theory about
Christ's "proverbs," and to believe that Jesus did not and could
not explain them to the disciples while He was on earth 3 . The
reason may be because the application of the proverbs was
personal, and the Person, the Son, was not to be comprehended
by the disciples till the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, should come
into their hearts. In any case John gives us the impression
that, before the departure of the Son to the Father, everything
that Jesus had said was a "proverb" to them, that is to say,
an obscure saying 4 . It is true that, when Jesus Himself warns
the disciples of this, the disciples contradict Him: "Now
1 He uses it always about O.T. and always in the dative ("in a
parable," or "parables") often along with words implying (Tryph.
52) "hidden meaning," (ib. 68) "mysteries or symbols," (ib.
77) "similitudes," (ib. 78) "mystery," (ib. 90) "types," etc.,
and often with a mention of the Holy Spirit (ib. 36, 52, etc.).
2 See Steph. Thes. and L. S. which explain the Aristotelian use
of irapoj^oXi;.
3 See Proclamation pp. 438 43.
4 Jn xvi. 25 "These things I have spoken unto you in proverbs;
the hour cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in pro-
verbs.. . ." On this, Westcott says "It seems to be unnatural to
limit the reference to the answer to the question in xvi. 17. The
description applies in fact to all the earthly teaching of the Lord."
13 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
speakest thou plainly and speakest no proverb." They suppose
that they are safe in an intellectual conviction of Christ's
omniscience and consequent divinity ("Now know we that
thou knowest all things. . .by this we believe that thou earnest
forth from God"). But they are woefully mistaken. In a few
minutes they will abandon Him 1 .
This leads us to a fairly probable conclusion about the
historical fact latent in Mark (the time when Jesus was " alone"),
and to a highly probable conclusion about John's view of
Mark. Mark seems or at all events seemed to John to have
placed out of order, and before Christ's resurrection, a course
of post-resurrectional revelation concerning Christ's parables
that was not given till Jesus was "alone," that is, in the circle
of the disciples and the Twelve 2 . Matthew and Luke, being
misled by Mark's order, retained his order but altered his
tradition 3 . John has altered Mark's order but retains a recog-
nition that Christ's parables, or proverbs, were obscure, and
needed to be explained by the Holy Spirit 4 .
1 See Jn xvi. 29 32.
2 Such a circle of disciples, which might be described by Jews
(Son 3460 c) as "the household," or "house," of Jesus, is described
in Acts i. 15. Those who were outside that circle might be described
as Mk iv. u tKfivois rots eo>. Mt. xiii. n eKfivots and Lk. viii. 10
rols \onrois omit eo>, which perhaps some interpreted literally as
meaning "outside the house."
3 Luke's view that the questioning related merely to the single
(viii. 9) "parable" of the Sower had some justification. No other
parable presented so many difficulties. Why did the Sower sow
seed "by the way side"? Why had he not removed the stones
and the thorns? How different from the planter of the vine in
Isaiah, who (v. 2) "made a trench," and "gathered out the stones,"
and was able to say (v. 4) "What could have been done more?"
The difference could perhaps be explained. But it appeared to
need explanation.
4 If this Marcan tradition refers to a period after the Resurrection
what have we to say as to the mention of (Mk iv. 10) "those around
Jesus," along with the Twelve? Does John represent them at the
end of his Gospel, as well as at the beginning, in the person of
14 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
4. "The mystery of the kingdom," in Mark 1
Delitzsch renders "mystery" here by the Hebrew "secret,"
meaning "confidential intercourse." This has quite a different
meaning from that of the Greek word muster ion, which meant
"initiation." The Hebrew word is never used in the plural 2 .
Both in English and in Greek the word "mystery" is quite
unfit to represent the phrase "the secret of God" as it is used
in the Bible 3 .
A Greek "mystery" implied that some Greek God or
Goddess (for example Demeter in her temple at Eleusis) was
"manifested" to his or her initiated worshippers by some
visible form or sign. Hence, to Greeks, Philip's appeal to
Jesus "Shew us the Father" would seem to imply "Reveal to
us a mystery" ; and the reply of Jesus to another disciple, a
little afterwards, that He with His Father would "come" and
"abide with" anyone that "loved" and obeyed Him, would
Nathanael ? It is possible, but in any case it is not an instance of
Johannine intervention. For Luke also (xxiv. 18, 27, 43) represents
Cleopas (and a companion) as receiving from Jesus an exposition
of the Scriptures concerning Himself, and afterwards as receiving
proofs of His resurrection.
1 Mk iv. II 'Y/LUI/ TO p.v(TTT)piov Se'Sorai TTJS (BcunXeias TOV 0fov, Mt.
xiii. II 'Yfiu/ de'Sorat yvwvai TO. /zuar^pia rrjs (3ao-i\eias ra>i/ ovpavwv (Lk.
viii. 10 TOV 6fov}.
2 See Gesen. 691 b.
3 Ps. xxv. 14, Prov. iii. 32. In Job xxix. 4 "the secret of God
was upon my tent" the reading is disputed, but it seems to make
good sense, meaning "the stamp of God's favour." During the
days of Job's prosperity there was, as it were, written on his tent,
" Here is one of the intimates of God " (Gesen. Ps. xxv. 14, " intimacy
with Jehovah"). Comp. Odes of Solomon viii. n 14 "Guard my
secret, ye that are guarded by it. Guard my faith... know my
knowledge... Love me with fervent-love, ye that are loving."
On "the secret of the Lord" see Light 3797 817, and on
"mysteries" see 3798 foil, and 38026;.
15 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
fill the mind of the ordinary Greek with astonishment 1 . Yet
that is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase "the secret of God."
It meant "confidential intercourse," or "intimacy," with
Jehovah.
Independently of this difference between Hebrew and
popular Greek thought, there is also a great difference between
those to whom "the mystery of the kingdom of God has been
given" and those to whom "it has been given" merely "to know"
its "mysteries" Mark has the former phrase, Matthew and
Luke the latter 2 . By "the mysteries" might be meant at all
1 Jn xiv. 9, 23. We must however distinguish "the ordinary
Greek" from such a philosopher as Epictetus. Epictetus believes
man to be, by right, "a god" a god in all the most homely acts of
life and reproaches him for ignoring his own divinity: (ii. 8. 12)
"When thou art eating... knowest thou not that thou art sustaining
a god...? Thou earnest about (irtpifypfis) (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10)
God, poor-wretch, and knowest it not!" comp. ii. 16. 33 "But
if thou followest-faithfully (irapaKo\ov6ds) Him who swayeth the
universe, and earnest Him about (nfpKpepds) in thyself." Also,
in the only passage (hi. 21. 13 16) where Epictetus mentions
"mysteries," he pours scorn on those who think they can reproduce
the mysteries of Eleusis by reproducing the material circumstances
the "building," the "hierophant," the "herald," the "torch-
bearer," "the very same voices." There is need, he says, that a
man should "have previously purified himself and be predisposed
by the reflection that he is on the point of drawing near things holy
[in themselves] and holy by reason of their antiquity." This passage
is preceded by the saying "Men do not sow till they have invoked
Demeter." The only other mention of Demeter is contained in the
ironical reproach against certain philosophers who denied what most
people would call the evidence of the senses (ii. 20. 32) : "Grateful
creatures and reverent! They eat their daily bread and yet are
not deterred from saying ' We know not whether there is a Demeter
or a Proserpine or a Pluto ' "that is, the gods whose action typified
the seed and the harvest, death and resurrection.
* It should be noted that p'DDB is used in New Hebrew
(Levy iii. 166, "gr. TO p.v<TTr)piov, od. /iuarr/'pm") and in Ara-
maic (Levy Ch. ii. 51 "gr. ^varr/pia ") and is variously regarded as
sing, or pi. (Krauss 346 "das Geheimniss, oft irrthiimlich als PI.
behandelt"). Walton and Etheridge render it "secrets" in Gen.
xxviii. 12 (Jer. I) "because they had revealed the secrets of the
16 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
events for Christians at the end of the first century reading
the Synoptic Gospels the mysteries of the incarnation, death,
and resurrection of Jesus, and of Baptism and the Eucharist
for His disciples. But by "the mystery" must be meant some
supreme and all-including "mystery," such as Paul suggests
when he speaks about the "recognition of the mystery of God,
[namely] Christ' 1 ." About "the mysteries" we may say "we
know them," more appropriately than about "the mystery,"
which is better regarded as being received into our souls through
faith and feeling (and not merely through evidence and proof).
If we ask what the Marcan mystery is, we find the answer
somewhat complicated by various possibilities as to the time
and circumstances in which Jesus uttered the word, and by
doubts whether He referred to one particular parable, or to
many, and to the principle underlying them all. But many
reasons may be given for concluding that He referred to the
underlying principle, the principle of the divine redemption of
the soul. This is confirmed by the earlier Clement's comment
on "The sower went forth 2 ," and by Isaiah's likening of God's
forgiveness of sins to " the rain that cometh down from heaven "
and "giveth seed to the sower 3 ." It appears to be the mystery
of life through death or dissolution. Clement points out how
"the Sower casteth into the earth each one of the seeds,"
Lord of the world," but "secret" in Numb. xvi. 26 "they betrayed
my secret when I slew the Egyptian." Levy ib. quotes (inter alia)
Pesikt. r. s. 5 Anf . 7 b, where the Gentiles say to God " Worin bestehen
denn deine Mysterien?" and God replies "Das ist die Mischna."
There the Heb. seems better represented by "mysteries" than by
" mystery."
1 Coloss. ii. 2 els iwiyv*Xn TOV nvo-rrjpiov TOV 6fov, Xpicrroi). This
recognition would not imply exactly "knowing" the mystery. It
would be a feeling of approximation like that implied in (Eph.
iii. 19) "knowing the love of Christ which passeth knowledge."
There is much to be said also for the reading of W.H. txt and R.V.
txt in i Cor. ii. I ro ^vcrrr]piov TOV 6eov.
2 Clem. Rom. Cor. 24.
3 Is. Iv. 9 ii.
A. L. 17 (Mark iv. i 20) 2
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
which, "dry and bare, falling into the earth, dissolve. Then,
from the dissolution, the mightiness of the Master's providence
raiseth them up" so that " from the one [seed]" they increase
manifold and bring forth fruit 1 . Origen applies Isaiah's words,
"my ways are not as your ways," to prove that "with God,
nothing is useless"; even the censers of Corah and his sinful
companions are used for God's glory 2 .
Clement's expression about "the seeds dry and bare, falling
into the earth" and afterwards "raised up" by the Master,
so that each seed brings forth manifold fruit, resembles in
thought, though not exactly in word, the Johannine saying
about the "grain of wheat," which "except it fall into the earth
and die, abideth by itself alone, but if it die it beareth much
fruit 3 ." The antithesis to "by itself alone" would naturally
be " in company with others." And this gives to the Johannine
parable a suggestion of altruism not conveyed by Clement.
Clement teaches that each human soul may pass by a resur-
rection, through death, to a developed and more fruitful
existence. But the context in the Fourth Gospel brings out
the truth that the death and the increased fruitfulness are to
be for the sake of others as well as for the sake of the particular
soul that passes through death. The scene in which Jesus
enunciates the law of "the grain of wheat" that is to "die"
and, by dying, to bear much fruit, contains also, in effect, a
prediction of the redemption of the Gentiles (typified by the
""Greeks" who come to Jesus); it contains also a recognition,
1 Clem. Rom. Cor. 24 TJ p.fya\fi6rrjs TTJS Trpovoias TOV
avi<rrr]O'iv avrd [i.e. TO. (nrepfiara] KOI (< TOV evbs n\Lova [ ? <nrpfj.ara or
tcaprrov] av^i KO\ (p(p(i Kapnov, Lightf. has "and from being one they
increase manifold and bear fruit," but adds that avgci is treated as
transitive in the Syriac ("The mightiness... increases them").
2 Origen Num. Horn. ix. (Lomm. x. 74).
8 Jn xii. 24, where iro\vv napirbv <pe'pi may be compared witl
Mk iv. 8 (8i8ov napirbv dva&aivovTa KOI avav6pfva KCU e<p(p(v. . . , Mt. xiii.
Kapirov, Lk. viii. 8 <pvev eTroirjaev Kapirov, Clem. Rom. Cor. 2.
1 8 (Mark iv. T 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
through a Voice from heaven, that the hour of supreme glory
is at hand, in which the Father will be glorified by the death
of His Son, not for His own sake but for the sake of others 1 .
The Marcan word, "mystery," is not mentioned; but the whole
of the narrative leads us to "the recognition of the mystery of
God, [namely] Christ."
5. ''The word," in Mark
Mark mentions "the word" absolutely whereas Matthew
and Luke call it, severally, "the word of the kingdom" and
"the word of God." But further, Mark introduces his mention
of "the word" with a preface uttered by Jesus but omitted by
Matthew and Luke: "And he saith unto them, Know ye not
this parable? And how [then] will ye come-to-know all the
parables? The sower soweth the word 2 ."
Comparing Mark with the parallels, we are led to infer that
Matthew and Luke did not understand why "this parable"
should be singled out as if it contained the key to the explanation
of " all the parables." They also thought that " the word " should
be defined, and they accordingly define it in phrases apparently
intended to signify the proclamation of the Gospel that is
to say, the spoken or written Gospel but capable also of a
wider significance 3 . Just as a Jewish tradition, quoted above,
1 Jn xii. 20 foil., concluding with the words (ib. 32 3) "And I,
if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself. But
this he said signifying by what manner of death he was to die."
2 Mk iv. 13 14 Kt Xeyfi avrols OVK oi'Sare TTJV 7rapa(Bo\r)v ravrrfv^
Koi TTU>S 7rd(ras ras Trapa[Bo\as yvaxrfcrBf; 'O cnrfipoiv TOV Aoyof CTTretpet,
CCmp. Mt. xiii. 18 19 a 'Y/xeis 1 ovv d/covcraTe rrjv irapafio\r)v TOV cnrfi-
pavTos. HavTos OKOVOVTOS TOV \6yov TTJS /SaaiXems..., Lk. viii. II e<rriv de
ttVTTj f/ TTUpoftoXf)' 'O CTTTOpOS f(TT\V 6 XoyOS TOV 6fOl).
As regards Matthew's version, "the word of the kingdom," it
is worth noting that Matthew uses "kingdom" 56 times, as against
69 in the other three Gospels taken together.
3 Comp. Acts vi. 7 (and xii. 24 "the word of God increased
(R.V. grew) (qu^avev) and multiplied") "And the word of God in-
creased (rjvgavfv) and the number of the disciples multiplied...," which
19 (Mark iv. i 20) 2 2
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
said that the Mishna was "the mystery" or "mysteries" of
God, so Christian tradition toward the end of the first century
might begin to narrow down "the word of God" to the word
written in the Gospels 1 .
Luke's change of "word" into "word of God" may be illus-
trated by the LXX "word of the Lord" substituted for Jeremiah's
absolute use of the term: "The prophets shall become wind
and the word is not in them 2 ." Also, where one Psalm has
"The Lord giveth the word," the Targum has "The Lord gave
the words of the Law 3 ," and where another has "He sendeth
his word and healeth them," the Targum has "He will send the
words of His healing and will heal them 4 ." In all these cases
the expansion indicates the natural desire of a later writer to
explain an obscurity in an earlier one 5 .
perhaps means that it "increased," like a fire, in intensity as well as
in extent.
1 It was difficult for a Jew to regard "the Law," or "the Word,"
as a seed that must die and be assimilated in the heart of man.
In Ezr-Apoc. ix. 31 foil., when God says "Behold, I sow my Law in
you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you," Ezra replies that the
Law abides, but Israel has to say "we perish." Ezra has previously
(ib. viii. 6 Lat.) requested (if the text is correct) "the seed of a
[new] heart and cultivation to our perception, whence fruit may
spring."
Origen, on the other hand (Exod. Horn. i. 4, Lomm. ix. 7) em-
phasizing the necessity that the "seed," or "word," should die
connects, in a most fanciful but instructive way, (Jn xii. 24) the
"death" of the "seed," (Acts vi. 7) the "increase" of the "word,"
with the "death" of "our Joseph," betrayed "by one of his brothers
Juda(s)," followed by (Exod. i. 6 7) the "increase" of the children
of Israel! Comp. Tertull. Adv. Jud. 10 " Joseph. . .was sold into
Egypt. . .just as Christ was sold by Israel. . .when He is betrayed
by Judas (or, Judah) (luda)."
2 Jerem. v. 13. 3 Ps. Ixviii. n.
4 Ps. cvii. 20.
6 But "the word" might also be omitted by a later writer as
being superfluous. For example, where Mark has (iv. 33) "was
speaking. ..the word," Matthew (xiii. 34) has simply "spake" (Lk.
om.).
20 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
Mark's use of "the word" is not improbably Petrine. At
all events a Petrine speech in the Acts appears to allude to the
Psalmist's phrase "He sendeth his word and healeth them,"
when Peter says that God "sent the word unto the children of
Israel, preaching the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ,"
and adds that Jesus was " anointed with the Hoi} 7 Spirit and with
power," and "went through [the land] doing good and healing
all that were oppressed by the devil 1 ." In the Psalm, both
Origen and Jerome take "his word" as meaning the divine
Logos, or Son 2 . In the Acts, it seems to mean, not the Logos,
but the effective utterance of the Logos. But the passage is
instructive as shewing that "the word" may sometimes be an
ambiguous term. It may mean the Principle, or Mystery, of
Redemption, the Healing Power, or it may mean the Person
exercising that power 3 .
6. "The word," in John, how first mentioned by Jesus*
In John, when Jesus uses the term logos, it is mostly in
such phrases as "my word," or "his [i.e. God'sJ word," or
1 Acts x. 34 8, Ps. cvii. 20. The text is involved and possibly
corrupt, being a Lucan conglomeration of old traditions, but the
allusion to the Psalm is manifest.
2 Jerome ad loc., and Origen Cels. ii. 31.
3 Mk ii. 2 "he was speaking unto them the word" (Mt. om.) is
parall. to Lk. v. 17 "and the power of the Lord was toward his healing,"
and Luke may have understood "the word" to mean the effective
and healing word. Comp. i Cor. iv. 20 "The kingdom of God is
not in word but in power," i Thess. i. 5 "not in word only but in
power " Acts iv. 29 30 "grant unto thy servants to speak thy word
...while thou stretchiest forth thy hand to heal."
4 Jn iv. 37 ev yap TovT(p 6 \6yos rrii/ dXrjdtvbs ori a\\os eorli>
6 airfipmv ai aXXos 6 fapifav. See Joh. Gr. 2799 (iii) "On \6yos
(sing, and denned) in Christ's words." Ao-yo? refers to a passage
in the Psalms in Jn xv. 25 "that there might be fulfilled the word
that is in their own law [there] written that (Ps. xxxv. 19) 'They
hated me without a cause.'" Jn x. 35 "If he called them 'gods'
unto whom the word of God came" refers to Ps. Ixxxii. 6. A.V. has
"saying," instead of R.V. "word," in Jn viii. 51, 52, 55, xv. 20
21 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
"the word of God," and nowhere means a mere "saying" of
ordinary people. Here, however, both our Versions render it
by "saying," "Herein is the (A.V. that) saying true, One soweth
and another reapeth." Perhaps the translators regarded this
as a mere popular "saying," beneath the level of a "word"
(as used in such phrases as "word of God").
But, if they are right, there are two exceptional points in
this sentence. Not only does Jesus use logos here to mean a
mere "saying," but also the Greek alethinos, which means
"real," or "ideal," is here confused with alethes, which means
"true." John uses both words frequently. But alethinos is
almost peculiar to him among the evangelists 1 , and it implies
something quite different from what we call "true" in a true
and accurate statement. It means something that is free from
all admixture of transient, earthly and corruptible nature.
Hence Origen, commenting on Christ as "the real (alethinon)
light," says "But Christ, being the light of the world, is
the real (alethinon) light in contrast with the [light] received-
by-the-senses, since nothing that is received-by-the-senses is real
(alethinon) 2 ."
"keep my word. . .keep my word. . .keep his [i.e. God's] word," "if
they (have) kept my word."
Apart from Christ's utterances, A.V. has "saying" and R.V.
"word," the Gk being \6yos, in Jn iv. 39 "because of the word of
the woman," vii. 36 "What is this word that he said. . . ?" xii. 38
"that the word of Isaiah. . .might be fulfilled," xviii. 9 "that there
might be fulfilled the word that he spake, namely (ort) 'Of those
whom thou hast given me I have lost none,'" xviii. 32 "that the
word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake, signifying by what
death he should die." R.V. follows A.V. in Jn vi. 60 "this is a
hard saying" etc.
1 The only Synoptic instance of a\rj6ivos is Lk. xvi. n where TO
d\T)6iv6v means "the real and heavenly [treasure]" as opposed to
"the mammon of unrighteousness."
2 Origen, on Jn i. 9, Comm. Joann. i. 24 (Lomm. i. 54) *E<m St 6
Xpi(rrbs...(f)<i>s aXrjdivbv, irpbs dvTt8iao-To\r]v alcrQrjTov, ovdfvbs alcrdrjTov OVTOS
d\r)0ivov. He adds " But it does not follow that, because that which
22 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES Ol
This use of alethinos accords with its use in the best Greek
authors. For example, when Plato says "not an artificial myth
but a real logos," he means, not "a true narrative" as though
vouching for its complete accuracy but "a real history" as
distinguished from a myth 1 . Also a second century grammarian
has given the title "About alethinos logos" to a treatise on the
logos regarded as a conception inherent in the soul and not
verbally expressed 2 . Hence Westcott, in the Johannine text
under consideration, instead of "is true" substitutes "finds its
complete, ideal, fulfilment" With this alteration, the whole
passage may be paraphrased thus: "Lift up your eyes from
the cornfields on earth to the cornfields in heaven, and see
there the spiritual harvest, the harvest of souls, white and
ready for reaping. Others have sown, Moses and the Prophets
and all the Messengers of God, these have sown, and you have
entered into their labours. In this harvest the common pro-
verb often repeated as a complaint of injustice, namely, that
the sower is indeed 3 one and the reaper quite another finds
is received by the senses is not real (d\r)6ivbv), it is consequently
false."
Comp. Jn iv. 23 "the real [and spiritual] worshippers," vi. 32
"the bread from heaven, the real [and spiritual] bread," vii. 28 "he
that sent me is real," viii. 16 "my judgment is real [and spiritual],"
xv. i "I am the real [and spiritual] vine," xvii. 3 "thee, the only
real God." The last instance is xix. 35 KOI d\r)0ivr) airov O-T\V rj
fj.apTvpia where the word ought to be rendered consistently with the
saying of Origen "real in contrast with that which is received by
the senses."
John also uses a\rjdrjs about fourteen times including the con-
text of the last-quoted sentence (as against two Synoptic instances)
so that we cannot suppose him to be using d\rjdiv6s where other
writers would use aXrjOrjs.
1 Plato Tim. 26 E.
2 Steph. Thes. i. 1453 quoting from Hennog. " De id. ii. 7:
akr]6ivoi> Xoyou. Init. Cap. I 6 ev&idderos KOL dXrjdrjs Kal oiov
\6yos."
3 "Indeed" is implied by eVnV. It might have been omitted
6 anrdpw <a\ aXXoy 6 6fpia>v). But it is inserted for emphasis.
23 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
its divine fulfilment. For indeed, God, the heavenly Sower,
sows, and those men who are most like God, they also sow,
that others may reap."
This corrects the erroneous substitution of "true" for
"real," but it leaves a possible error in the rendering of logos
as a mere "saying" or " common-proverb." For the statement
that "the common-proverb is a genuine and spiritual common-
proverb" is not like the statement "my judgment is a genuine
and spiritual judgment 1 ." A "judgment" can be genuine and
heavenly and remain a "judgment," but a "common-proverb"
can hardly be heavenly and yet remain what it is. Hence we
are led back to doubt whether this exceptional rendering of
logos in an utterance of Jesus can be correct 2 . And the doubt
is confirmed by the fact that some very good authorities take
logos as meaning "word," and insert the article before alethinos,
so that the meaning becomes "Herein is the Word of Truth"
or "Herein is the Word that is real [and spiritual] 3 ."
The Word of Truth, in such a context, would seem to be
regarded as the Word from above, about which God says, in
Isaiah, "As the rain. . .giveth seed to the sower and bread to the
eater, so shall my word be*." Irenaeus interprets this as being
1 Jn viii. 1 6 fj Kpicrts f) e^ 7 ? dXrjdivrj eVrii/.
2 Hence I now doubt the complete accuracy of the explanation
given in Joh. Gr. 2795 "This worldly proverb is 'really and genuinely
true' in another interpretation, and that a spiritual one."
3 Jn iv. 37 SS "For in this is the word of truth," d "in hoc est
enim verbum veritatis," D eV yap rovro> (<TT\V o \6yos 6 dXydivos, X 6
\6yos f(TT\v o dXrjdivos. B, followed by \V.H., has 6 \6yos ecrrlv dXrjdivos.
But the dropping of O in a confused text would be an easy
error, which has been shewn (Joh. Gr. 2652) to be frequent in B.
Chrys. quotes 6 Xdyoy ea-rlv o d\r)d^s and adds "These things the
people (ot TroXXoi) used to say... and [Jesus] says that this saying here
especially finds its truth (on OVTOS 6 Xo-yos fvrtwda /zdXto-ra rrjv d\i]6fiav
fX fl )-" Origen ad loo. (Lomm. ii. 94 5) (i) quotes as B, (2) has TTVS
d\r)divbs 6 [v. r. om. 6] Xd-yo? e'orl, (3) represents Heracleon as ap-
parently quoting eV TOVTW eVrtf 6 \6yos d\r)divos.
4 Comp. Iren. iv. 25. 3 (Jn iv. 37) "In hoc enim, inquit, sermo est
verus, quoniam alter quidem est qui seminal populus [i.e. Israel],
24 (Mark iv. i 20)
I
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
the Word of the one true God, which came first to Israel the
sower, and afterwards to the Christian Church the reaper. But
that does not appear to go to the bottom of the meaning of the
Johannine saying, which (interpreted as above) teaches us not
so much about man's history as about God's nature. It
indirectly leads us to recognise, as the Word of Truth, this Law
of the heavenly Harvest: "It is more blessed to give than to
receive 1 ," pointing to the One God, who sows that others may
reap, and who is glad that it should be so 2 .
alter qui metet [i.e. the Church], unus autem Deus praestans utrisque
quae sunt apta, (Is. Iv. 10) semen quidem seminanti, panem vero ad
edendum metenti."
1 Acts xx. 35.
2 Space does not allow an examination of Heracleon's comments
(possibly corrupt) on Jn iv. 37, about which Origen says "He is not
at all clear in his exposition of the nature of the two Sons of Man of
whom one sows and the other reaps." The impression left by it is
that Heracleon interpreted logos as "[divine] word," and not as
"[popular] saying."
Origen 's introductory remarks about the spiritual harvest in
heaven (Jn iv. 35) contain frequent references to the Creation in
Genesis, and to the action of the divine Logos and to the several
logoi of created things (Comm. Joann. xiii. 42) Trdpfcrriv 6 roO Oeov
\6yos (ra(pT]vi<0v /cai <^>a>ria>i> Tracra? ray %<i)pas TTJS ypcxpfjs,. . . TrapiorayneVou
rov Trept eKacrrov \6yov . . . .eVfi&ei/ 6 dfos rols \6yois eicao-rov KOI etSe
Trews K.a& y ovs yeyovev eKacrrov TWV Kricr/zareoi/ \6yovs eVrl KaXov . ..6 \6yos
[?6 \6yos 6] TTfpl eKdVrou TOVTWV e(TT\v opadels 0fco TO KaXov . . . .Tims
yap <a\ov ra 6ijpia. ..et p.r) apa 6 \6yos 6 rrepl avrwv ecrri ro ccaAoi/;. ..
Tov TrapovTos To2s p.a0r)Tals \6yov TOVS aKpoaras frralpeiv rovs
In the first instance Origen introduces the incarnate Logos of God
as enlightening and illuminating all the cornfields of scripture, and
in the last as exhorting His hearers to lift up their eyes to the harvest
of heaven.
Later on, coming to Jn iv. 37, he says that (Comm. Joann. xiii.
47) "whether we take the words in this passage (ra Kara TOV TOTTOV)
Kara ro OTTO reoi> Tf%va)v KOI TWV 7ri(TTr]p.a>v \rjCpdev Trapadeiyp-a, in that
Case it is clear how (o-a(pes TTVS) a\r)0ivbs 6 \6yos (v. r. \6yos) eVri. ..,"
or, whether it be taken to refer to Moses and the Prophets, "so too
it is clear how one soweth and another reapeth." This favours the
view that Origen took \6yos to mean " a popular saying," but possibly
25 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
If John does indeed connect "the logos of truth" with
"sowing" in the first passage where Jesus mentions the logos,
the connection affords some grounds for thinking that John
had in view the Synoptic Parables of Sowing and especially
the tradition peculiar to Mark, "The sower soweth the logos."
But such an allusion, though not unimportant, is subordinate
to the deeper purpose of the Johannine doctrine, namely, to
take the term out of a dangerous position where it might be
confused with the oral "word" of catechists or the written
"word" of evangelists, and to personify it as the Mind or
Purpose of the divine Giver of all good. The Evangelist writes
as if he knew that the Synoptic Gospels had omitted that
saying of Jesus which is almost the only one preserved by Paul,
and as if he were determined to inculcate its meaning on his
readers: "Jesus said, It is more blessed to give than to
receive."
The first Johannine tradition about "giving" follows close
after the mention of the Logos as being "with God," and as
including "light" and "the life of men." It says "As many
as received him, to them he gave authority to become God's
children 1 ." This is the first mention of "giving." The next
refers to the inferior gift of the Law as compared with the
higher gift of grace and truth: "The Law was given through
Moses, the [gift of] grace and the [gift of) truth came into being
through Jesus Christ 2 ." Before this, and after it, the text
speaks of an "Only begotten," who is "in the bosom of the
Father," and who has "declared" God; and the next mention
of God's "giving" says "God so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should
with a play on the meaning. It is difficult to understand how he
can call this "clear (o-afos)" without any attempt to explain
aXrjdivos unless he supposes that he has made it clear by his long
previous account of the relation between the Logos and the logoi.
1 Jn i. 12.
2 Jn i. 17. See also Joh. GY. 2411 e, Son 3566.
26 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
not perish but have eternal life 1 ." Thus the Son dies in the
flesh that men should not perish in the spirit. In the language
of Isaiah, He "seeth of the travail of His soul and is satis-
fied 2 ." Or, according to the metaphor of the harvest, the Love
of the eternal Sower in heaven sows His Word upon earth, and
reaps His harvest from the redeemed souls of men. It is pro-
bably not too much to say that when John wrote down "The
Word was with God" in the first sentence of his Gospel, he
had also in mind the thought that "the Sower soweth the
word," and that he was preparing the way for what he was
to write later on: "Except a grain of wheat fall into the
earth and die, it abideth by itself alone ; but if it die it beareth
much fruit ... he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it
unto life eternal 3 ."
7. ''There is nothing hid save that it should be
manifested," in Mark*
The Parable of the Sower, as explained in Mark and
Matthew, concludes with the mention of three classes of fruit-
bearers as the result of the seed in the good ground. Luke
mentions but one class. If the sowing typifies a spiritual
generating of believers, then we may perhaps point to the three
stages of belief apparently denoted in the Johannine Epistle, as
corresponding to what Luke omits 5 .
1 Jn i. 14, 18, iii. 16. "Giving" is more frequently mentioned
in the Fourth Gospel than in any of the Three, and mostly refers
to divine "giving." Mk iv. 25 implies divine giving but does not
mention the Giver ("to him shall be given") ; Mt. vii. n, Lk. xi. 13
describe the Father as "giving" severally "good things," or "the
Holy Spirit," to those who ask. After Mk ii. 12, Mt. ix. 8, Lk. v. 26
"they glorified God," Mt. alone adds "who had given such power
unto men." But no Synoptist approaches John in the emphasis that
he lays on giving.
2 Is. liii. ii.
3 Jn xii. 24 5.
4 Mk iv. 22 ov yap ?<TTIV Kpvirrbv eav p,rj tva (fravcpatOrj.
5 i Jn ii. 12 foil.
27 (Mark iv. i 20)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
After this which describes the result of the seed that
hidden rightly in the ground comes a brief parable about a
lamp that ought not to be hidden under a bushel; and then
Mark adds that "hiding" that is to say the right kind of
hiding takes place "with a view to manifestation." The
disciples are not to hide their light, but to impart it to others.
If they do not, they will lose it 1 .
1 The parallel columns given below are printed for the purpose
of reference, so that the reader may turn back to them and see the
context of the particular expressions discussed in the pages that
follow.
Lk. viii. 1 6 17, xiv.
Mt. v. 14 16, x. 26, 35, viii. i8a, vi.
xi. 15, vii. 2, vi. 33, 38, xii. 31, viii. 18 b
xiii. 12 (R.V.)
Mk iv. 21 5
(R.V.)
(21) And he said
unto them, Is the
lamp brought to be
put under the bushel,
or under the bed,
[and] not to be put
on the stand?
(22) For there is
nothing hid, save
that it should be
manifested ; neither
was [anything] made
secret, but that it
should come to light.
(23) If any man
hath ears to hear,
let him hear.
(24) And he said
unto them, Take
heed what ye hear:
with what measure ye
mete it shall be mea-
sured unto you : and
(v. 14) Ye are the
light of the world.
A city set on a hill
cannot be hid.
(15) Neither do
[men] light a lamp,
and put it under the
bushel, but on the
stand ; and it shineth
unto all that are in
the house.
(16) Even so let
your light shine be-
fore men, that they
may see your good
works, and glorify
your Father which is
in heaven.
(x. 26) Fear them
not therefore : for
there is nothing
covered, that shall
not be revealed ; and
hid, that shall not be
known.
(xi. 15) He that
hath ears to hear
(some anc. auth. omit
to hear) , let him hear.
(vii. 2) For with
what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be
judged:" and with
what measure ye
(R.V.)
(viii. 1 6) And no
man, when he hath
lighted a lamp, cover-
eth it with a vessel,
or putteth it under
a bed; but putteth
it on a stand, that
they which enter in
may see the light.
(17) For nothing
is hid, that shall not
be made manifest ;
nor [anything] secret,
that shall not be
known and come to
light.
(xiv. 35) ...He
that hath ears to
hear, let him hear.
(viii. 1 8 a) Take
heed therefore how
ye hear...
(vi. 38) Give, and
it shall be given unto
you; good measure,
28 (Mark iv. 21 5)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
It will be seen that Matthew and Luke give quite a different
turn to Mark's words as if they meant "There is nothing hidden
by man that shall not be revealed in the day of judgment."
But that does not appear to be the meaning. Ben Sira (and
probably Aboth) condemns the teacher that hides his knowledge 1 .
Philo fiercely attacks the disreputable "initiations" and
"mysteries" practised among the Greeks by "three or four"
of the initiated " in the dark 2 ." But he praises the " mysteries "
implied in the recognition of God, the Father of the Universe,
as the Sower of all good 3 . The same contrast was probably
at the bottom of Mark's tradition. But Matthew, transposing
the parable of the lamp, appears to have missed the meaning.
Mk iv. 21 5
(R.V.)
contd.
more shall be given
unto you.
(25) For he that
hath, to him shall be
given: and he that
hath not, from him
shall be taken away
even that which he
hath.
Lk. viii. 1 6 17, xiv.
35, viii. 18 a, vi.
38, xii. 31, viii. 18 b
(R.V.) contd.
pressed down, shaken
together, running
over, shall they give
into your bosom.
For with what mea-
sure ye mete it shall
be measured to you
again.
(xii. 31) Howbeit
seek ye his kingdom
(many anc. auth. the
kingdom of God),
and these things shall
be added unto you.
(viii. 1 8 b) ...for
whosoever hath, to
him shall be given;
and whosoever hath
not, from him shall
be taken away even
that which he think-
eth he hath (or, seem-
eth to have).
1 Sir. xii. 14 15, rep. xx. 31, comp. iv. 23, Aboth i. 14 (see
Taylor's note).
2 Philo ii. 260.
3 Philo i. 147 8. He appeals to Jeremiah (Jer. iii. 4) as being
a P.VO-TTJS. See Light 3799 & c which quotes Philo fully on 6 (nreipav
and TCI lepd ovTQ)$ p,v(TTr)pia.
29 (Mark iv. 21 5)
Mt. v. 14 16, x. 26,
xi. 15, vii. 2, vi. 33,
xiii. 12 (R.V.)
contd.
mete, it shall be
measured unto you.
(vi. 33) But seek
ye first his kingdom,
and his righteous-
ness ; and all these
things shall be added
unto you.
(xiii. 12) For who-
soever hath, to him
shall be given, and he
shallhave abundance:
but whosoever hath
not, from him shall
be taken away even
that which he hath.
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
And Luke, although he keeps Mark's order, agrees (erroneously)
with Matthew in altering Mark's meaning.
So far as "hiding" refers to seed hidden in the ground we
may say that John expresses the doctrine, though without the
exact word, when he implies that the grain of corn "falls to
the ground" and "dies" in order that it may "bear mucl
fruit." There is a doctrine of "hiding," or non-recognition,
of a future deliverer of Israel that may be traced in Jewish
Apocrypha (based on several Biblical precedents) 1 ; and this
implies a hiding with a view to manifestation. Also in Jewish
Haggadic literature that speaks of the rose or lily of Israel
among thorns 2 , we find Israel described as " hidden " in, or under,
various adversities and oppressions that precede its blossoming.
The last of these is Sheol: "The congregation of Israel crieth
before the Eternal, 'Lord of the world, I am hidden in the depths
of Sheol ; but as soon as the Holy One will lead me forth from
the abyss of surge and from the depths of Sheol, I will blossom
in good works like the lily 3 .'"
In the Gospels, the doctrine of productive "hiding" is
perhaps best illustrated by the "hiding" of the "leaven" in
"three measures of meal" mentioned by Matthew and Luke,
where the leaven may be said to "die," as leaven, and to live
again in the nature of bread 4 . But Epictetus definitely connects
1 See Notes 2998 (Iv) d m on " The Doctrine of Hiding." Comp.
Is. xlix. i 2.
2 Cant. ii. i 2. "a rose (h^XJH)...a lily among thorns." See
Gesen. 287, nSv^n. There is a play on this word and words
signifying "love" and "shadow." "Shadow" implies "hiding."
3 Tehill. on Ps. i. 4 (Wii. pp. 18 19). Previously Israel is
described as " hidden " (i) in the shadow of Egypt, (2) at Sinai (Exod.
xix. 17), (3) in the shadow of the conquering Empires.
In the context, the Earth says to the Lord " All the dead of the
world are hidden in my shadow (Is. xxvi. 19 my dead bodies shall arise]
and if the Holy One demands them from me, I give them back to
Him and blossom like a lily...."
4 Mt. xiii. 33, Lk. xiii. 21, on which see Notes 2998 (Iv) k. Mt.
xiii. 44 says that a man found a treasure "hidden" in some one
30 (Mark iv. 21 5)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
"hiding" with "sowing" thus: "First make a practice of
being ignored as to what you really are. Be philosopher to
yourself [i.e. give your philosophic lectures to yourself] for a
short time. That is the way to produce fruit. The seed, for
a time, must be buried, must be hidden, must grow by little
and little, that it may come to perfection 1 ." That seems to
supply the link of thoughts necessary to connect the Synoptic
Parables of "sowing" with those of "hiding," and both of them
with the Johannine brief Parable if it may be so called of
the grain of corn falling into the ground and dying.
The preceding observations have not noticed the Synoptic
parallels to Mark's tradition about the proper place for "the
lamp" namely, on "the stand," and not under "the bushel"
or "the bed 2 ." Referring to those parallels, the reader will
perceive that Luke here passes continuously to "the lamp"
from the "good ground" in the explanation of the Parable of
the Sower, as though there were some connection between
them 3 . Matthew, on the other hand, here proceeds from the
Parable of the Sower to "another parable 4 ." But in the
Sermon on the Mount he adds to the Marcan tradition an
interpretation and a moral. The lamp is the disciples ("ye
else's field and "hid" the treasure and bought the field an action
not very satisfactorily explained by Origen and Jerome. Mt. xiii.
33 evfupv^fv suggests an allusion to Gen. xviii. 6 (LXX) cyicpv^ias,
on which see Philo i. 173, Clem. Alex. 694, and Origen ad loc.
1 Epict. iv. 8. 356 (quoted in Notes 2998 (Iv) j) where
KdTopvyrivai dfl means "must be [as it were] buried alive" as freq.
in Steph. Thes., and probably in Epict. ii. 22. 10, the only other
Epictetian instance.
2 Mk iv. 21.
3 Lk. viii. 15 1 6 "And that in the good ground ... these ...
bring forth fruit with patience. But no one (ovdtls 8e) having lighted
a lamp covereth it with a vessel."
4 Mt. xiii. 23 4 "...some thirty. Another parable set he
forth. . ." (The Wheat and the Tares).
31 (Mark iv. 21 5)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
__
are the light of the world 1 "). The moral is "Let your light
shine 2 ." Luke elsewhere places another version of the Marcan
saying immediately after a denunciation of "this evil genera-
tion" as being worse than Nineveh, and before the saying
"The lamp of thy body is thine eye 3 ." This saying Matthew
places in the Sermon on the Mount after the warning to seek
treasure in heaven 4 .
These facts indicate very early differences of tradition as
to the meaning and context of "the lamp." The reasons for
these there is not space to discuss 5 . But whatever may be
the reasons the fact remains that Mark's single mention of
"the lamp" is obscure, and that he nowhere supplements it by
any doctrine concerning "light 6 ." The only instance of the
1 Mt. v. 14.
2 Mt. v. 1 6 17 "Even so let your light shine before men, that
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in
heaven. Think not that I came to destroy the law.. . ."
3 Lk. xi. 32 4 "...a greater than Jonah is here. No one
having lighted a lamp putteth it into a cellar or under the bushel
but on the stand, that those who enter may see the light. The
lamp of thy body is thine eye..
4 Mt. vi. 19 22 "Treasure ye not. . .for where thy treasure is
there will thy heart be also. The lamp of the body is the eye..
8 The regular Heb. for Xw^i/os (first mentioned in Exod. xxv. 37)
is TJ but sometimes it is TO or TO. Now TO (Gesen. 644 b) means
"tillable ground." But in Aram, it = "yoke" (Levy Ch. ii. 109 a).
Comp. i K. xi. 36 "lamp" TO, LXX 6e<ris, al. ex. OeXrjo-is, Aq. Sym.
\{>xvos, Targ. "regnum"; Prov. xxi. 4 "the lamp (marg. the tillage},"
Jerem. iv. 3 "break up your fallow ground," Syr. "kindle your
lamp." On Numb. xxi. 30 (R.V.) "we have shot at them (DTO) " Onk.
has "their kingdom," apparently taking TO as "yoke" (which Onk.
has for Heb. ^>y "yoke" in Gen. xxvii. 40 etc.). If Matthew had
before him some tradition taking TO as TJJ, "city," it might explain
his placing here "a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid."
The Heb. for "lighting" the lamps in Exod. xxv. 37 etc. is n^y,
R.V. txt "light," marg. "set up." This word is rendered in LXX
by (a) pxonai in various forms, (b) KCU'W, (c) aTrro) in various forms.
These three words are used severally in Mkiv. 21, Mt. v. i5,Lk. viii. 16.
6 Mk xiv. 54 "warming himself in the light [of the fire]" is the
only instance of <eo? in Mark.
32 (Mark iv. 21 5)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
word "light," in Mark, is where Peter warms himself "by the
light " of a fire so that he is seen and accused of being a Galilaean,
with the result that he denies his Master.
In the Sermon on the Mount, each disciple is regarded as
a "lamp," and is exhorted not to let his light be hid. Else-
where Matthew implies that the "eye," not the disciple, is
a "lamp," and in the context the eye is apparently called "the
light" ; but the metaphors are not clear, and the parallel Luke,
though more fully expressed, gives the reader no definite
notion of what the "eye" is to see 1 . The context in both
Gospels, mentioning the "evil," or "wicked," eye in opposition
to the "single" one, suggests to us that we are commanded
to "see" in a spirit of straightforward kindness and goodness
without the obliquity of jealousy and malice. But it does not
tell us whether that which we are thus to "see" is in ourselves
as suggested by the Delphian oracle to Socrates "know
thyself" or in all mankind, or in some few, or in the inanimate
as well as animate creation 2 .
What course does John take in order to lead us to the
understanding of the doctrine latent under Mark's homely
1 Mt. vi. 223 (R-V.) Lk. xi. 346 (R.V.)
(22) The lamp of the body is (34) The lamp of thy body is
the eye : if therefore thine eye thine eye : when thine eye is
be single, thy whole body shall single, thy whole body also is
be full of light. full of light ; but when it is evil,
(23) But if thine eye be evil, thy body also is full of darkness,
thy whole body shall be full of (35) Look therefore whether
darkness. If therefore the light the light that is in thee be not
that is in thee be darkness, how darkness.
great is the darkness ! (36) If therefore thy whole
body be full of light, having no
part dark, it shall be wholly full
of light, as when the lamp with
its bright shining doth give thee
light.
2 See Origen Cels. vi. 3 replying to a quotation of Celsus from a
letter of Plato who writes that the Supreme Good, e'/c TroXX^s- o-wova-ias
TTp\ TO Trpayp.0. avro KOI TOV av^fjv e^ai<pvr]s, oiov diro Trvpos
s e^acpdev (pas, ev rfj "^fv%fi yevofjifvov euro cavrb fjdr] rpefpei.
Origen's quotation differs slightly.
A. L. 33 (Mark iv. 21 5) 3
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
tradition of the lamp under the bushel 1 ? In the Prologue to
his Gospel, he strikes a note accordant with the words of the
Psalmist "Thy lovingkindness, O Lord, is in the heavens...
the children of men take refuge under the shadow of thy
wings... for with thee is the fountain of life, in thy light
shall we see light 2 ." Not that John mentions "lovingkind-
ness." That is the outcome, not the outset, of his Gospel,
John leads us up to it by introducing the Word, who is "with
God," and in whom there is a "life" that is "the light of men,"
and through whom men receive "authority to become children
of God." Whereas Mark speaks of "the lamp" as "coming,"
John speaks of " the light " as " coming " ('the light that lighteth
every man coming [continually] into the world"). But the
Prologue goes on to say also that this Word "became flesh"
and "tabernacled among us," and it concludes by telling us
what men consequently saw and what they did not and could not
see: "We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from
the Father. ... No man hath seen God at any time : the only
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared [him] 3 ."
What John here thus adds does not deny, but supple-
ments, the Synoptic doctrine, and at the same time protects his
readers from an error of such "philosophy" as goes hand in
hand with "vain deceit 4 ." He tells us, in effect, that we are not
to think of "the light" as being something of our own to be
obtained by self-absorption, by meditating on our own faculties,
or by meditating on a God that can be described as Alone. God
is revealed to us in the Fourth Gospel as the Father in the
beginning, never disconnected from the Son. Later on, the
1 It may be assumed that this was in the original tradition.
Mk iv. 21 /iofiiov may have been altered by Luke (viii. 16) into
(TKevos, because of some differences as to the modius, the medimnus,
the ephah, and the seah. But modins, a Hebraized word, is retained
in Lk. xi. 33.
2 Ps. xxxvi. 5 9. 3 Jn i. 14 18.
4 Coloss. ii. 8.
34 (Mark iv. 21 5)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
thought of "the fountain of life" comes before us when we
see Jesus sitting by a " fountain" or "spring" visibly by "the
fountain of Jacob," but invisibly by the fountain of life in
heaven and teaching the Samaritan woman the doctrine of
"the living water 1 ." There is no mention of light here, but
there is a suggestion that the same Eye of God that "saw"
Hagar also "saw" the daughter of Samaria ("He told me all
things that ever I did") and that both women received a reve-
lation that was illuminative as well as nutritive 2 .
Thus gradually John leads us up to the proclamation
implied but not expressed in the Prologue: "I am the light of
the world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness,
but shall have the light of life 3 ." Even though we may find
it impossible to believe that Jesus uttered these identical words,
we may be certain that He meant them. The Synoptists them-
selves represent Jesus as saying that whosoever "received" the
Son of Man "received" God. As an inference from this, the
reception of the Son of Man as the Light of the World, is
regarded in the Fourth Gospel as bringing a higher light and
life, making humanity more truly humane, in contrast with that
bestial or infra-bestial existence into which it had too often
1 See Proclam. pp. 344 5 "What she calls (Jn iv. n, 12) 'well
((ppeap)' the Evangelist calls (Jn iv. 5, 6) 'fountain (7777777).'" Also
Jesus (Jn iv. 14) speaks of 7777777 vdaros. Comp. Gen. xvi. 7, 14,
where what is called at first Ain, 7777777, "fountain," is afterwards
called by Hagar Beer^fyptap, " well." Neither of these Hebrew words
is the same as that in Ps. xxxvi. 9 (llpO). In LXX, 7777777 never =
Heb. Beer.
2 The only Johannine mention of a "lamp" is in a reference to
John the Baptist (Jn v. 32 6): "There is another that beareth
witness of me, and I know that the witness that he witnesseth of
me is true. Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness
unto the truth. . . . He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. . . .
But the witness that I have is greater than [that of] John." The
"greater" witness is that of the Father, from whom the Son is
inseparable. "The lamp" is mentioned by contrast as an inferior
thing.
3 Jn viii. 12.
35 (Mark iv. 21 5) 3 2
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
lapsed. Yet "reception" was only a partial expression of that
spiritual metamorphosis. It was not so true to say that men
saw or possessed the Light, as to say that the Light entered
into and possessed men, regenerating their souls so that from
being the children of earth they became children of heaven 1 .
8. "He knoweth not how," and "the earth beareth fruit
of herself," in Mark 2
The parallel columns given below describe a "man" that
sows. But in Matthew this is the "householder," that is,
1 Comp. Plato Pol. vi. 509 B TOV fjXiov roT? 6p<i)p,voi$ ov
ot/zac, TTJV TOV 6pdo~dai dvvap.iv irap-^fit> <pr)o~eis, aXXa /ecu rrjv
avr)v Koi rpofp^v. The context implies that the sun is regarded as
the image or pattern (comp. Plato Tim. xviii. 49 A p-i^^a de irapa-
Sfi'y/iaros Sevrcpov) of the Supreme Good which is the source of the
ideal birth, growth, and sustenance.
This thought of the " sun " as representing the source of birth may
throw light on Philo's abrupt transition from Sarah's giving birth to
Isaac to "the lamp" in the tabernacle. In the only passage in which
Philo's Index refers to Exod. xxv. 31, he writes thus (i. 520) "For she
is wont to bring forth children to God alone. . . . For he [Moses] also
says that the (lit.) lampstand (\vxviav), the archetypal pattern of
the imitation (TO dpxfTVTrov TOV p,ip.f)p.aTos irapddeiypa) shines on one
side, that is the side toward God. For being seventh (efldd/iij) and in
the midst of the six branches ... it sends its rays upward to the ONE
(npos TO ev) thinking its light too brilliant to be met by mortal
sight. Wherefore he does not say. that Sarah did not bring forth. ..."
Elsewhere again (ii. 151 6 yap fj\ios, uxmcp rj Xv^via, p.o~os TO>V e
reray/zeVos) Philo applies the term Xu^i/m to the central light. These
passages from Plato and Philo shew how, by contrast, Mark's homely
metaphor about "the lamp under the bushel," along with Matthew-
Luke traditions about " the light of the body," and also with Matthew's
logion "Ye are the light of the world," when presented to educated
readers, might leave them dissatisfied. These Synoptic traditions
were true, but they were not the fundamental truth. The truth at
the bottom of the Three Gospels was that Jesus Himself brought
into the world a regenerating Light, and this latent truth the Fourth
Gospel draws to the surface.
2 Mk iv. 269 (R.V.) Mt. xiii. 247, 30 (R.V.)
(26) And he said, So is the (24) Another parable set he
kingdom of God, as if a man before them, saying, The king-
should cast seed upon the earth ; dom of heaven is likened unto a
36 (Mark iv. 26 9)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
God. In Mark it is not God, but simply a common human
being. That is shewn by Mark's phrase "he knoweth not how."
This could not be applied to God or to the Son of Man except
by a very forced interpretation 1 . Matthew's combination of the
Marcan words "blade" and "bud (R.V. spring up)" uniquely
used here in the Gospels shews that he had before him either
Mark or some version of Mark's tradition modified to suit the
interpretation of "man" as householder 2 . Luke may have
Mk iv. 269 (R.V.)
contd.
(27) And should sleep and
rise night and day, and the seed
should spring up (/3Aao-ra) and
grow, he knoweth not how.
(28) The earth beareth (or,
yieldeth) fruit of herself; first
the blade (xoprov], then the ear,
then the full corn in the ear.
(29) But when the fruit is
ripe (or, alloweth), straightway
he putteth forth (or, sendeth
forth) the sickle, because the
harvest is come.
Mt. xiii. 24 7, 30 (R.V.)
contd.
man that sowed good seed in his
field:
(25) But while men slept,
his enemy came and sowed tares
also among the wheat, and went
away.
(26) But when the blade
sprang up (e^XdarrjO'cv 6 ^opros),
and brought forth fruit, then
appeared the tares also.
(27) And the servants of the
householder came
(30) Let both grow together
until the harvest: and in the
time of the harvest I will say to
the reapers, Gather up first the
tares, and bind them in bundles
to burn them : but gather the
wheat into my barn.
1 Ephrem Syrus tries indeed to explain it about God thus (p. 126)
"Et quod dicit ' Ipse nescit, quod terra e se ipsa fert fructum/ non
ac si ignoraret quod plantavit, sed quia in hoc suo opere non defati-
gatur." He seems to mean that the seed is drawn up by God with
such ease and unconsciousness of effort that He may be said " not to
know" that He is doing it. Pseudo-Jerome says that the man
casting the seed is the Son of Man, and that the sleeping of the man
is the death of the Saviour: "Exsurgit semen nocte et die. Post
somnum Christi numerus credentium...germinabat in fide et crevit
in opere dum nescit ille. Tropica est ista locutio...." He adds
4< nescire nos fecit quis fructum in finem afferat," which seems to be
another attempt to explain "he knoweth not."
2 BXaorai/co occurs (in N.T.) only in Mk iv. 27, Mt. xiii. 26, Heb.
ix. 4 (of Aaron's rod that budded) and Jas. v. 18 rj yfj epXdarrjvev
rov KapTrov avrrjs. Xopros in the sense of "blade" occurs only
here, see below, p. 305.
37 (Mark iv. 26 9)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
omitted the whole owing to the doubtfulness of interpi
tation.
There are several indications that Mark's peculiar Parable
is based upon Jewish traditions concerning the first Biblical
narrative of sowing: "And Isaac sowed in that land, and found
in the same year an hundredfold; and the Lord blessed him,
and the man waxed great, and grew more and more until he
became very great 1 ." "The ground was bad," says the
Midrash, "and the year was bad"; and indeed the preceding
context says that "there was a famine in the land." Yet
Isaac "found" not "reaped," says Philo, but "found" a
hundredfold. It is implied that the "blessing" did everything ;
Isaac, who was himself a son (as it were) of the blessing bestowed
on Abraham, was blessed by the spontaneousness of the earth
in a supernatural way. To Adam it was said "Cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it... thorns also
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee 2 ," but to Isaac we may
apply the words of the Psalm "Blessed is every one that feareth
the Lord and walketh in his ways, for thou shalt eat the labour
of thine hands 3 ."
Passing to the Marcan phrase "beareth of herself '," literally
"automatically," we note that "automatic" occurs in N.T. only
here and in the story describing how the gate of Peter's prison
"automatically opened 4 ." The word "automatic" is applied
in Greek literature to the earth in the Golden Age bringing
forth her fruits of her own accord, and in LXX to the spon-
taneous fruit that springs up, of its own accord, in the seventh
or sabbatical year: " That-which-grow eth- automatically of thy
harvest thou shalt not reap 5 ." To this apparently allusion is
1 Gen. xxvi. 12 13, on which see Philo, the Midrash, Rashi, and
Origen.
2 Gen. iii. 17 18. 3 Ps. cxxviii. i 2.
4 Acts xii. IO avTOfJ.aTT) [SC. TJ TrvXr)] r^voiyrj avrols.
6 Lev. XXV. 5, II Heb. rVBD, LXX avro/xara avapaivovra.
38 (Mark iv. 26 9)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
made in the words of Isaiah, "This shall be the sign unto thee;
ye shall eat this year that-which-groweth-automatically 1 ,"
Philo connects this Levitical precept (about "that which
groweth automatically") with Isaac, as being the type of "the
self-taught and self-instructed wise man"- what we should call,
"the genius"; and he says "As to those things which we
light upon, coming to us automatically from Nature, of these
we do not find either the beginnings or the ends in ourselves as
though we were their causers. The sowing is the beginning,
the reaping is the end. But it is better to accept that [saying]
'Every beginning and every end is automatic,' [as] equivalent to
'It is Nature's work, not ours 2 .'" Later on, he says that
Isaac "'sowed' indeed, setting forth the virtue that is hostile to
envy and malice, but is said to have 'found,' not 'reaped 3 ,'"
apparently meaning that the good seed of kindness not only
exterminates the weeds and thorns of envy and malice, but also
elicits from the earth a spontaneous and unexpected fruitfulness.
Regarded in this way, the Marcan Parable is an encourage-
ment to the Christian sower to believe that, if he sows the
right seed, all things, as Paul says, will " work together for good "
for it. He may sleep, he may wake ; but whether he sleeps or
wakes his work will go on, though "he knoweth not how."
Possibly he may die. But, as Origen says, "You will find,
even under the Law, martyrs whose fruit was a hundredfold,"
and Tertullian says "The blood of Christians is seed 4 ." The
1 2 K. xix. 29 Heb. CPSD, LXX avro/nara, rep. in Is. xxxvii. 30,
where, however, LXX has a fo-Trapxas but 01 \omoi have avro/zora (or
avTop-dras) . Avro^aros- does not represent Heb. correctly in Josh. vi. 5,
Job xxiv. 24.
2 Philo i. 57* 2. In ois yap djravTop.aTL^ovo'iv CK (pixrews 7TiTvy^(d-
VO/JLCV . . . Trap' cavrols a>s dvairiovs (ed. Richter) I have assumed that
dvairiovs is a misprint for av alriois.
3 Philo i. 619, quoting Gen. xxvi. 12.
4 Origen on Gen. xxvi. 12 (Lomm. viii. 238), Tertull. Apologet.
50. Comp. Pseudo- Jerome on Mk iv. 29 " justi gaudebunt qui 'in
lacrymis semmaverunt ' (Ps. cxxvi. 5)."
39 (Mark iv. 26 9)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
martyr after death rests from his labour and "sends in the
sickle" that others may reap what he sowed 1 ; so that, like
Isaac, the martyr may be regarded as a type, not only of the
Resurrection but also of the sowing of the seed of the Holy
Spirit 2 .
John appears to express the automatic nature of spiritual
growth in the Dialogue where Jesus says to Nicodemus "That
which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and then, "The Spirit
breatheth where it listcth*." If there is an allusion to "wind"
as well as to "Spirit," that makes it all the more certain that
the expression implies a spontaneous influence uncontrolled by
man, the influence of Nature acting "of herself," that is,
automatically. We cannot add, in the same definite way,
that the Johannine passage also implies man's ignorance of
the nature of the spiritual growth. For the words " Thou
knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth 4 " may
possibly be intended to apply to the special ignorance of the
Pharisee, Nicodemus. But still the impression left on us by
the Fourth Evangelist is that he felt a valuable truth to be
contained in the Marcan "he knoweth not how," namely,
that every human teacher, every sower of the seed of truth,
1 Comp. Jn iv. 38 "others have laboured and ye have entered
into their labours."
2 Comp. Eccles. xi. 5 6 "As thou knowest not what is the way
of the wind (or, spirit), [nor] how the bones [do grow] in the womb
of her that is with child ; even so thou knowest not the work of God
who doeth all. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening
withhold not thine hand : for thou knowest not which shall prosper,
whether this or that."
On this, Gen. r. (on Gen. xxv. i, Wii. p. 290) says " R. Akiba said
' Hast thou made disciples in thy youth, make them also in thine
old age, since thou knowest not in which of them thy teaching will
endure '...." It is added that twelve thousand of his earliest disciples
died at one time, but at the last there were seven, some of the most
famous of all the Rabbis (rep. ad loc. on Eccles. xi. 5 6, somewhat
differently) .
3 Jn iii. 6, 8.
* Jn iii. 8.
40 (Mark iv. 26 9)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
has to sow and then wait waiting in ignorance of the exact
nature of the spiritual agencies that bring the seed to perfection.
Those teachers especially need this warning who are proud of
their teaching. Jesus addresses it to a teacher of the Pharisees
to whom He says, "Art thou the teacher of Israel and knowest
thou not these things 1 ?" But the same warning was needed
by Christian Pharisees later on 2 , and is needed still.
9. "Less than all the seeds," and "greater than all the
herbs," in Mark and Matthew*
Luke omits these two phrases. The omission of the former
is explicable because the mustard-seed is not "less than all the
seeds"; the omission of the latter may be similarly explicable
in a writer like Luke, who would not care to commit himself
1 Jn iii. 10.
2 Acts xv. 5 " But there rose up certain of the sect of the Phari-
sees...." They wished to exclude uncircumcised converts. Peter
reminds them of God's action (ib. 8) "giving them the Holy Spirit
even as he did unto us."
3 Mk iv. 30 32
(R.V.)
(30) And he said,
How shall we liken
the kingdom of God ?
or in what parable
shall we set it forth ?
(31) It is like
(lit. As unto) a grain
of mustard seed,
which, when it is
sown upon the earth,
though it be less than
all the seeds that are
upon the earth,
(32) Yet when it
is sown, groweth up,
and becometh greater
than all the herbs,
and putteth out great
branches ; so that
the birds of the
heaven can lodge
under the shadow
thereof.
Mt. xiii. 31 2
(R.V.)
(31) Another par-
able set he before
them, saying, The
kingdom of heaven
is like unto a grain
of mustard seed,
which a man took,
and sowed in his
field:
(32) Which in-
deed is less than all
seeds; but when it
is grown, it is greater
than the herbs, and
becometh a tree, so
that the birds of the
heaven come and
lodge in the branches
thereof.
Lk. xiii. 1 8 19
(R.V.)
(18) He said
therefore, Unto what
is the kingdom of
God like ? and where-
unto shall I liken it ?
(19) It is like
unto a grain of mus-
tard seed, which a
man took, and cast
into his own garden ;
and it grew, and
became a tree; and
the birds of the
heaven lodged in the
branches thereof.
41 (Mark iv. 30 32)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
to the assertion that no "herb" grew to a greater height than
that of the mustard. Elsewhere, in Matthew, Jesus speaks of
the effectiveness of "faith as a grain of mustard-seed." This
is explained by Origen (obscurely followed by Jerome) as
meaning, not "little faith," but "all faith" called "little"
by men of the world, though spiritually great 1 . But Clement
of Alexandria and Macarius explain it (entirely or partially)
as referring to the biting and purifying nature of mustard 2 .
The Naassenes and Simon Magus are said to have applied
"grain of mustard-seed" to a doctrine of generation "from an
indivisible point," from which they drew fanciful and sometimes
vicious inferences 3 . These facts lead us to ask whether John
anywhere intervenes by suggesting to us some truth equivalent
to the doctrine of "the less" as generating "the greater," here
implied by Mark and omitted by Luke.
If there is intervention, it is, as usual, indirect. John
never uses the word "little-one," or the adjective "little" in
any context (except in the phrase "a little time"), throughout
his Gospel 4 . Of course he is obliged to speak of those whom
Jesus called His "little ones." But he does it in a way of
his own, a way that precludes any materialistic comparison
between "little" and "great." The Evangelist first calls them,
in the Prologue of his Gospel, "children," saying that the Logos,
or Light, "gave authority to become God's children" to as
many as received Him 5 . Then, at the close of Christ's life on
1 Mt. xvii. 17 20, on which see Origen (Lomm. iii. 219) and
Jerome.
2 Clem. Alex. 155, 643 4, 966 (where it is classified with "spark,"
"pupil of the eye," and "leaven"), Macar. iv. 17 (p. 192).
3 See Son 3364 e -/, quoting Hippol. v. 4, vi. 9 and 12, and
illustrating from Levy ii. 1070 and 1760 the Jewish use of "mustard-
seed," e.g. "a mustard-seed (i.e. drop) of blood."
4 He uses piKpov adv. frequently nine times, against four (ptKpov
(2), pfTa piKpov (2)) in the Synoptists but not piKpos (except (Jn vii.
33, xii. 35) with xpovos}.
5 Jn i. 12.
42 (Mark iv. 30 32)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
earth, he represents Jesus as using to the disciples something
like what Origen calls "the language of the nursery," saying
"[Dear] little-children, yet a little while am I with you 1 .'*
Jesus here speaks to them in the language of a mother, as
Paul does, to his converts, in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Later on, changing the metaphor, Jesus says to them "And ye
now therefore have sorrow"; and He likens their present
sorrow to that of "a woman when she is in travail," and their
future joy to that of the same woman rejoicing "for the joy
that a man is born into the world" meaning, apparently,
that the "man" Christ, the risen Saviour, shall then be, as
Paul says, "[fully] shaped in them 2 ."
This passage detaches us from unprofitable speculations
about the precise size and material nature of the mustard-seed,
and concentrates our attention on the lesson to be learned from
birth and growth. But it adds something of importance.
In Mark, the lesson is simply the growth of the great from the
little. But when applied to human beings does not this growth
often imply pain? A child's body is sometimes said to have
"growing pains." And may not a child's mind and a man's
mind as long as he is spiritually an undeveloped child have
its corresponding spiritual "pains"? The ascent through*
pains of growth to a higher life suggests a thought of Resur-
rection. Isaiah encourages such a suggestion when he writes
"Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of
1 Jn xiii. 33. Te/ci/i'a, to which Origen applies the term (Lomm.
ii. 474) vTTOK.opuTTiK.6v, occurs almost certainly in Gal. iv. 19 rexi/ia
(V.r. TKVa) p,OV OVS TTaXlV O>8lV(O p.%plS OV p.Op(f)<i)0fj XpKTTOS V Vp.lv,
where the language is that of a mother, and freq. in i Jn ii. i etc.
(always pi.). Steph. Thes. gives no instance of it earlier than
those in N.T. Aristoph. has (Lysistr. 889) reKvidiov, but not TCKVLOV.
It would sound to a Greek probably more homely than "darling/*
and more like "dearie."
In Jn, Christ's only mention of rfKva is (viii. 39) "if ye are
children (7-6*1/0) of Abraham."
2 Jn xvi. 21 2, Gal. iv. 19.
43 (Mark iv. 30 32)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
her delivery, is in pain and crieth out in her pangs, so have we
been in thy presence, O Lord," and then, "Thy dead shall live;
my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell
in the dust ; for thy dew is [as] the dew of herbs, and the earth
shall cast forth the dead 1 ."
In Isaiah, instead of "herbs," many authorities here
substitute "illuminations," and LXX goes quite astray. We
cannot therefore suppose that the Marcan Parable of the
uprising of the mustard-seed to be the greatest of "herbs"
originally alluded to this passage of Isaiah, and was typical of
the Resurrection as well as of the spread of the Gospel. But
we may feel fairly confident that the Fourth Evangelist had
in his mind this passage of Isaiah as a type of various kinds of
resurrection. If that was so, the poetry of the Hebrew "dew
of herbs" might naturally be contrasted in his mind with
prosaic Christian discussions about the mustard-seed as "greater
than the herbs." This would confirm him in his purpose to
subordinate the size of the growth (from "little" to "great")
and to emphasize its regenerating nature, according to the
words of the Psalmist "In the beauties of holiness, from the
womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth Thou
art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek 2 ." At all
events the fact remains that the Fourth Gospel never mentions
Christ's "little-ones," but does mention "children of God," and
those whom Jesus Himself calls His "[dear] little children 3 ."
1 Is. xxvi. 17 19, R.V. marg. "dew of light," and so Targum.
Ibn Ezra places this interpretation before "herbs." Rashi mentions
only "herbs."
2 Ps. ex. 3 4.
* Specimens were given above (p. 30, notes 2,3) of Jewish doctrine
about mystical "hiding," called "hiding in the shadow." It is worth
noting that Mark describes the mustard-seed, which itself has been
first hidden in the ground, as putting forth such branches that the
birds of the air "find lodging under its shadow" (Mt. and Lk. "in
its branches").
Also Lk.'s substitution of (xiii. 19) "his own garden" for (Mt.)
44 (Mark iv. 30 32)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
10. Private "expounding," in Mark 1
Matthew omits two Marcan statements, ist, that Jesus
adapted His parables to the ability of His hearers, 2nd, that
He used afterwards to explain 2 all things privately to His own
disciples. Luke omits the whole. The versions of Mark vary,
and an ancient comment on Mark says that Jesus explained
only all those parables about which He was questioned*.
"Expounded all things" might well seem incompatible with
subsequent statements about the blindness of the disciples to
some of the truths taught them by Jesus. Matthew's parallel
"his field" (Mk has "the earth") may have been partly due to a
desire to shew that the seed here mentioned was not of corn but of
something select and separate. Comp. Is. Ixi. n "As the earth
bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth to bud her sowing,
so the Lord will cause to bud righteousness..." on which Gesen.
283 a refers only to Lev. xi. 37, explained by Rashi from Dan. i. 12
(comp. i. 16) "sowings to eat," R.V. ''pulse," marg. "herbs," Theod.
"seeds," LXX oa-Trpimv (of which Steph. Thes. gives Galen's inter-
pretation as "any seeds from which bread is not made").
1 Mk iv. 334 (R.V.) Mt. xiii. 345 (R.V.)
(33) And with many such (34) All these things spake
parables spake (e'XaXet) he the (eXaXf/o-ei') Jesus in parables
word unto them, as they were unto the multitudes; and with-
able to hear it: out a parable spake (e'XaXet) he
(34) And without a parable nothing unto them :
spake (cXoA) he not unto them : (35) That it might be ful-
but privately to his own disciples filled which was spoken by (or,
he expounded (eVe'Xue) all things. through) the prophet, saying, I
will open my mouth in parables ;
I will utter things hidden from
the foundation of the world
(many anc. auth. omit of the
world) .
2 By the imperfect eWXve, "used to explain" or "proceeded to
explain," and by "privately," an interval is implied between the
utterance, and the explanation, of the parable.
3 Cramer, on Mk iv. 34, "Let us understand 'expounded all
things' [to mean] that [He expounded] all things as many as they
sought to understand from Him, as [for example] the parable of the
seed and that of the tares. For the rest He left uninterpreted,
having said to them, (Mt. xiii. 51) Have ye understood all these
things? They said, Yea, Lord."
45 (Mark iv. 334)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
statement that Jesus was fulfilling the words of the Psalmist,
"I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world 1 ,"
gives us the impression that he may mean, by "things hidden,"
something corresponding to "the word" in Mark. But there
is nothing in Matthew parallel to the Marcan "expounding."
We must return to the question, touched on above, "When
did Jesus 'expound' these parables?" Here, ancient commen-
tators give little or no light. Origen, it is true, twice or thrice
quotes the Marcan tradition 2 . But he couples his first quotation
with a statement that Jesus appeared with a different appear-
ance to the multitudes from that which He assumed to His
disciples, at all events to "the eyes of their soul," and, in his
opinion, "also to the eyes of their body 3 ." This gives no
indication as to the interval between the parables and the
"expounding." It would be compatible with the view that
the "expounding," at all events in some cases, did not take
place till after Christ's resurrection.
1 Mt. xiii. 35, comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 2.
2 The quotation is undoubted where he uses the Marcan tVtXva),
not used elsewhere in the Gospels, Cels. ii. 64, iii. 46. It is
also probable in Cels. vi. 6 6Yt fiey eXczXet r6i> roC tfeoC \6yov TO'IS fj.a6r)Tals
KCET' iSi'av, *cat /ndXtara tv rals ava^a>p^(re(7iz/, eipr/rai- rtVa ' 17 v a eXeyei', OVK
3 Cels. ii. 64 'AXXa KCU etn-ep "(tar* I8iav rots idiots fjLadrjTais tire Xue "
ray TrapajSoXas 1 .. .cocrTrep rats a/coats' rja~av Kpeirrovs. . .OVTOJ /ecu rair ox^fert
Trdvrcos' /xev r^y tyvxfci ^J^ ^ ^yov^aL^ on Kat roO (rw/xaros 1 . In T. and
T. Clark's translation, this is not printed as a quotation from Mark.
In Lommatzsch it is printed as from Mt. xiii. 10, n, seqq. In
Cels. iii. 46 " Kar' 18 lav yap rots I8iois fj.a0rjrals cncXvev aTravra" 6 'lr)(rovs
as also in Philocal. 18 (Lomm. xxv. 120) Lomm. prints the
words as from Mark, but T. and T. Clark's transl. does not. Mk iv.
34 is apparently referred to in Clement. Horn. xix. 20 (ed. Clark, "He
explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven") in connection with an alleged saying of Jesus "Keep the
mysteries for me and the sons of my house," but I have found no
other early reference except perhaps Tertull. De Praescript. 20. In
the Index to Jerome's Letters (transl. Fremantle) p. 468 " Mark iv. 34 "
is an error for ix. 34.
46 (Mark iv. 33 4)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
Startling as this may be, it is certainly the conclusion to
which John leads us and that, in more ways than one. First,
negatively, though he often represents Jesus as speaking in
private to His disciples, he never represents Him as explaining
to them in private what He had said to others in public.
Secondly, he represents Jesus as saying "I have spoken openly
to the world; I ever taught in synagogue, and in the temple,
where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I
nothing 1 ." Thirdly, he represents Jesus as having taught
what would be called the essential "mystery" of the Christian
religion the doctrine of His flesh and blood as the food of the
world publicly in the synagogue of Capernaum 2 . Fourthly,
he calls the Parable of the Good Shepherd a "proverb" that
is (apparently) a dark saying, "not understood" by those to
whom it was addressed 3 . Subsequently Jesus is represented
as telling His disciples in effect (though they almost refuse to
believe it) that all His past teaching has been "dark sayings"
to them, and must be so till He sends the Holy Spirit or Paraclete
to explain their meaning 4 .
Let us suppose that John is here intervening to explain the
meaning of the Marcan tradition transmuted by Matthew and
rejected by Luke. In that case his view would seem to be to
this effect: "Mark is referring here to Christ's method of
teaching as a whole. It was not intended to hide mysteries
from the multitudes outside the circle, or 'house' (as the Jews
call it) of His disciples, and to reveal them immediately after-
wards in that ' house 5 .' It was the desire of Jesus to prepare all
for the knowledge of ' the word ' as far as possible, that is, ' even as
1 Jn xviii. 20, see Joh. Voc. 1694 b. 2 Jn vi. 59.
3 Jn x. 6. By "understood" John means "morally understood."
Every man "understands" what "a shepherd" means; but no
self-absorbed man "understands" what "the good shepherd" means.
To the Pharisees (Westcott ad loc.) " the spiritual conceptions of the
fold, the door, the sheep, the shepherd, were all strange."
4 Jn xvi. 25 foil. 6 On "house," see Son 3460 c.
47 (Mark iv. 334)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
they were able to hear [and understand].' But they were able to
go but a little way, even the most zealous of the hearers, in
understanding. As long as He was in the flesh with them, He
did not, [and could not] speak to them without a parable. But
afterwards in private, in the days that followed His resurrection,
to His own [true} disciples He expounded all things 1 ."
If all this seems to us indefinite, circuitous, and historically
unsatisfying, perhaps the reason is that we attach more import-
ance than the Fourth Evangelist did to believing definite
historical statements about the words and deeds of the incarnate
and the risen Saviour, apart from the spirit in which we believe
them. It seems clear from the whole tenor of the Johannine
Gospel and Epistle that the author cannot conceive of a soul
as being really Christian unless it permanently possesses, and
is possessed by, the quickening and instructing Spirit of the
ever-living Christ. A book that strives to impart to its readers
the conception of the influence of such a Life and such a Spirit
may well be regarded by many as less definite, direct, and
satisfying than a history (like Luke's) that devotes itself to
"tracing the course of all things accurately from the first 2 ."
1 If that is the historical fact, we must suppose that Mk iv. 10
"quite-alone (Kara p.6vas) " has a special significance. In N.T. it does
not occur elsewhere except Lk. ix. 18 V ro> tlvai avrov Trpoo-fvxopcvov
KOTO. [Movas (rvvfjcrav (marg. orvvrjVTrja-av} avrat ol fj.a6rjTai where Mk-Mt.
mentions (Mk viii. 27, Mt. xvi. 13) "Caesarea Philippi." Kara/zovay
does not occur in Goodspeed's Concordances except Hernias Mand.
xi. 8 ovde KaTapovas XaXeT Lat. secrete (but ? by himself, apart from
God's help). The Pistis Sophia, after much discourse (i 4) about
the "mystery" that is "the head of all things" and "surrounds
(or, explores) the universe," says (4) "the disciples were sitting by
themselves on the mount of Olives " and Jesus " sat at a little distance
from them (sedit remotus ab iis paululum" (rep. 5). Presently He
comes to them and says (9) " From this day I will speak with you
openly (eV Trapprja-ia) from the beginning of the truth even to the end
thereof, and I will speak with you face to face without parable."
Comp. Acts i. 6 12 which describes the disciples as questioning
Jesus on the Mount of Olives.
2 Lk. i. 3.
48 (Mark iv. 33 4)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
But if we are wise we shall accept the Fourth Gospel as whole-
somely supplementing the Third. And we may do well to ask
ourselves whether this "unsatisfying" writer might not say to
us "The Church is in danger of being too easily satisfied by
books. I would have my readers rise from their reading
unsatisfied, and desiring something that can be given them by
no book, but only by the Saviour Himself 1 ."
IT. "The word," in the Fourth Gospel as a whole
Reviewing the preceding sections we find much to justify
the conclusion that John's interventions in favour of Mark
as in the phrases "he knoweth not how/' and "hidden that it
may be revealed," and "to you is given the mystery" are
part of a general attempt to shew that the divine Logos, or
Word, is to be distinguished not only from the mere intellectual
Logos that would be connected by Greeks with "logic," but
also from Scripture on the one side and Voice on the other 2 ,
and that it is to be regarded as "sown," or incarnate in
humanity, in order to produce Love, the Love of the Son of
Man. In Christ's first mention of the Logos we have seen
reason for supposing that this mystery is suggested: "Herein
is the Word of Truth (or, the Word ideally true) that one
soweth and another reapeth," that is to say, God "sows" His
Word and man reaps salvation 3 .
1 Comp. Jn xxi. 25.
2 Comp. Papias, in Euseb. iii. 39. 4, on the importance he attached
to "what comes from living voice," TCI iraph <a<rr)s (fxovfjs as com-
pared with TO. < TWV /3i/3Aio)i/. He does not mention Scripture.
On the other hand, Irenaeus iii. 2. i describes heretics as objecting
to N.T. taken by itself, on the ground that "it was not delivered
by [written] letters but through living voice (per vivam vocem)."
John (xxi. 25) speaks of "books" as an inadequate representation of
Christ's actions. He also represents the Baptist as saying (i. 23)
" I am [but] the voice of one crying...," that is, in effect, " I am only
a voice, not the Word."
3 See 6 above.
A. L. 49 (Mark iv. 33 4) 4
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
In the expression of this doctrine, and more particularly ii
the marked distinction between "real" and "true" (alethinos
and alethes), John may have been influenced by Greek philo-
sophy. Epictetus ascribes to the logos a cleansing power. The
Gods, he says, are " clean by nature," and men, so far as they draw
nigh to the Gods in accordance with the logos, grasp that which
is clean and that which is cleansing (or, cleanly). "But since
it is impossible that their substance should be entirely clean,
being blended of such matter (hyle) [as is inherent in it], the
logos, received from [the Gods by men] attempts to make this
[substance} cleanly as far as possible' 1 ." No doubt Epictetus
implied that there is to be in this "cleansing" some infusion
of love, good will, and respect for one's fellow creatures. But
he does not say so here ; and it is significant that in the whole
of the Dissertations the word "good-will" occurs only inci-
dentally 2 .
The Fourth Evangelist also represents the logos as "cleans-
ing." But in how different a form! And with an appeal to
motives how different ! He represents Jesus, on the last night
of His intercourse with His disciples, as washing their feet like
a servant, and as saying to them, some time afterwards,
"Already are ye clean because of the logos that I have spoken
1 Epict. IV. II. 3 4 7T\ yap eKflvoi (pv<Ti Kadapol KOI
<p* ocrov TjyyiKCKTiv avrols ol avOpwTroi Kara rov Aoyov, eVt rocroCroi/ KOL rov
Kadapov Kcil TOV K.a6apiov fla~lv dv6<TiKoi. eVet d' dfjLrj^avov TTJV oixriav OVTCOV
TravTcnrafTiv eivai KciQapav e*c roiavrrjs v\rjs KfKpa/jLevTjv, 6 \6yos 7rapa\r)(pdels
els TO evdf^ofifvov ravTTjv naddpiov aTroreXeii/ Tretpdrai.
2 The only mention of ei/Voia is in iv. i. 22 "he asks for a sword,
and is angry with the man who, out of good will, refuses it." But
it occurs also in the Fragments ed. Schenkel, pp. 472, 480. <J>tAi'a
occurs more frequently, and there is a passionate detestation (ii. 4. 3)
of the selfish licentiousness that destroys neighbourhood, friendship
and citizenship ; but the treatise on <pi\ia shews that the philoso-
pher's main thought is of that which is (ii. 22. 20) "profitable
(a-woia-fi) " to himself, that is to his true Self, the Man within him
(as opposed to the Beast).
50 (Mark iv. 33 4)
THE PARABLES OF SOWING
to you ; abide in me, and I too in you 1 ." Herein Jesus is
referring to what He had said immediately after the washing,
"Ye are clean, but not all 2 "- -"not all," because Judas had not
"received the logos" into himself. As soon as Judas goes out
of the chamber, Jesus promulgates the New Commandment:
"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another 3 ."
Few, very few, are he commandments or precepts that
Jesus gives to His disciples in the Fourth Gospel. In Matthew
and Luke they abound. In Mark they are perhaps not more
than a dozen. But in John the precepts of Jesus to the
Disciples, up to the night of the Last Discourse, are not more
than three: (i) "Lift up your eyes," (2) "Make the people sit
down," (3) "Gather up the fragments 4 ." It is perhaps not an
accident that the Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as giving to
the Twelve, up to the time of the Washing of the Feet, no pre-
cepts at all except such as concerned them, either (i) as reapers
of the spiritual harvest, or (2) as preparers of the people for
the reception of the spiritual bread, or (3) as recipients (in full
measure) of bread for themselves in return for the bread given
to others.
1 Jn xv. 3 4. 2 Jn xiii. 10.
3 Jn xiii. 34.
4 Jn iv. 35, vi. 10, 12. Some might add, as being at all events
an imperative, Jn xii. 7 a$es. But this is in the singular; and the
context, mentioning Judas by name, suggests that Judas is ad-
dressed. The above remarks refer to precepts addressed to more
disciples than one.
51 (Mark iv. 33 4) 4 2
CHAPTER II
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
[Mark iv. 35 41]
i. Why does John omit this ?
WE now come to a point where criticism, if it is to be
practised at all, will have to include minute verbal analysis, a
close study of words and minute phrases, as well as an attempt
to re-imagine (as it were) the mingled reminiscences and
imaginations of the Galilaean fishermen who formed an
important part in the circle of Christ's disciples, and who,
after His resurrection, sang songs of praise and adoration to
their Lord in heaven while waiting day by day till He should
return to them on earth.
An instance of such minute verbal analysis was given in a
previous volume where it was shewn 1 that a single Greek word
used by Luke pointed to early divergent interpretations of
one of what we might call the Gennesaret-traditions. Luke
represented Peter in a fishing-boat as "making signs" to his
partners in another fishing-boat to come and help him, in con-
sequence of a miraculous draught of fishes so vast that the
boats were "beginning to sink 2 ." It was shewn that the Greek
word kateneusa used by Luke did not elsewhere mean "made
signs" (though it might mean "made a sign of assent") but that
1 Proclamation pp. 91 7.
2 Lk. v. 7 coo-re fivdi&crQai aura. Evdl^op-ai does not occur in canon.
LXX. Goodspeed gives it only in Clem. Rom. Cor. 51 of the
Egyptians in the Red Sea. EvOos in canon. LXX refers almost
always to the Red Sea, or metaph. to the "sinking" or "drowning"
of the soul. Bu#io>, in N.T. elsewhere, occurs only in i Tim. vi. 9
of spiritual "drowning."
52 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
it did sometimes mean "swam to [shore}." Now John does, in
effect, describe Peter as swimming to shore, toward Jesus,
from a fishing-boat on Gennesaret, after Christ's resurrection.
Hence it was inferred that John regarded Luke as having
misinterpreted and placed before the Resurrection an event
that he should have placed after it.
These facts, though discussed under the Calling of the
Fishermen, will demand some attention later on when we are
confronted with the question why, and with what differences,
John describes the Walking on the Sea, which Mark and
Matthew insert but which Luke omits. For we must there note
that in that description Matthew inserts an account of Peter's
coming to Jesus across the sea and "beginning to be drowned*-."
This John omits, presumably regarding it, like Luke's version,
as erroneous and antedated.
The object of these remarks is to bespeak more than usual
patience for the study of some details in the Stilling of the
Storm, on the ground that, in such a narrative, even a single
word or phrase may have a meaning not visible on the surface
and not fully intelligible till we perceive that it refers to a
post-resurrectional period.
It will be convenient to dwell separately on the traditions
peculiar to Mark in the parallel texts as given below. Putting
aside unimportant verbal differences, and also the exorcistic
address to the sea ("Be silent, be thou muzzled") which is
alien from the Fourth Gospel 2 , we find the following three:
1 Mt. xiv. 30 apgdpevos KaTaTrovTi&o-Qai (not elsewhere in N.T.
except Mt. xviii. 6 implying condemnation). In LXX, once of the
Red Sea, elsewhere always metaphorical.
2 Mk iv. 39 2id)7ra, Trec^i^axro. Comp. Mk i. 25, Lk. iv. 35, where
"Be thou muzzled" is used exorcistically. John, later on, speaks
Of "a great wind that blew," vi. l8 fj re 0d\acr(ra dvepov peydXov
n-veovTos dt^yeipero (as Ax etc.). "Great wind" (of which three
instances are mentioned in Lev. r. on Lev. xiii. 2} suggests God as
the Sender in the case of Jonah (i. 4). The other instances are Job
i. 19 ("there came a great wind") where Satan is apparently
53 (Mark iv. 3541)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
(i) " they take him [i.e. Jesus], as he was, in the boat," (2) " an<
other boats were with him," (3) "he was in the stern on tl
cushion 1 ."
permitted to send it, and i K. xix. n where the Lord apparently
sends it, but "the Lord was not in the wind."
1 Mk iv. 35 41
(R.V.)
(35) And on that
day, when even was
come, he saith unto
them, Let us go over
unto the other side.
(36) And leaving
the multitude, they
take him with them,
even as he was, in
the boat. And other
boats were with him.
(37) And there
ariseth a great storm
of wind, and the
waves beat into the
boat, insomuch that
the boat was now
filling.
(38) And he him-
self was in the stern,
asleep on the cush-
ion : and they
awake him, and say
unto him, Master (or,
Teacher) (Biddo-xaXf),
carest thou not that
we perish ?
(39) And he
awoke, and rebuked
the wind, and said
unto the sea, Peace,
be still. And the wind
ceased, and there was
a great calm.
(40) And he said
unto them, Why are
ye fearful? have ye
not yet faith?
(41) And they
feared exceedingly,
and said one to
another, Who then
is this, that even the
wind and the sea
obey him?
Mt. viii. 1 8, 23 7
(R.V.) "
(18) Now when
Jesus saw great mul-
titudes about him,
he gave command-
ment to depart unto
the other side.
(23) And when
he was entered into
a boat, his disciples
followed him.
(24) And behold,
there arose a great
tempest in the sea,
insomuch that the
boat was covered
with the waves : but
he was asleep.
(25) And they
came to him, and
awoke him, saying,
Save, Lord, we perish,
(26.) And he
saith unto them,
Why are ye fearful,
O ye of little faith ?
Then he arose, and
rebuked the winds
and the sea; and
there was a great
calm.
(27) And the men
marvelled, saying,
What manner of
man is this, that even
the winds and the
sea obey him?
Lk. viii. 22 5
(R.V.)
(22) Now it
came to pass on one
of those days, that
he entered into a
boat, himself and his
disciples; and he said
unto them, Let us go
over unto the other
side of the lake : and
they launched forth.
(23) But as they
sailed he fell asleep:
and there came down
a storm of wind on
the lake; and they
were filling [with
water], and were in
jeopardy.
(24) And they
came to him, and
awoke him, saying,
Master, master, (<rVi-
(rrura), we perish.
And he awoke,
and rebuked the
wind, and the raging
of the water: and
they ceased, and
there was a calm.
(25) And he said
unto them, Where is
your faith ? And
being afraid they
marvelled, saying
one to another, Who
then is this, that he
commandeth even
the winds and the
water, and they obey
him?
54 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
2. (R. V.) " They take him with them, even as he was,
in the boat," in Mark 1
No explanation of "even as he was" is alleged from any
early commentator. Euthymius paraphrases it, "as He was
sitting in the boat." This is said to mean that Jesus was
"already on board a point which Matthew and Luke overlook
and He now put to sea without going ashore to make prepara-
tions 2 ." But (i) there is no other instance in which the disciples
are said to "take" Jesus "with them" in this literal sense;
(2) the divergences of Matthew and Luke indicate that they
dissented from the Marcan tradition ; (3) the Diatessaron omits
the Marcan clause, though inserting the Marcan words that
precede and that follow; (4) an ancient commentator on Mark
reads "He took them with him," and explains why He did it,
namely, that He might "make them witnesses" of the miracle
that was to follow 3 .
The precise meaning of the Marcan word is "take, or receive,
from." Applied to things, it is often used of "receiving [tradition]
from" a teacher. Applied to persons, it may mean "receiving
[children] from [parents'] " with a view to instruction, but it
also means, generally, "taking charge of" "taking into one's
own circle" "taking as a companion*" In LXX it is used
of Abraham, Laban, Joseph etc. "taking, from [one place to
another]," servants, or friends, to accompany them on some
journey or business 5 . In the Synoptic Gospels, it is frequently
1 Mk iv. 36 Trapa\ap,^dvov(riv avrov cos r\v tv ro> TrXoico.
2 So Prof. Swete quoting Euthymius, and adding " In the Gospels
the word is commonly used of the Lord 'taking' the Twelve, e.g.
ix. 2, x. 32, xiv. 33, cf. Jo. xiv. 3 ; but here the disciples, as owners
and navigators of the boat, 'take' Him with them."
3 Cramer ad loc. He uses first eXa#e and then 7rape'Aa/3e, thus :
TOVS fjiev ovv jj.a6rjTas ju.e$' eavrov e'Xa/3ei>... 7rapeXa/3e Se
dXX' wore Troifjarai Qcaras TOV JJ.\\OVTOS eo'fO'Oai flavparos. . . .
4 See Steph. Thes. TrapaXap-^dvco.
5 See LXX Oxf. Concordance, 7rapaXa/j,/3dj>a>.
55 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
used of Jesus taking all, or some, of the Twelve apart, as
companions. But it is never thus used by John. His three
instances of it are (i) (narrative) "He [i.e. the Logos] came
unto his own and his own received him not," (2) (Jesus to the
disciples) "If I go and prepare a place for you, I come again
and will receive you unto myself," (3) (narrative) "Then there-
fore he [i.e. Pilate] delivered him unto them [i.e. the Jews] to
be crucified. They therefore received Jesus 1 ."
As to this last, it is worth noting that the only Synoptic
instances of "receiving Jesus" are in Matthew's accounts of
the Temptation and the Passion. In the former, there is some
obscurity since the devil is twice described as "receiving"
Jesus 2 . Origen, in a comment on Satan and the "delivering
up," or paradosis, of Jesus, after saying that the Father
"delivered up the Son, as in the case of Job, to the opposing
powers," says that "it was to the destruction of their own
kingdom and dominion, contrary to their expectation, that they
received the Son from the Father 3 ." In the account of the
Passion Matthew says "Then the soldiers of the governor
received Jesus [from Pilate and took him] into the praetorium 4 ."
It is perhaps not without a touch of Johannine irony that
John begins his Gospel by saying that when the incarnate Logos
came to "his own" i.e. to the Jews from God, "his own
received him not," but when He was delivered to them by Pilate,
then "they received him."
1 Jn i. n, xiv. 3, xix. 16 17.
2 Mt. iv. 5 R.V. " Taketh (7rapa\ap.[3dvft} him into the holy city,"
A.V. " taketh him up," rep. ib. 8. Luke avoids the difficult word,
having dvdyeiv and ayeiv. Origen (Lomm. xxi. 511, rep. xxv. 21)
uses dvajh&d(ovTos, perhaps blending (see context) Luke and Matthew.
3 Origen Comm. Matth. xiii. 8, 9 s KardXva-iv rtjs Idias ftao-tXeias
KOI dpxfjs irapa trpoarboKiav Trapa\a(36vT$ dirb TOV TraTpos TOV viov.
* Mt. xxvii. 27 rore ot frrpancorai TOV f)yfp.6vos, TrapaXafiovTfs TOV
'ITJO-OVV els TO TrpaiTojpiov The other Synoptists do not use the word
in describing the Passion. See Joh. Gr. 2570 d quoting Evang. Petr. i
KOI Tore KcXevffl 'HpwdrjS 6 ftao-iXevs 7rap[aXr]p](pdfjvai TOV Kvpiov.
56 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
The Pauline Epistles say (i) "As therefore ye received Christ
Jesus the Lord, [so] walk in him," (2) "Having received from
us the word of hearing [i.e. the word of the Gospel] [which is
the word] of God, ye welcomed [it] not [as the] word of men,
but even as it truly is [the] word of God, which also inwardly-
worketh in you that believe," (3) (in a passage where "learn
Christ" means in effect "receive Christ") "Ye did not so learn
Christ, if so be that ye have heard him, and were taught in him,
even as truth is in Jesus 1 ." All these imply that we are, in
some spiritual sense, to "receive Jesus as He is," not merely to
receive words about Jesus. The phrase "as He is" may be
illustrated from the Johannine Epistle, which uses it of the
ultimate revelation for which men may hope : "We know that,
if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him, for we shall see
him even as he is 2 "
In the Walking on the Sea, it is said by John alone, "They
therefore desired to take (or, receive) him into the boat 3 ."
John here uses the uncompounded form "take" (not "take-
from"). No doubt there is a difference between the two, as
may be seen from his Prologue, where he uses the compounded
along with the uncompounded form, thus: "He [i.e. the
Logos, or the Son] came unto his own, and his own did not
receive him from [the Father] ; but, as many as received him,
to them gave he authority to become children of God 4 ." In
the Prologue, the meaning perhaps is that, "when the Son of
God came to His own family, none received Him [fitly as coming]
from [the Father], but some received Him [though imperfectly]^."
So here, on the hypothesis that the Johannine clause ("they
desired to receive him into the boat") is to be taken
1 Coloss. ii. 6, i Thess. ii. 13, Eph. iv. 20, 21.
2 I Jn iii. 2 Ko0<bs eortv.
3 Jn vi. 21 rjOf\ov ovv Xafttlv avrbv els TO irXolov.
4 Jni. II 12 irap\aftov...\a$ov.
5 Quoted from Joh. Gr. 2570, where see the difference between
a) and irapaXap^dvco, illustrated from Epictetus.
57 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
metaphorically, we may suppose that some clause of this
in the original tradition referred to the spiritual "reception"
Jesus after the Resurrection, when He returned to them aci
the waters of Sheol, and when they recognised that He was
"phantasm" or "bodiless spirit" or "demon," but their true
Lord, so that they "received Him as He was," though (even
now) imperfectly, because the Holy Spirit had not
descended 1 .
Of course to modern readers all this seems extremely
fanciful. But we should put ourselves in the position of the
Galilaean fishermen during that night of despair when their
Master as they afterwards believed and as the Christian
Creeds teach us still to believe actually passed across the Sea
of Death in order to "preach to the spirits in prison." Then
we ought to attempt to realise something of the nature of those
songs which Paul and Silas sang in the dungeon of Philippi and
which Christians must have sung from the beginning of the
Gospel that they preached in His name. Thus, and only thus,
shall we be prepared to do justice to the supposition that these
narratives of what happened on the Sea of Galilee are described
in language originally used in Songs of Resurrection.
1 "Phantasm," in X.T., occurs only in Mk vi. 49, Mt. xiv. 26
(the Walking on the Sea) where SS has "devil," and in Lk. xxiv.
37 (D) (the Resurrection) " they thought they saw a spirit (rm>a)
(D favTavpa)." Ignatius has (Smyrn. 3) "For I know that also
after the resurrection... when He came to Peter and his friends
[//. to those around Peter], He said to them, Take (or, re:
, handle me, and see (t&rrc) that I am not a bodiless
avviLorov)" Lk. xxiv. 37 8 adds that the disciples
" terrified and fitll-of-fear (epfopoi) " and that Jesus said to them
"\Vhy are ye troubled (Tera/wry/wVoi) ? " Comp. /*q <o/3i<r0f in
Mk vi. 50, Mt. xiv. 27, Jn vi. 20 and (rapaxfoivav in Mk vi. 50,
Mt. xiv. 26 (Jn vi. 19 t<t>o$q0T)(rav) . The Johannine account of the
Resurrection makes no mention of "fear" except in Jn xx. 19 "the
doors being shut where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, there
came Jesus and stood in the midst...."
58 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
It is not proof, but only supposition supposition, how-
ever, derived from many lines of evidence pointing to one
conclusion. It must be reserved for later occasions when we
come to discuss the Walking on the Sea and the Resurrection
to collect in detail the evidence for the hypothesis that the
Resurrection is the historical fact, on which are based the two
earlier narratives of Mark-Matthew (one omitted by John and
one by Luke) which are of the nature of poetry. The phrase
"of the nature of poetry" (not "poetry") is intended to leave
us free to believe that there may have been some actual scenes
of storm on Lake Gennesaret, which, after Christ's resur-
rection, were recorded in Galilaean poetry as being typical of
that which came to pass later on when Christ "fell asleep 1 ."
If the hypothesis had not been stated here, the reader might
have complained that, in dealing with the phrase "they took
him with them even as he was," we had passed over an
instance of the failure of the rule of Johannine Intervention.
We maintain on the contrary that it will be found to be an
instance not of failure, but of fulfilment, if the reader will keep
his mind open for the evidence as a whole.
1 Compare Origen Cant. Horn. ii. 9 (Lomm. xiv. 272 3) "To
this day in the faithless, and in those of doubtful heart, the divine
Word sleeps... sleeps in those who are tossed by storm-waves....
Straightway comes a calm when He awakes (eo vigilante) . Straight-
way all the mighty masses of waters become still ; all the opposing
spirits (or, winds) (spiritibus) are rebuked ; the rage of the waves is
silent. While He sleeps, there is storm, death, and despair."
Origen also expressly accepts the narrative in its literal sense as well
as spiritually (Lomm. v. 269 70) : " Although at all times, when
He is awakened (excitatur) by disciples, He restrains the whirlwinds
or storm-blasts of the Church, yet it is certain that also at the time
the events recorded in the history actually took place (tamen certum
est etiam tune gesta esse ea quae per historiam referuntur)."
Origen's words are capable of a partial illustration from a poetical
conception of the Saviour's Descent into Sheol. When Jesus fell
asleep on earth, the opposing spirits raged in exultation. When He
passed into Sheol and led captivity captive, they were rebuked and
became silent.
59 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
3. "And other boats were with him," in Mark 1
The text in Mark varies. Several MSS or versions insert
"many" and omit "other 2 "; or insert "but" as well as
"and 3 "; or omit "boats," or substitute "little boats 4 " ; or have
"with them" for "with him 5 ." Codex D, instead of ploia,
4 'boats," has, apparently under an erasure, a feminine form
ploiai, non-existent in Greek 6 . It is possible to explain the varia-
tions as to "other" and "but" from a passage about "boats"
in John where Nonnus and Chrysostom take the Greek to mean
"other boats," but R.V. and W.H. take it as "but boats 7 ." The
Greek, in ancient MSS which are unaccented, may mean either
"other" or "but," so that the Greek MSS are of no interpretatory
value on this point.
This Johannine passage has an obvious bearing on our
1 Mk iv. 36 Kal aXXa TrXoIa fy /zer' avrov, om. in parall. Mt.-Lk.
2 Confusion has arisen owing to the ambiguity of aXXa meaning
(i) "but" (adversative), (2) "other." Those who took it to mean
''other" might add de meaning "but" (supplementary). See
below. Codex b inserts " simul " as well as "multae": "et multae
naves simul erant cum illo," codex e ("many persons"} has "et
simul multi erant cum eo."
3 See Swete ad loc.
4 See Swete as to "little boats (TrXoiapia)," but add that codex e
has "many [persons]," and that codex b has, first, "navicula" ("in
the little-boat"), and then "naves" ("many boats").
5 So Syr. in Walton "naviculae autem aliae cum eis erant."
6 Mk iv. 36 K<U aXXcu Se TrXotat TroXXai rjvav, consistently making
the adj. aXXos feminine pi. and the verb rjaav pi. instead of singular.
7 Jn vi. 23 (W.H.) aXXtt r}\0v TrXoTa. Probably the harshness
of "other boats came" without "but" or "and" to introduce the
clause has induced W.H. to accent aXXa as "but." This harshness
(doubtless) explains why many authorities insert Se. Alford reads
aXXa [Se] r)\6fv TrXotdpia. Blass rewrites the text as evfftrjo-av fls
7r\ouipia f-rreXQuvTa < Tiftepiddos. But if that had been the original,
why should scribes have altered a sentence so simple and easy?
The chaotic condition of the text in Jn vi. 23 (for which see Blass
ad loc.) is best explained as an attempt of John to clarify an old
Marcan tradition about aXXa TrXoia.
60 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
Marcan tradition about "other boats." And if alia, ''but,"
were placed before the Greek ploia, it might be read as
all' aploia. Now aploia means "weather not fit for sailing."
That might seem appropriate in Mark: "Jesus was already
in the boat, desirous to depart, but the weather was not fit for
sailing." Moreover the word aploia had a kind of literary
history which would make it specially appropriate at the outset
of a narrative that was to suggest to Christians a thought of
their Lord as being in the circumstances of Jonah, yet rising
superior to them. For aploia in Herodotus, ^Eschylus, and
Euripides, means unfavourable winds sent by the Gods and
propitiated by human sacrifice^. It was known to all the world
that the Greek fleet sailing for Troy had been detained at
Aulis till Iphigenia had been offered up as a sacrifice to Artemis.
It was also known to all Jews that Jonah had been, in a manner
different but somewhat similar, cast into the deep at his own
request, for the sake of the safety of his companions.
The word is not alleged to occur in later Greek 2 . We
should therefore note the use of it in the Dissertations of
Epictetus, where he says that, instead of concentrating ourselves
on one thing alone namely, our mind we foolishly attach
ourselves to external things: "For this cause, if there be foul-
weather (aploia) we sit, distracted, and peering constantly
' What wind is it ? ' we say, ' Boreas ? What do we want with
Boreas? When will Zephyrus blow?" The philosopher
replies to the distracted man "When Zephyrus pleases, my good
1 See ttTrAoia in Herod, ii. 119 (pi.) and Aesch. Ag. 150 (Dindorf)
(pi.) ; also sing, in Aesch. Ag. 188, Eurip. Iph. Aul. 88, Iph. Taur.
15. Plutarch Mor. 8576 is quoting Herodotus, though loosely. In
all these cases, human sacrifice is the result, resorted to in order to
terminate aTrXota.
2 It is not in the Concordances to Aristophanes, Aristotle,
Demosthenes, nor in the Index to Lucian, nor in the Indices to
Berlin Urkunde and Egypt Expl. Papyri (Sept. 1915). In Plutarch
it occurs merely as part of a free quotation from Herodotus.
6 1 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
friend, or when ^Eolus pleases. For the Gods did not make you
steward of the winds, but ^Eolus 1 .
Whatever may be the explanation of the variations in the
MSS they indicate that the phrase caused difficulty in early
times; and the Johannine clause and its variations, when
compared with the Marcan clause and its variations, appear
to constitute an instance of Johannine Intervention. This
increases the probability that as to the Marcan clause in the
context, discussed in the last section ("they took, or, received,
him"), John has again intervened; for an intervention that is
only slightly probable as to a particular text becomes more
probable if we can shew that the writer intervened as to the
context 2 .
4. "On the cushion," in Mark 5
No satisfactory evidence has been hitherto produced that
''the cushion" in a literal sense, was " a regular part of the boat's
1 Epict. i. i. 16. *A7r\oia occurs nowhere else in Epictetus.
The text varies. Might Epictetus here be jibing against the Christian
representation of Jesus as ^Eolus and reproducing some version of
the tradition about aXXaTrXom ? Or might the scribe of D be influenced
by traditions about the aVXoia that befell Jonah?
2 Whatever uncertainty may attend the explanation of this
Johannine parenthesis about AAAATTAOIA, one conclusion is fairly
certain, that it does not proceed from the Evangelist's invention.
And this is important because of the great number of Johannine
parentheses (see Joh. Gr. Index "Parenthesis"}. Some of these
suggest, at first sight, that the Gospel has been "worked over" by
an editor, with doctrinal bias, who has not always taken the trouble
to fill the gaps between the evangelic text and the editorial inter-
polations. But the clause under consideration, when studied along
with Mark, does not favour the hypothesis of an editor adding
anything of his own invention. It rather favours the hypothesis of
an evangelist or sub-evangelist, inserting an ancient explanation,
for which he did not consider himself responsible.
3 Mk iv. 38 eV rrj rrpvfjivy eVi TO 7rpoa-Kf(j)d\aiov Kadevdav. D omits
TO. Instead of " puppe (stern)," codex e has " prior a," apparently
for "prora," followed by "super pulvinum dormiens." An ancient
commentary says " Mark has also told us how He slept, namely, that
62 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
equipment 1 ." Codex Bezae alters "the cushion" into "a
cushion." But how came "the" into the Greek text? And
why do the parallel Matthew and Luke avoid the word altogether
instead of adopting this simple alteration? These questions
call for an answer, and at the same time, although John omits
the whole of this narrative, we are bound to ask, in accordance
with our rule, whether he has anything that bears on the Marcan
word.
In the first place we must note that the Greek for "cushion"
is literally "head-rest," or "pillow," and that it is only occa-
sionally and irregularly used for a rower's cushion. In the
next place, the Syriac Thesaurus has a form of the word "pillow "
not only in Mark but also in John, "She saw two angels in
white sitting, one at the pillow, and one at the feet, where the
body of Jesus had been put 2 ." Then, looking into the
Scriptural Hebrew that corresponds to the Syriac "pillow,"
it was ev 7rpoa-Ke(pa\aia>, plainly shewing His simplicity (cirvcpov)."
I do not understand the force of <?V, if it is deliberately substituted
for eVi.
1 Concerning the irpoo-KefidXaiov, Theophylact (writing about A.D.
1071) says gv\ivov 8e irdvTvs rjv TOVTO. But it is not shewn by com-
petent evidence that in boats on the Sea of Galilee or elsewhere
there existed a structure of this kind that was called "the head-rest,"
TO 7Tpoo-K(pd\aiov. On the other hand Steph. Thes. illustrates the use
of TTpoo-KefpdXaiov for vnrjpecnov ("rower's cushion") and quotes Lysias
p. 121, 36 7TpoorKf(pd\aia els TTJV rcxprjv as shewing that the word was
applied to a part of funeral clothing. The evidence of Macgregor
(Rob Roy on the Jordan, 4th ed. p. 321) begs the question ("evi-
dently a regular part of the boat's equipment, from the use of the
definite article") and is of no value.
2 Jn xx. 12. So Walton. Thes. Syr. 293 has "cervical" here and
in Gen. xxxviii. (error for xxviii.) n, 18, i S. xix. 13, xxvi. 12, etc.,
and adds that in the place of the sing, (which is non-existent) there
is used in Mk iv. 38 a shortened form with a prefix. Castell 173
renders the Chaldaic in O.T. and the Syr. in Jn xx. 12 by "cervical."
SS for Mk is wanting; for Jn it is rendered (Burk.) "one at the head
of the place" Walton, "unum a cervicali" "that Jesus had been
lying in and one at the feet."
63 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
we see that it is a plural noun meaning "place at the head"
or " head -place," but it is rendered by A.V. "pillows" in Genesis,
and "bolster" in Samuel, and by A.V. marg. and R.V. "head-
tires" in Jeremiah 1 . This indicates that a word rendered in
Mark's version of the Stilling of the Storm "pillow" or
"cushion," may have been rendered in a Johannine narrative
of the Resurrection "the place at the head," but it would not
shew, or even suggest, that John was alluding to Mark, unless
other evidence of allusion were produced.
The only instance of the Marcan word "pillow" in the
canonical LXX corresponds to a form of a Hebrew word
meaning "cover," so that it might naturally mean "covering"
or "veil," and Origen (followed by Jerome) takes it as a
woman's veil thrown over the face of a man a thing that
ought not to be 2 . Now John, in the same narrative in which
he mentions Mary as seeing an angel "at the head (Syr. head-
place, or pillow)," mentions also Peter, a little before, as seeing
"the napkin that had been on his head... 3 ." This is not the
place to discuss what Origen calls the "tropology 4 " that is
to say mystical metaphor of all these Johannine details, which
suggest the thought of Jesus bound and veiled in the grave by
well-meaning Jewish friends, but released and glorified in the
Resurrection. All that we can say here is, first, that we ought
not to conclude at present that John has not intervened as to
1 Gesen. 912 quoting Gen. xxviii. u, 18 etc. and Jerem. xiii. 18
(where Gesen. proposes to read "from your heads").
2 Ezek. xiii. 18 20 (bis). See Origen on Ezek. xiii. 18 (Lomm.
xiv. 43 5) " Si quis vero confusionis velamen gerit et peccati, iste
quasi muliebria velamina habet super caput suum."
3 Jn xx. 7 "the napkin that had been on his head ... apart,
wrapped up (lit.) into one place" a rare phrase (Gesen. 880 a)
suggesting that the napkin was rolled away like the waters (Gen.
i. 9, comp. Ps. civ. 8 9) that once veiled the face of the earth.
4 Origen Cels. V. 56 S^AomKOi' TWOS elvai TpOTroXoyias rrjs irpl rwv
7rpo(paivoiJ.VO)v rois TT]V avdo'Tao'iv TOV Aoyou Ocwpelv
64 (Mark iv. 35 41)
THE STILLING OF THE STORM
this particular Marcan phrase until we have weighed the cumu-
lative evidence for such intervention as a whole ; secondly, that
these " Gennesaret-traditions " lend themselves to variety of
interpretation and chronological arrangement; thirdly, that
if John has intervened, the intervention may be illustrated by
his description of Peter as swimming from his boat to the Lord,
whereas Luke describes him as in a boat that is ''beginning to
sink/' and Matthew as himself "beginning to be drowned."
A. L. 65 (Mark iv. 35 41)
CHAPTER III
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
[Mark v. i 20]
i. Reasons for discussing this narrative
IT was necessary to print the narratives given below, for
the sake of completeness, in order that the reader might feel
that no facts are kept back from him that are unfavourable
to the theory of Johannine Intervention 1 . But at first sight no
1 Mk v. i 20
(R.V.)
(1) And they
came to the other
side of the sea, into
the country of the
Gerasenes.
(2) And when
he was come out of
the boat, straight-
way there met him
out of the tombs a
man with an unclean
spirit,
(3) Who had his
dwelling in the
tombs : and no man
could any more bind
him, no, not with a
chain ;
(4) Because that
he had been often
bound with fetters
and chains, and the
chains had been rent
asunder by him, and
the fetters broken in
pieces : and no man
had strength to tame
him.
Mt. viii. 28 34
(R.V.)
(28) And when
he was come to the
other side into the
country of the Gada-
renes, there met him
two possessed with
devils, coming forth
out of the tombs,
exceeding fierce, so
that no man could
pass by that way.
Lk. viii. 26 39
(R.V.)
(26) And they
arrived at the coun-
try of the Gerasenes
(v.r. Gergesenes, or,
Gadarenes) which is
over against Galilee.
(27) And when
he was come forth
upon the land, there
met him a certain
man out of the city,
who had devils ; and
for a long time he
had worn no clothes,
and abode not in
[any] house, but in
the tombs.
66 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
comment appeared to be needed except that John records no
exorcisms, and that the Synoptic narratives contain nothing
Mk v. i 20
(R.V.) contd.
(5) And always,
night and day, in the
tombs and in the
mountains, he was
crying out, and cut-
ting himself with
stones.
(6) And when
he saw Jesus from
afar, he ran and
worshipped him ;
(7) And crying
out with a loud voice,
he saith, What have
I to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of
the Most High God ?
I adjure thee by God,
torment me not.
(8) For he said
unto him, Come forth,
thou unclean spirit,
out of the man.
Mt. viii. 28 34
(R.V.) contd.
Lk. viii. 26 39
\R.V.) contd.
(9) And he asked
him, What is thy
name ? And he saith
unto him, My name
is Legion ; for we are
many.
(10) And he be-
sought him much
that he would not
send them away out
of the country.
(n) Now there
was there on the
mountain side a
great herd of swine
feeding.
(29) And behold,
they cried outlaying,
What have we to do
with thee, thou Son
of God? art thou
come hither to tor-
ment us before the
time?
(30) Now there
was afar off from
them a herd of many
swine feeding.
(31) And the devils
67 (Mark v.
(28) And when he
saw Jesus, he cried
out, and fell down
before him, and with
a loud voice said,
What have I to do
with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of the Most
High God? I be-
seech thee, torment
me not.
(29) For he com-
manded the unclean
spirit to come out
from the man. For
oftentimes (or, of a
long time) (-n-oXXols
xpovois) it had
seized him : and he
was kept under guard,
and bound with
chains and fetters ;
and breaking the
bands asunder, he was
driven of the devil
into the deserts.
(30) And Jesus
asked him, What is
thy name? And he
said, Legion ; for
many devils were
entered into him.
(31) And they
intreated him that he
would not command
them to depart into
the abyss.
(32) Now there
was there a herd of
many swine feeding
on the mountain :
and they intreated
120) 52
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
that, either in word or thought, could claim to belong to the
Fourfold Gospel. On closer examination, however, there
Mk v. i 20
(R.V.) contd.
(12) And they
besought him, say-
ing, Send us into the
swine, that we may
enter into them.
(13) And he gave
them leave. And the
unclean spirits came
out, and entered into
the swine : and the
herd rushed down the
steep into the sea,
[in number] about
two thousand ; and
they were choked in
the sea.
(14)' And they
that fed them fled,
and told it in the
city, and in the coun-
try. And they came
to see what it was
that had come to
pass.
(15) And they
come to Jesus, and
behold him that was
possessed with devils
sitting, clothed and
in his right mind,
[even] him that had
the legion : and they
were afraid.
(16) And they
that saw it declared
unto them how it
befell him that was
possessed with devils,
and concerning the
swine.
(17) And they
began to beseech him
to depart from their
borders.
(18) And as he
was entering into the
boat, he that had
been possessed with
devils besought him
Mt. viii. 28 34
(R.V.) contd.
(lit. demons) (8aip.oves)
besought him, say-
ing, If thou cast us
put, send us away
into the herd of
swine.
(32) And he said
unto them, Go. And
they came out, and
went into the swine :
and behold, the whole
herd rushed down the
steep into the sea,
and perished in the
waters.
(33) And they
that fed them fled,
and went away into
the city, and told
everything, and what
was befallen to them
that were possessed
with devils.
(34) And behold,
all the city came out
to meet Jesus :
and when they saw
him, they besought
[him] that he would
depart from their
borders.
Lk. viii. 26 39
(R.V.) contd.
him that he would
give them leave to
enter in to them. And
he gave them leave.
(33) And the
devils came out from
the man, and entered
into the swine: and
the herd rushed
down the steep into
the lake, and were
choked.
(34) And when
they that fed them
saw what had come
to pass, they fled,
and told it in the
city and in the coun-
try.
(35) And they
went out to see what
had come to pass;
and they came to
Jesus, and found the
man, from whom the
devils were gone out,
sitting, clothed and
in his right mind, at
the feet of Jesus : and
they were afraid.
(36) And they
that saw it told them
how he that was
possessed with devils
was made whole (or,
Saved) (eVcbtfj;).
(37) And all the
people of the country
of the Gerasenes (v.r.
Gergesenes, or, Gada-
renes) round about
asked him to depart
from them ; for they
were holden with
great fear: and he
entered into a boat,
and returned.
(38) But the man
from whom the devils
68 (Mark v. 120)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
appeared to be one point that might repay investigation, a
point common to all the Synoptists, the mention of "the tombs."
"In the tombs," in John, is connected with the future
resurrection of the dead: "The hour cometh in which all that
are in the tombs shall hear his [i.e. the Son of man's] voice, and
shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life ; and they that have done ill, unto the resurrection of
judgment 1 ." "Tombs," in the plural, is of rare occurrence in
the New Testament ; and "out of the tombs" apart from Mark-
Matthew here occurs nowhere else except where Matthew
mentions a resurrection of the saints following immediately on
Christ's death: "And the tombs were opened; and many bodies
Lk. viii. 26 39
(R.V.) contd.
were gone out prayed
him that he might
be with him : but
he sent him away,
saying,
(39) Return to
thy house, and de-
clare how great
things God hath done
for thee. And he
went his way, pub-
lishing throughout
the whole city how
great things Jesus
had done for him.
Mk v. i 20 Mt. viii. 28 34
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.)
that he might be
with him.
(19) And he suf-
fered him not, but
saith unto him, Go
to thy house unto
thy friends, and tell
them how great
things the Lord hath
done for thee, and
[how] he had mercy
on thee.
(20) And he went
his way, and began
to publish in Decap-
olis how great things
Jesus had done for
him : and all men
did marvel.
1 Jn v. 28 9 ot ev rots nvrj^eiois. Mk v. 3, 5, Lk. viii. 27 have eV
Tols fj.vrjp,ao-i.v. Mk v. 2, Mt. viii. 28 have < r&v /ii/if/mW. Some-
times such a variation might point to a difference of documentary
origin. Matthew and John, who severally use fjivr)p.flov about seven
and sixteen times, never use pvrma. Mark and Luke use both.
Comp. Xen. Hellen. iii. 2. 15 < TOV avrnrepas- . . eVi T)V /jivrj/jLaroov . . .
fls TCI Trap' eavToIs /ii/jj/zfta KOI rvpcrcis rivas, where "the tombs [in the
distance] over against them" are mentioned first, and then "the
memorials and various kinds of tower-shaped structures on their
own side."
69 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised ; and coming forth
out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy
city and appeared unto many 1 ." Origen, commenting on this
passage, which he illustrates from John, takes Matthew in a
spiritual as well as a literal sense. Both passages might be
regarded as predicting, or describing, the Preaching of Christ
to the spirits in prison, which was believed to have taken place
during the "three days" that followed His death 2 .
The question arises whether "in the tombs" may have had
originally a similar significance. Several facts brought forward
in our last Chapter pointed to the conclusion that the Stilling
of the Storm, whatever may have been its basis in literal fact,
was primarily a spiritual poem describing the condition of the
disciples tossed in tempests of doubt during the "three days"
that followed Christ's death. Now we have to consider
whether the sequel in Mark may contain another version of
what happened during those "three days." If it does, then
according to this second version, Jesus was not, as in the
first version, "sleeping on the pillow." He had passed across
the waters of Sheol to the land of "tombs," the prison-house
of the dead. In that case, who is it that comes out from the
tombs to meet Jesus? Is it "two" demoniacs as Matthew
says? Or is it "one," as Mark and Luke say, but one possessed
by "many" devils? And is there any explanation of the fact
that the Mark-Luke term "legion" is omitted by Matthew?
And is there any connection between "two," used by Matthew
alone to describe the two demoniacs, and "two thousand," used
1 Mt. xxvii. 52 3.
* See Lightfoot's numerous quotations on Ign. Magn. 9. Add
Origen Comm. Matth. on Mt. xxvii. 52 3 (Lomm. v. 70) and Evang.
Petr. 10. The latter describes Christ as being carried up to heaven
from the tomb in the sight of the soldiers, while the Cross follows :
"They heard a voice from heaven saying, 'Hast thou preached to
them that are sleeping ? ' And an answer was heard from the
Cross, 'Yea.'"
70 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
by Mark alone to denote the number of a herd of swine
apparently corresponding to the number of a legion?
2. " Gerasenes," "Gadarenes," or "Gergesenes 1 "
Reviewing the questions that conclude the preceding
section, the reader may perhaps ask why the first place was not
given to a question about the scene of the miracle. According
to R.V., it is called by Mark and Luke's text "the country of
the Gerasenes"; by Matthew, "that of the Gadarenes"; but
Luke's margin has "Gergesenes" or "Gadarenes." Why do
we not ask first of all "What was the name of the place?"
The answer is "Because it is impossible to ascertain the
fact." Even in Origen's time there was uncertainty owing to
variations of readings in MSS as well as differences between
the Gospels. And Origen gives us a clue to the explanation of
these variations when he says that the names of the places
where Jesus wrought mighty works are "eponymous," that is
to say, named in accordance with the works 2 . He himself
favours the name "Gergesenes," which he explains as if it were
two words, "the sojourning of those-who-cast-out." One
might have supposed that if the word was derived from "cast-
out," the "casting out" would be the act of Jesus "casting
out" the devils. But Origen refers it to the inhabitants, as if
they were, in effect, "casting out" Jesus when they "besought"
or "asked" Him to depart from their borders 3 . Jerome in his
1 Mk v. i, Mt. viii. 28, Lk. viii. 26.
2 Origen Comm. Joann. x. 10 (Lomm. i. 295) "o-p,fv yap KCU TOTTCOJ/
oi/d/zara CTravvfia rvy^avovra rois Kara TOV y lr)(rovv Trpay/xacrtr. His meaning
strange though it may seem must be that these ancient names
were prophetically appropriate to the future Messianic actions.
Clark renders it " We know that the names of places agree in their
meaning with the things connected with Jesus."
8 Mk V. 17 rjp^avTo TrapaKaXelv avrbv arr^delv OTTO TO>V opiav aircoi/,
Mt. viii. 34 TrapfKa\f(rav OTTWS juera/3?/ atrb TWV opiwv avr&v, Lk. viii. 37
Kai r)po)Tr)crfv avrbv arrav TO 7r\rj6os rrjs TTfpt^copou rail/ TtpaOTJv&v aire\6fiv
air' avrSiv. R.V. renders 7rapa*raA<?u/ here "beseech," but in Lk. iii. 18
(of John the Baptist) "exhortations," and similarly in Acts ii. 40
71 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
commentary on Matthew takes no notice of the differences of
name in Gospels or MSS and gives no interpretation to the
form (" Gerasenes ") which he adopts.
The name "Gadarenes" might be regarded by some as
"eponymous," because it was connected with "fold," "flock,"
"herd," so that it might refer to the swine 1 . "Gerasenes"
might refer to the " casting out " of the demons 2 . " Gergesenes "
might be derived from "the ancient Canaanite stock of the
Gergashites, or from the word Gargushta, which signifies clay
or dirt 9 ."
This last explanation is not so improbable as it at first
sight seems. Daniel, speaking of the resurrection, says,
according to the literal Hebrew, "Many of them that sleep in
the ground of the dust shall awake"; but Theodotion has "in
the heaped-up-dust (or, mound) of the earth (or, land)," using
a word (chdma) that is often used to mean a "hillock-tomb"
or "cairn," but also means a "mound" of any kind 4 . Now
this word chdma occurs in the whole of the early Fathers and
Apologists only once, in the following charge against the Jews
brought by Justin Martyr : "And from the words of the aforesaid
Jeremiah they have likewise cut out this, 'But the Lord God
remembered His dead [that were from] Israel that had fallen
asleep in[to] the earth (or, land) of the heaped-up-dust, and came
down to proclaim unto them His salvation 5 .' ' This saying is
(of Peter preaching) etc. Comp. Rom. xii. 8 6 TrapaKaXwv eV ri]
irapaK\r)<ri, "he that exhorteth in his exhortation." It would be
appropriate to Christ "exhorting" the spirits imprisoned in Hades.
1 'AyeXr) is used here by all the Synoptists to represent "herd."
Comp. i S. xxiv. 3 (4) "enclosures (dyeXas) of the flocks," Heb.
g[e]derah.
2 See Gesen. 1766 on garash ''cast out."
3 Hor. Heb. on Mt. viii. 28.
4 Dan. xii. 2 (Theod.) / yfjs x^P aT ^
5 Justin Mart. Tryph. 72, ^E^vrja-drj de Kvpios 6 6(bs diro y la-parj\ TU>V
VKpS)V O.VTOV T(t)V <KOlp,TJfjLfVU>V IS ytjv ^ob/idTO?, KCU KClTfflr} 7T pOS O.VTOVS
dvayyf\i(ra(T0ai avroi? TO a-UTrjpiov avrov. Perhaps we ought to read TG>V
72 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
repeatedly quoted by Irenaeus as from Jeremiah or Isaiah. The
Greek is wanting; but the Latin renderings of "the earth of the
heaped-up-ditst" are "terra" with " sepultionis," " de/ossionis,"
" sepelitionis" but once with "limi," "mud 1 ."
This brings us round to the suggestion of Horae Hebraicae,
agreeing with that of Origen as to the name, though not as
to the interpretation. The word Gargushta, "clay," "dirt,"
or "clod," which is frequently used in the Targums, occurs per-
tinently in the Targumistic rendering of Job's aspirations for a
resurrection, "My body is clothed with worms and with clods
(gargushta) of dust 2 ." This lends itself to a symbolism like that
of Origen, not unknown also in Greek as well as Hebrew litera-
ture, "The bodies of sinful souls, that is, souls dead unto God,
are called 'tombs 3 .'"
These Gergesenes may have been regarded in some Christian
poetry as "clods 4 ." But this would not exclude a different
class of metaphors, in which they may be regarded as bound
in the prison-house in chains of their own sinful desires, or
else enslaved by Satan and Death.
OTTO 'l<rpar]\. Otto, in his long and valuable note, omits to mention
that Justin reproduces Dan. Theod. eV yijs ^co/Mcm in els yrjv ^co/taro?.
I dare say subsequent editors have supplied this omission.
1 Iren. iii. 20. 4, iv. 22. i [iv. 33. i, incomplete], iv. 33. 12 ("limi"),
v. 31. i. It is probable that this quotation came to Irenaeus from
several authors of early date.
2 Job vii. 5 quoted in Levy Ch. i. 152 3, with other instances.
3 Origen on Mt. xxvii. 51 3 (Lomm. v. 70). See Steph. Thes.
on (ropos and rvpftos. Mk v. 5 "in the tombs and in the mountains"
may be compared with Is. xiv. 19 "from thy sepulchre," eV TOLS
opfo-iv. See Clue 146 a quoting Taylor's conj. o-opols for 6'peo-tv.
Another explanation would be that x&>/xa was sometimes interpreted
as "hill."
4 George Fox, in his Diary, describes himself as sitting among a
dead congregation, round a dead preacher, and seeing them revealed
to him as "clods."
73 (Mark v. i 20)
3-
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
Two" demoniacs in Matthew, and "two thousand"
swine in Mark 1
There are other instances where Matthew, differing from the
other Synoptists, mentions "two 2 ." But those (which will be
discussed in their order) will be found to differ from the present.
Here, the parallel Mark mentions "two," but in a different
context ("about two thousand," referring to the swine "choked"
in the sea) ; and the conduct of the "two" in Matthew is quite
different from that of the "one" in Mark-Luke. The "two,"
instead of being bound in chains (as Mark and Luke say),
practically bar the way themselves against all passers-by.
They are "exceeding fierce (or, terrible) so that no man was
strong enough to pass along through that way 3 ." In ancient
poetical descriptions of Jesus descending to Hell to rescue the
imprisoned spirits, a mention of "two fierce demons" would be
suitable in the scene where Satan goes forth outside to meet
Jesus, while Hades says to his demons "Shut the gates (or, the
cruel gates) of brass,... and resist bravely, that we, holding
captivity, may not be taken captive 4 ." Macarius says that
the "two" mentioned by Matthew were "exarchs," that is
chiefs, of demons 5 . One word for "chief" or "captain" in
Hebrew is closely similar to the Hebrew for "thousand 6 ."
Hence "chief" might be taken as "thousand," or as " chief of a
1 Mt. viii. 28, Mk v. 13.
2 Mt. ix. 27, xxvi. 60.
3 Mt. viii. 28. XaXfTrds-, "fierce," applied to persons, occurs in
the whole of the Greek Bible (including Apocrypha) nowhere else
except Is. xviii. 2 (Heb.) "terrible." It is applied by Homer to a
8aipti)v in Od. xix. 201, and to hard, cruel, persons as well as things,
in Greek literature.
4 Comp. Descens. ad Inf. 5 (21) (Tisch. p. 376) reading
" captivemur " for "captivemus." For traditions about the "De-
scent" see above, p. 70, n. 2.
5 Macar. ed. Blondel, p. 76.
6 See Gesen. pp. 48 9, ^x " thousand," c^N " chief," " chiliarch."
74 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
thousand' 1 ." Thus an original "two leaders" referring to Satan
and Hades might be taken by Mark to mean "two leaders of
thousands," so that the total number of their host was "two
thousand."
That Mark is wrong appears probable from the fact that he
himself represents the demoniac as saying " My name is Legion,
because we are many." Now a legion, in imperial times,
would number six thousand or even more, and probably never
so few as two thousand.
4. Why does Matthew omit "legion"?
If Matthew's original regarded the two demoniacs as
demon "princes" or "chiefs," they could not say, "We are
many," but only "We have many under our command." In
Jewish tradition, the Latin word "Legion," transliterated as a
Jewish word, meant either "legion" or "commander of a legion."
Matthew appears to have taken it in the latter sense. We
have seen that he applies the rare epithet "hard" (meaning
"cruel") to his two demoniacs. The same epithet, in Hebrew,
is repeatedly applied to "the commander of a legion 2 ."
In the light of these facts, it is possible to explain Mark's
additions, as attempts to combine two quite different pictures.
One is that of Christ, confronted by Satan and Hades, two
"chiefs" of Hell, who bar its doors and draw fast its chains
to prevent His ingress and the release of their captives. From
this, Mark borrows the "chains," but he applies them to the
demoniac, who (according to Mark) has been chained for his
1 See Zech. ix. 7, xii. 5, 6 where "leader" is rendered
" leader of a thousand."
2 Levy ii. 474 & "zwei strenge Feldherren (oder : Leibgarden}...
jenen strengen Feldherren," Levy Ch. i. 403 a "dieser Befehlshaber
ist streng." In all these cases the noun is "legion" (meaning
"legionary commander") and the adj. is the Heb. word for (Gesen.
904) "hard," "severe," "fierce" exactly corresponding to the Greek
75 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
own benefit and has broken the chains to his own injury.
Mark also borrows ''two chiefs." But he takes it as meaning
two thousand, and as implying that the demoniac, though but
one, was possessed by two thousand devils, who pass into
swine of a corresponding number ("two thousand swine").
Another picture is that of Israel in Egypt, the captive
nation "bound" in the "misery and iron" of Egyptian bondage.
In Exodus, the Lord conspicuously calls the Captive out of
the Tyrant's dungeon. But the Lord may also be regarded
as calling the Tyrant out of the prison where he has held
Israel captive. The Tyrant is Pharaoh. In Exodus, Pharaoh,
greedy for Israel as his prey, is led on by God to drown himself
in the Red Sea. In Mark, the Tyrant, in accordance with his
own desire, is "permitted" to pass into swine, who hurry him
and his hosts into the Sea of Galilee, where his legion, according
to Mark and Luke, is "choked 1 ."
This "choking," or "suffocation," must not be passed over
without notice. The LXX describes Saul as being "choked"
by an evil spirit 2 . And the word here used in the Syriac of
Mark-Luke 3 is connected with "legions" in a Targum on
Esther, which uses the phrase "the legions that choke you on
your beds*." It would be in accordance with the Jewish Law
1 Mk V. 13 firviyovro, Lk. viii. 33 direirviyr) (but Mt. viii. 32 airf6avov).
2 i S. xvi. 14 fTTviycv, Heb. "troubled."
3 See Thes. Syr. 1323 4 where it is also quoted from Ephrem as
referring to the Egyptians.
4 Levy Ch. i. 270 b, Esth. ii. i, 2. I am informed by my friend
Mr E. N. Adler that it occurs in a letter (Targum Scheni, Esth. i. 3
(not i. 2)) supposed to be written to the queen of Sheba by Solomon
who threatens her with his "kings, legions, and horsemen." The
" kings" are "the beasts of the field." The "horsemen" are "the
birds of the heavens." Then it is added "My hosts (^Tl) are the
legions that choke you on your beds."
Gen. r. on Gen. i. 7 explains why the Scripture, after describing
God's work on the second day of the Creation when He divided
the waters above from the waters below does not say, as on the
other six days, "and God saw that it was good." The reason was,
76 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
of Retribution that the evil spirits that "choke" men should be
"choked" themselves. Both the thought, therefore, and the
word, point to a Jewish origin for this tradition.
Horae Hebraicae, commenting on the Marcan "legion/'
quotes the saying of Jesus in Matthew about "twelve legions
of angels," and also one of Caesar's about the "ten legions"
of Rome which could "pull down heaven itself 1 ." In the East
as well as the West, "legion" was an expressive word. The
demoniac's language sprang from a national dread of the Roman
power symbolized by "legion." The "legion" is Rome in its
darker aspect not Rome exercising authority from above to
judge justly, but Rome enforcing injustice. John regards the
whole of "this world" as being possessed and dominated by
a spirit of fear, which is the instrument employed by " the ruler
of this world" to keep his slaves in subjection. This is sym-
bolized by Rome or by Caesar 2 . The rulers of the Jews are
thus dominated when they say, as an excuse for murder, "The
Romans [that is, the legions] will come and take away our place
and our nation 3 ." The Roman judge in Jerusalem is himself
dominated by the servile spirit, though in a different way, when
he allows himself to be forced into partnership with murderers
by their cry, "If thou let this man go thou art not Caesar's
friend*." The rulers of the Jews themselves confess their
slavery to this Demon or Master of many legions when they
exclaim "We have no king but Caesar 5 ."
that the water was to be used as an instrument of wrath in the
Deluge. God is compared to a King who has a "cruel (lit. hard]
legion," and who says "Since this legion is so cruel, my name shall
not be placed thereon."
1 Mt. xxvi. 53, Caes. Bell, Civ. vi. 42.
2 Epictetus says (i. 29. 60 foil.) that when Caesar comes thundering
and lightening with threats of death or bribes of pleasure to which
we yield, then we are mere slaves: "But take away these adjuncts
and see how calm I shall be [in his presence]."
3 Jn xi. 48, see Joh. Gr. 2645. 4 Jn xix. 12.
6 Jn xix. 15. Comp. Joh. Gr. 2645 "the trees of the field chose
the bramble to be their king."
77 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
5. "Beseeching," "exhorting," or "comforting"
The verb here repeatedly rendered by R.V. "beseech" is
paracalein, from which comes the noun Paraclete, i.e. "called-
in-to-help" commonly known as the "Advocate" or "Com-
forter 1 ." In literary Greek, the verb means "I call to my
side [a friend to aid me]," and also "I exhort," "stimulate";
but in LXX it often means " I call aside [from trouble or sor-
row]," that is " I console 2 ." Some such meaning, in connection
with good tidings, is frequent in Isaiah (LXX) 3 . Besides the
variation in meaning, the verb also varies in construction
according as it is found in different kinds of Greek. In LXX,
outside Maccabees, it is not used in the sense of "exhorting"
with a dependent clause ("exhorting some one to do some-
thing")', but in Maccabees a dependent clause about "doing"
is sometimes added, mostly in the infinitive ("to do") which
is a frequent construction in literary Greek 4 .
1 i Jn ii. i R.V. marg. "Or, Comforter, or, Helper." IJapaKaXe'eo
(Joh. Voc. 1674) occurs in the Gospels, Mk 9, Mt. 9, Lk. 7, Jn o.
In Mk v. 10 23 it occurs five times. Outside the Triple Tradition,
it sometimes means "comfort," "exhort," e.g. in Mt. ii. 18, v. 4,
Lk. iii. 18, xvi. 25.
2 Steph. Thes., after giving a column of other meanings, says,
finally, "Consolor; unde TrapaKXrjo-is, consolatio." And that is all.
But it is frequent in LXX. In Is. xl. i, Ii. 12, 18 (Sym.) and
liv. ii (Theod.) the LXX Trapa/caXe'co is replaced by Trap^ope'co, "I
talk over," "soothe."
3 Is. xxxv. 4 "say to them that are of a fearful heart," LXX
TrapaKaXeVare, ot oXtyo^u^oi TTJ diavoia, where " comfort " (like our
vernacular "cheer up") is perhaps intransitive. Clem. Rom. 59
TrapaKoXecrov TOVS oXtyo^v^ovvras seems to allude to this passage ; Barn.
(apart from one instance in a quotation) uses TrapavaXeco absolutely
thus, (19) 7ropet>op.ei/os- els TO TrapciKoXfcraL, i.e. "going [to people's
homes] to give them the comfort of the gospel." In Is. xl. 2 "call
to her" the context speaks of "comfort." In Is. xli. 27 7rapaKaXe'0-a>
represents " one-that-bringeth-good-tidings ," usually translated
4 See Oxf. Cone, quoting 2 Mace. ii. 3, iv. 34, vii. 5 etc. No
instance of the use with Iva is given in Oxf. Cone, (but the context
78 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
In the Marcan narrative under consideration the construction
is strangely varied. The verb is used twice with the con-
junction "that 1 ," besides being used once with the infinitive 2 ,
and once absolutely, with "saying 3 ." There is a passage in
Mark where the verb, with "that," introduces a petition to
be allowed to do something "They besought him that they
might touch.. . . 4 " In this sentence if we substitute "he" for
"they," we perceive there may be ambiguity. Greek makes
no distinction between "that he might" and "that he would" in
such a sentence as "He besought him that he might (or, would)
touch." Go a step further, and substitute "go out" for
" touch," and then who is to decide between the two meanings
(1) "that he, the beseecher, might be allowed to go out," and
(2) "that he, the person besought, would consent to go out"!
Let us consider how these facts may bear on the interpreta-
tion of the following passage, which describes how "they,"
of 4 Mace. iv. n, x. i has 8ira>s). There is no instance with iva in
the Indices to Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, and Marcus Antoninus,
and there are only two in Epictetus (who uses TrapaKaXea) fairly often
with prepositions).
1 Mk V. IO TrapeitdXfi avrbv TroXXa "LVCL p.r) avra dfrtXTTetXjp, ib. 1 8
rrapeKoXfi avrbv 6 8aip.ovt(r6fls Iva /ier' avrov ry (where Iva does not
introduce something to be done, but something to be permitted, as
also in vi. 56). But Mk viii. 22 irapciKaXovo-iv avrbv Iva avrov cn
introduces something to be done,
2 Mk V. 17 TrapaKoXtiv avrbv dff'f
3 Mk V. 12 7rapeKXeo-ai> avrbv \eyovres, Ile/r^oi/ fjpas... (comp. Mt.
viii. 31 01 Se &ai[JiOVS TrapeKoXovv avrbv \4yovres, Ei e'*/3aXXei? rj^as,
aTrofrreiXov TjfjLas... Lk. viii. 32 7rape/aXe(rai> avrbv Iva fTTiTpt^rrj avTois...).
In Mk v. 12 several authorities insert " the devils " or " all the devils "
before the pi. "they besought," but the correct text of Mk has the
)1. here in Spite of the sing, in V. IO <al TrapeKaXet avrbv TroXXa.
LV. expresses it correctly: "And he besought him much.... And they
(A.V. all the devils) besought him." Mark oscillates between the
thought of the one demoniac, and the many demons in him.
There is a strange mixture in Mk v. 23 irapaKakfl. . .Xe'ywi/ on To
flvydrpwv pov . . .tva. . .firiOflg (comp. vii. 32 rrapaKaXovo-iv avrbv iva
4 Mk vi. 56, Mt. xiv. 36.
79 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
meaning everyone "in the city," as Matthew implies, or
everyone "in the city and in the country" (as Mark and Luke
imply) 1 practically rejected Jesus:
Mk v. 17
And they began
to beseech him to
depart from their
borders.
Mt. viii. 34
...And seeing him,
they besought \Jiim\
that he would pass-
away (//'/. change [his]
place) 2 from their
borders.
Lk. viii. 37
And all the mul
tude of the country of
the Gerasenes round
about asked him to
depart 3 from them.
It should be noted that the subject of the verb "besought"
is variously and vaguely stated by Mark-Matthew, and that
Luke amplifies and defines it. This was not unnecessary.
For in Mark, if we supply the subject of the verb in the verse
above quoted, from the verse preceding it ("they that saw it "),
the meaning is " The seeing [ones] " that is the eye-witnesses
"related to them [i.e. to the citizens] how it had befallen the
demoniac. . .and [they] began to beseech him to depart." This
might be taken to mean that "the seeing [ones]" besought.
Matthew uses "seeing" superfluously, it would seem, and out
1 Mk v. 14 "in the city and the country, and they came...," sim.
Lk. viii. 34. Mt. viii. 33 4 "into the city... all the city."
2 " Change-his-place (/nfra/3^)." It implies a complete change of
place and does not occur in the Synoptists elsewhere except Mt. xi.
i, xii. 9, xv. 29 p.Taf3as eKcWev (of Jesus) and xvii. 20 (about the
"removing" of a mountain) p.fTa^a...Km /zera^o-erat, and Lk. x. 7 py
fjLTa@aivT e ol<ias fls ol<iav. John represents Christ's brethren as
saying to Him (vii. 3) pcrdprjOi evrcvdev, i.e. "go hence from the quiet
of Galilee into the publicity of Jerusalem." Elsewhere in Jn (v. 24,
xiii. i, i Jn iii. 14) it means passing out of death into life or out
of this world to the Father. Elsewhere in N.T. it occurs only
once (Acts xviii. 7 "departed thence"), after Paul has said to the
"blaspheming" Jews "Your blood be upon your own heads... from
henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."
3 "Asked (r)p<arr](rv) him to depart (aTrfXdflv}." Luke retains
the Marcan "depart," but not the Marcan "beseech." In Lk. viii.
37 " multitude " = 77X77^0?, i.e. the population, not quite the same as
in viii. 40.
80 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
of place ("seeing him [i.e. Jesus] they besought") in such a
way as to suggest that, in his Original, "seeing" may have
meant "those seeing him [i.e. the man]," and that "the seers"
were the beseechers. Luke sets this right by repeating "see"
thrice : " Having seen that which had come to pass the herdsmen
fled and reported to the city. . . and [they, i.e. the citizens] came
out to see that which had come to pass . . . and the seers reported
to them . . . and the whole population of the surrounding country
of the Gerasenes asked him to depart 1 ." This makes it quite
clear, negatively, that "the beseechers," or (as Luke prefers to
say) "the askers," were not "the seers," and, positively, that
they were the whole of the Gerasenes.
From these bewildering obscurities, and from the freedom
with which Luke attempts to make them clear, there emerge
at least three conclusions: The plural and the singular are
liable to be interchanged in this narrative owing to the plurality
of the spirits of the demoniac. The rejection of parts of the
Marcan narrative by Matthew points to the conclusion that
Matthew believed them to be "conflations," or repetitions,
such as abound in Mark 2 . Foremost among the words that
appear to be suspiciously repeated is the word "beseech."
1 In Lk. viii. 34 "they reported (aTrrjyyfiXav) " is parall. to Mk
V. 14 (Mt. viii. 33) dirrjyyeiXav . But in Lk. viii. 36 dirrjyyeiXav IS
parall. to Mk v. 16 dir/yrjo-avro, "they related." Later on, Lk. viii. 39
"relate (dirjyov)" is parall. to Mk v. 19 "report (a7rdyyd\ov)." The
Lucan repetitions, l86vTS...ro yeyovos, I8elv TO yeyovos, and ot Idovres
are remarkable. Perhaps Luke means, in effect, "The traditions
about ot I86vres vary. We must distinguish the eye-witnesses, i.e. the
herdsmen, from those who came out to see, i.e. the Gerasenes.
Matthew, it is true, speaks of all the citizens as 'having seen him.'
But Matthew means 'having seen Jesus,' The truth is, that, 'when
they came to Jesus they found the demoniac clothed and in his right
mind, sitting at the feet of Jesus. . . . ' This was really what they ' saw. ' "
2 On Marcan "conflations" generally, see Clue passim, and the
Indices to Diatessarica ("conflations," "Mark"). In Mk v. i 20,
note, besides the repeated ircipaKa\o>, the repetition of /zpq/zfta or
pvrifjuiTa in ib. 2, 3, 5 whereas "tombs " occurs but once in the parallel
Matthew-Luke.
A. L. 81 (Mark v. i 20) 6
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
Hence we have something more than mere conjecture,
though a great deal less than demonstration, in the hypothesis
that the above-quoted verse from Mark "began to beseecl
him to depart" was originally "began to exhort him to depart,"
and that it referred originally to a tradition about Jes\
"exhorting" those oppressed by the devil to pass out of tl
devil's prison into the freedom of God; somewhat as Pet(
"exhorted them [i.e. the Jews] saying, Save yourselves from tl
crooked generation 1 ."
In that case, the call would be somewhat similar to the sum-
mons in a saying of Jesus which Matthew places a little befoi
this narrative, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury theii
own dead 2 ." Those words seem to imply that the mai
addressed was living in some "city of the dead." Usinj
another metaphor, we might say that he was one of the "fellow-
citizens of the swine" as Origen characteristically calls tl
Gergesenes 3 .
6. Versions of the narrative in an Apocryphal Gospel*
The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, whatever may be il
date, illustrates the distinction, drawn above, between (i) th<
story of the Demoniacs or Devils that barred the way
attacked those who came by the way, and (2) the story of tl
1 Acts ii. 40.
2 Mt. viii. 22. To this is added in the parall. Lk. ix. 60 " do thoi
go and carry-tidings of (StayytXXe) the kingdom of God."
3 See Origen Comm. Joann. vi. 24 (Lomm. i. 239) where ol TOM
xoipuv TroXirat is admitted to be in the text, as also in ib. x. i<
(Lomm. i. 295) (though some editors have ventured to substitul
It should be added that, in addition to the possible confusioi
of thought, above mentioned, between the singular and plural, the
plural of "began [to exhort, or beseech]," HPEATO, might easil]
be confused by scribes with the singular HPEATO, in the writt*
text of Mk v. 17.
4 See Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Tischendorf p. 175 foil.
82 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
Demoniac that had been bound with chains, who cut himself
with stones.
The first of the apocryphal stories refers to a young man,
the son of a priest of an idol-temple in Egypt. The youth had
been "three years 1 beset by several demons... and when the
demons seized him, he rent his garments and remained naked 2 ,
and attacked men with stones 3 ." On the arrival of the babe
Jesus, the idol collapsed and "all [both the] inhabitants of
Egypt and others rushed together at the fall thereof." The
demoniac enters the place where the babe's swaddling bands
were lying and places one of them on his head. The demons
flee forth from his mouth in the form of crows and serpents.
There is no mention of swine.
The second story describes the departure of Joseph and
Mary from Egypt: "Departing hence they came to a place
where there were robbers, who had despoiled many [travellers]
of their baggage and garments and had bound them. Then the
robbers heard a mighty sound, like the sound of a great king
with army and horsemen and drums coming forth from his city 4 .
1 Evang. Infant. Arab. 10 "Erat huic sacerdoti films triennis ab
aliquot daemonibus obsessus." The context shews that "triennis"
must here indicate the duration of the possession. The writer adds
"multa loquebatur et proferebat," perhaps an attempt to render
Mk V. IO TrapexaAei avrbv TroAAa.
2 Lk. viii. 27 "he would not put on a cloak (1/jidTiov) " is the only
Synoptic phrase that suggests nakedness, or tearing off one's
garments, at this point; but, later on, Mk v. 15 "cloaked (i/zart-
cr/ieVoi/) " indicates that nakedness should have been mentioned by
Mark here. Perhaps Mk v. 3 4 (mentioning "chains") originally
meant that the demoniac would not bind even a girdle round him.
Later on, the writer says, of a woman, 14 "neque vestimenta
pati...poterat."
3 "Homines lapidibus petebat" is probably a form of Mk v. 5
KCLTaKOTTT&V fttVTOV \L0OIS, S66 belOW, pp. 85 6.
4 "Turn latrones...regis...ex urbe sua egressi" would suit the
story of the Descensus better if we could connect "egressi" with
"latrones" instead of "regis" ("the robbers came forth from their
city"). But the "latrones" have only a "locus," not an "urbs."
83 (Mark v. i 20) 6 2
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
Thereat, in terror, the robbers left all their spoil. But the
captives arose, loosing one another's bonds, and they tool
back their baggage and departed. There, seeing Joseph an<
Mary approaching, they said to them, 'Where is that king th(
mighty sound of whose approach the robbers heard, an<
departed, leaving us safe ? ' Joseph replied, ' He will come
behind us 1 ." 1
This has features resembling those of the Descensus
Inferos. The writer roughly follows Matthew. He borrow
nothing but the "binding" from Mark. And to that he give
a different application. It was the "robbers," he says, wh(
"bound" the captives (not keepers of a madman, who bounc
the madman for his good). Also the chains were not brokei
beforehand (as in Mark). They were not broken till the soun<
of the King's arrival reached the robbers and their prisoners 2 .
Next comes a narrative blending Mark and Luke, but
with Luke predominant. The sufferer is a woman : " Thereafte
they came into another city where there was a demoniac
woman, whom Satan accursed and rebellious had beset 5
when once she had gone out to fetch water at night. She
could neither bear clothes 4 nor live in a house ; and as often
they tied her up with chains and thongs 5 , she broke them an<
fled naked into waste places 6 ; and, standing in cross-roads'
and cemeteries, she kept pelting people with stones ; but fo
1 Evang. Infant. Arab. 13.
2 Comp. Descens. ad Inf. 5 (21) (Tisch. pp. 3067) "The angel
of the Lord say : The Lord strong and mighty.... And straightway,
the brazen gates were shattered, and the iron bars broken, and
the dead that had been bound were loosed from their bonds, and we wi1
them."
3 Comp. Lk. xiii. 16 "a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan ha1
bound, lo, [these] eighteen years."
4 Comp. Lk. viii. 27 ov< evedvaaro t/zdrtoi/.
5 Comp. Mk V. 4 Tredais KOL dXvo-eo-t.
6 Comp. Lk. viii. 29 ray eprj^ovs.
7 No Synoptic narrative mentions "cross-roads (compita)."
v. 5 has opfo-iv.
84 (Mark v. 120)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
her own [family] (suis) she was preparing very heavy evils 1 .
And when the Lady Mary saw her she pitied her; and upon
this, Satan straightway left her, and, fleeing in the form of a
young man, departed, saying, Woe is me because of thee,
Mary, and because of thy son. So that woman was cured of
her torment, and, being restored to her senses, she blushed on
account of her nakedness; and, shunning people's sight, she
departed to her own [family] (suos). After she had put on her
garments, she related the matter to [her] father and her own
[family] (suisque) 2 ; and they, since they were the chief people
of the country, received the Lady Mary and Joseph with the
greatest honour and hospitality."
fWhy do these narratives all omit the "swine"? The first
the three stories mentions evil spirits in the form of "crows
and serpents," but not in that of swine. Perhaps those who
framed the stories found that "swine" did not accord with
tir framework. But more causes than one might explain
exclusion of this detail. The New Hebrew and Aramaic
words for "going round," "circle" or "neighbourhood," and for
"swine," are very similar 3 . Also, in two passages of Ben Sira
the Syriac Version substitutes "swine" for a form of this word
meaning "go round 4 ."
The phrases "pelting people with stones" and also "pre-
paring evils for her own family," may be explained from Mark's
1 Evang. Infant. Arab. 14. "Et in compitis sepulcretisque
stans homines lapidibus impetebat, suis vero gravissima mala para-
it." See below, p. 86.
2 Comp. Mk v. 19 "Go to thy house unto (Trpbs) thine own family
(TOVS a-ovs}," Lk. viii. 39 "Go back to thy house."
3 Levy ii. 33 4 nVTH may mean (i) "going round" or
"returning," (2) "a sow," and see Levy Ch. i. 248 on the meaning
"round and round." It occurs in the Targ. of Ps. lix. 6 "make a
noise like a dog and go round about the city."
4 See Thes. Syr. 1239 quoting Sir. xxii. 13 and xxxiii (Gr. xxxvi) 5
and suggesting that the Syr. was from a Heb. or Chald. version.
In xxxiii. 5 "a rolling axle-tree" (i.e. "that which goes round")
corresponds to Syr. and Arab, "hog."
85 (Mark v. 120)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
"cutting himself with stones." For the same Hebrew verb that
may mean "cut" may also mean "prepare evil 1 ." And "him-
self," when expressed by the Hebrew phrase "his own flesh,"
may be taken as "his family (or, relations) 2 ."
It is interesting to note that these apocryphal narratives
omit all mention of the place to which the unclean spirits
were driven. Even that one of them which describes the spirits
as going forth in the forms of crows and serpents does not say
whither they vanished. One reason for not saying anything
may be that the writer did not know what to say. The early
opponent of Christianity against whom Macarius wrote lays
great emphasis on the peculiar Marcan tradition that the devils
besought Jesus "not to cast them out outside the country, or
place, or province." Reiterating the word, he scoffs at the
Saviour, who saved one man to ruin others, permitting these
devastating devils to carry their devastations from "country"
to "country," into many "countries" instead of suppressing
them altogether 3 .
7. "Outside the country" in Mark, and "into the
abyss" in Luke*
Luke apparently interprets Mark as meaning "outside the
earth," i.e. outside the region of human life and inside the
region of disembodied spirits, that is, "the abyss." But if
1 Heb. yjn = KaxoTroteoj (14). The same letters frequently
(Gesen. 949 b) mean "break in pieces."
2 Prov. xi. 17 "troubleth his own flesh (LXX o-oo/za avrov) " is
taken by Gesenius (985) as "troubleth himself," but Rashi says "his
relations (propinquos suos)," and that is the usual meaning, as in
Levit. xviii. 6, 12, 13 etc. LXX oiicclos.
3 Macar. iii. 4 (pp. 55 7). After quoting Mark's xP a > an d
saying that the devils ought to have been sent into the x^P^' i- e -
"the strong place, or prison," of "the abyss" (Lk. viii. 31) which
they deprecated, he mentions x<P a > sm g- an d pi-, four times in bitter
reiterations.
4 Mk v. 10 ? TT/S \^P as > Lk. viii. 31 tls TTJV afivcrvov.
86 (Mark v. 120)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
[ark had meant "earth," he could have written it. The fact
lat he wrote "country" instead indicates that he meant
:ountry." Matthew might well omit it, for it is extremely
rare.
Mark's word, chora, for "country (sing.) " occurs in LXX
)r the first time in three consecutive passages of Genesis
ascribing how Haran, the brother of Abraham, died "in the
tntry of the Chaldaeans," and how God led Abraham out of
lat "country 1 ." Philo and Origen agree that this "country"
ians hallucination, or false worship 2 . The Hebrew has "Ur 3
the Chaldaeans." The LXX, in its rendering, perhaps
sired to give a suggestion of inferiority. It was not a "land"
:e the "land" of milk and honey but rather a "province"
separate region" with an implied notion of subordinate
irisdiction, and sometimes of tribute 4 .
According to this view, when Luke represents Satan as
;wing to Jesus "all the kingdoms of the inhabited [earth],"
id as saying "To thee will I give all this authority. . .for it is
over to me 5 ," this in fact describes "the ruler of this
1 Gen. xi. 28, 31, xv. 7 xP a m eacn case (but pi. xP aL i n Gen.
20, 31 = pi. of pN). Note that TIN ("Ur") might be trans-
lated as x>P according to the precedents of Xaa i Chr. viii. 35,
36, ix. 42 (A), XmBdp, Jerem. 1. 44 (N?), Xefi^p Nehem. vii. 40 (see
Oxf. Cone.}.
2 Philo i. 486 and Quaest. Gen. ad loc. (P. A. 167), Origen Horn.
fvem. xx. 4 (Lomm. xv. 401) "Potens est Deus qui et nobis tribuat
terra Chaldaeorum exire."
3 "Ur," see Son 33696, 3501 / foil.
4 Comp. Lam. i. i "How doth the city sit solitary... princess
among the provinces, she is become tributary." That is, as the
Targum says, The provinces once paid tribute to Jerusalem, but now
Jerusalem pays tribute. Hence she might be called, in some sense,
a medinah or "province." But Jews would distinguish (Nehem.
i. 3) between "Jerusalem" and the "province" of Judaea (see
Levy iii. 30 a}. Xo>pa = medinah, "province" freq. in Ezra, Nehem.,
Esth. and Dan. In Syriac (Thes. Syr. 844) medinah sometimes
means "city."
6 Lk. iv, 56.
87 (Mark v. 120)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
world" as saying "All this is my medinah, my province, plact
or jurisdiction." Hermas, who often helps us to understam
Mark, uses the word chora in only one passage ; and there it
is put into the mouth of the lord of the visible city of tl
present world as opposed to the Lord of the invisible City
"The lord of this country justly says to thee, Either obey my
laws or give place [and depart] from my country 1 ." Somewhat
similarly in Mark we may suppose that the Master of the
Legion, who holds rule in the "place" or "city" of Mansoul,
may claim it as a right that he should not be compelled to give
up his jurisdiction: "It is given over to me. It is my province.
I ought not to be driven out of it."
There remains the difficulty of believing that Jesus could
have been supposed by any Evangelist to have driven out evil
spirits (by act or by permission) into unoffending beasts.
At this point there comes to our aid the hypothesis of verbal
misunderstanding. The demoniac may have felt a horror
lest he and his legion should be hurled to the bottomless abyss
(mentioned by Luke) and may have prayed that at all events
this might not be his fate: "If it must be, permit us to go to
some place round about." There is comparatively little difficulty
in believing that Jesus permitted that. "Round about" as has
been shewn above, may have been erroneously taken to mean
"the swine* " Such an error would be all the more natural if
the fact was that the madman actually saw the forms, not of
1 Hennas Sim. i. 4 e/c^&>pei CK rfjs \wpas /xov. 'Etc^topei "give
place [and depart]" constitutes a sort of third mention of x^P a -
The explanation of xP a given in Clue 150 is based on an insufficient
collection of facts.
2 See above, p. 85. It should be added that the names " Gerasa,"
"Gadara," and "Gergesha (clods, mud, or mire)" suggest notions
of herds, and the driving of herds, and the mud in which herds
of swine wallow, and are all adapted to favour the view that
the inhabitants of these places were themselves of a swinish
nature.
88 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
crows or serpents 1 , but of swine, the hateful swine of Rome,
driven forth from himself to perish in the Lake 2 .
8. "Outside," applied to the "casting out" of "the
ruler of this world," in John
Although John never mentions Christ's visible acts of
exorcism, he represents Jesus Himself as saying "Now is the
judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be
cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
[men] to myself. But this he spake signifying by what
manner of death he was about to die 3 ." This is the first of
three passages where the Fourth Gospel mentions "the prince
of this (or, the) world" always in utterances of Jesus 4 . The
term was frequently used by the Jews to mean "the angel of
death," or "the angel of the nations as distinct from Israel."
It does not always imply what we should imply by Satanic
hostility to man 5 . John appears to use it in the sense of Satan,
or Enemy, but in such a way as to imply that the enmity is
exercised through this present and visible world, which often
overshadows, in the mind of man, the invisible and spiritual
world. Thus "the world" is, in effect, the "city," "province,"
1 See above, pp. 83, 85.
2 Comp. Mids. AT". Dream v. I. 9:
"One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
That is the madman."
3 Jn xii. 313. See Son 3391407, 344951, on the "lifting
up " of the Son of Man, alluding to the Crucifixion. It may of course
allude also at the same time to the Ascension.
4 The two others are (xiv. 30) " There cometh the prince of the
world, and he hath nothing in me" (i.e. no sin in me, nothing that
falls under his dominion), (xvi. n) "Because the prince of this world
hath been judged." "Kpx^v is rendered by R.V. "prince" in this
phrase, and not "ruler." The rendering has the advantage of
distinguishing the title from the Supreme Ruler.
5 See HOY. Heb. (on Jn xii. 31) quoting Sanhedr. 94 a "When
God was about to make Hezekiah the Messiah, saith the prince of
the world to him, 'O eternal Lord, perform the desire of this just
one.' "
89 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
or "place," mentioned in Hermas as above quoted, the prince
of which says to us on earth "Obey me, or else go out of my
city."
About the Johannine word "outside," if we ask "Outside
of what ? " we are left in doubt as to the answer. The meaning
may be "Outside the cosmos, or beautiful and orderly world,
where the prince has wrongfully enthroned himself." But on
the other hand cosmos may mean the world in a bad sense,
the "world" that "passeth away 1 ." We may be intended to
see the Prince of the cosmos, the defiled and corrupted world,
descending, cosmos, and all, into an abyss of darkness. And
the context still further unsettles any definite local notions we
may have formed about "outside" by representing the Messiah
Himself as being removed "from the earth." The removal, it
is true, is one of exaltation. But it is the exaltation of cruci-
fixion. It means "If I be lifted up on the cross." This like
most of Christ's deepest teaching in the Fourth Gospel is a
paradox 2 . And then the following words "I will draw all men
unto myself" contain a further paradox, suggesting the question
"Whither? Are all men to be drawn up to the Cross and to
stay there?" Doubtless the meaning is, that we are to be
drawn first up to the Cross, and then along with the ascend-
ing Cross, up to the right hand of God 3 ; but it is all very
mysterious and, as it were, dislocating.
Perhaps it is, in some sense, deliberately dislocating, or at
all events unsettling. The Evangelist, though not directly,
is indirectly polemical. He appears to be attempting, and
successfully attempting, to unsettle and detach his readers
from their fixed and hardened notions about local exorcism.
1 i Jn ii. 17, comp. i Cor. vii. 31.
2 Concerning the Hebrew and Greek play on the double meaning
of "lift up" (i) crucify, (2) exalt see Joh. Gr. 2211 c, 26426, and
add Numb. r. (on Numb. i. 47 Wii. p. 9) commenting on the twofold
"lifting up the head" in Gen. xl. 13, 19, 20.
3 See Evang. Petr. 10 for the description of the ascending Cross.
90 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
They are not to think of evil spirits driven out of a local human
body into a local prison-house of demons. Christians are to turn
their minds to the thought of Christ's good Spirit breathed into
their soul or inmost being so as to make their union with Him
independent of place. We are not even to prize our own
"soul," as long as it is "in this world." If we serve Christ
we shall be where He is: "He that loveth his soul destroy eth
it, and he that hateth his soul in this world shall keep it to
eternal life. If any one be ministering to me let him follow
me, and where I am there shall also be the minister that is
truly mine 1 ."
No mention has been made above of the textual variations
in the Johannine saying "The prince of this world shall be cast
out outside" which have induced Blass to print it "The prince
of this world shall be cast down 2 ." Several authorities substi-
tute "down" for "outside 3 ." But Epiphanius, who is one of
these, indicates a motive that may have induced scribes
(wrongly) to substitute "down," when he quotes at the same
time the Lucan saying "fallen from heaven." "Down" may
have seemed to express, better and more definitely than
"outside," the defeat and fall of Satan 4 .
Macarius has some important remarks on the meaning and
variations of the text and (incidentally) on the chora, or "pro-
vince," placed under "the ruler of this world." After saying
"Some copies have ' cast down'," he adds "The name 'world'
1 Jn xii. 25 6.
2 On Jn xii. 31, W.H. and R.V. give no marginal alternative,
and Westcott ("cast out...irom the region of his present sway")
assumes the reading "outside."
3 SS "is thrown down," b, e, Corb. mittetur deorsum, Epiphan.
Adv. Haer. ii. 2. 66, 680 D, 681 c /SA^o-erai Karoo (quoted along
with Lk. x. 18 "fallen from heaven") and sim. Chrys. ad loc. Comp.
Rev. xii. 9.
4 The same motive might induce Luke, instead of the Marcan
"outside," to substitute "into the abyss."
91 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
(cosmos) is here tropically given to human-nature..." Then
he says that, whereas the so-called ruler could not rule over
non-human nature, since that is under absolute control, "he
did obtain control over human nature, since that is under its
own control 1 ." This " ruler " is " not the Demiurgus or Lawgiver
[of the universe] " but "a kind of archdemon" who "has come
to rule over the licentious because of their licentiousness and
has artfully enslaved those who are under their own control" :
and he did not attain sovereignty through violence or mere
force, " but by taking counsel as it were with [men], and by
versatile devices, he brought under his control the herd [that
is called] rational, which herd is here called metaphorically
cosmos (i.e. world). For man is appropriately called cosmos
(i.e. order and beauty) since he is the cosmos of the cosmos and [of]
an admirable frame, a creation honourable and made for honour."
In what follows, the writer speaks of the Cosmos as he might
speak of the demoniac freed from the Legion, and at the close
he says: "To be cast down, then, in the case of the ruler of
the world, is nothing but to be hurled from his authority as
ruler. The fall thus darkly suggested here is not from a literal
place 2 . It consists in his being stripped of the honourable
estimation that he possessed when he was actively worshipped
by men in their vileness." Similarly, "to-day a king may cast
down a ruler of a chora, province, . . . and everyone will say that
he is ' cast down ' . . . even though he goes on living in the same
house in the chora 5 ." So it is, says Macarius, with "the ruler
of the world."
1 Macar. ii. 2O (p. 37) T>V d
a TO VT
z Macar. ii. 2O (p. 41) Ov TOTTLKTJV coSe TTJV
3 This sentence, combined with the above-quoted use of chora in
Hernias, confirms the view taken above that the original of chora
meant "province," in Mark, and that Macarius is alluding to that
meaning. Perhaps, too, there is an allusion to the "herd" of swine
in the sarcastic phrase TIJS \oyiKfjs dyeXrjs, "the rational herd," applied
to humanity enslaved by the ap^cor roC KOO-/ZOV.
92 (Mark v. i 20)
THE DEMONIAC AND THE SWINE
The remarks of Macarius help us to realise the importance
that would be attached by a writer like the Fourth Evangelist
to the removal of the obstacle to belief presented to educated
Greeks by Synoptic accounts of exorcism. In this particular
story, the going forth of "swine" into the "abyss" is probably
no invention of a Christian evangelist or poet, but based on
some sayings uttered by a demoniac in all good faith about
what he had himself seen and himself experienced. Yet, as
related by the Synoptists, the story is liable to encourage many
honest and pious readers to believe that Jesus did what, in an
ordinary prophet, they would have blamed as being unjustifiable.
It did not lie within the province of the Fourth Gospel to correct
their possible misunderstanding. Perhaps indeed John himself
accepted the narrative as mainly, if not entirely, true. But
putting all exorcistic narrative aside, John has devoted himself
to the object of inspiring his readers with a spiritual faith that
should override difficulties arising from historical details of
doubtful authenticity. He has also indicated to us that the rulers
of the Jews in Jerusalem were themselves, in effect, possessed
by the unclean spirit of the Roman Legion with a possession
far more deadly than that of the demoniac by the Sea of Galilee.
93 (Mark v. I 20)
CHAPTER IV
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
[Mark v. 21 43]
i. Differences in the Synoptic narratives 1
IN the three Synoptic narratives printed below, Matthew
omits many of Mark's details. But Luke does not omit them.
1 Mk v. 21 43
(R.V.)
(21) And when
Jesus had crossed
over again in the
boat unto the other
side, a great multi-
tude was gathered
unto him: and he
was by the sea.
(22) And there
cometh one of the
rulers of the syna-
gogue, Ja'irus by
name ; and seeing
him, he falleth at his
feet,
(23) Andbeseech-
eth him much, say-
ing, My little daugh-
ter is at the point of
death: [Ipraythee],
that thou come and
lay thy hands on her,
that she may be
made whole (or,
saved) and live.
(24) And he went
with him; and a
great multitude fol-
lowed him, and they
thronged him.
Mt. ix. 18 26
(R.V.)
(18) While he
spake these things
unto them, behold,
there came a ruler
(W.H. &p X a V r[ e s ]
TrpocT\6ti)v^, marg.
ap^Gov fl(T\6a>v), and
worshipped him, say-
ing, My daughter is
even now dead : but
come and lay thy
hand upon her, and
she shall live.
(19) And Jesus
arose, and followed
him, and [so did] his
disciples.
Lk. viii. 40 56
(R.V.)
(40) And as
Jesus returned, the
multitude welcomed
him; for they were
all waiting for him.
(41) And behold,
there came a man
named Jai'rus, and he
was a ruler of the
synagogue: and he
fell down at Jesus'
feet, and besought
him to come into his
house ;
(42) For he had
an only daughter,
about twelve years
of age, and she lay
a-dying. But as he
went the multitudes
thronged him.
94 (Mark v. 2143)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
Consequently no discussion of them is necessitated by considera-
tions of the rule of Johannine Intervention. A few however
Mk v. 21 43
(R.V.) contd.
(25) And a wo-
man, which had an
issue of blood twelve
years,
(26) And had
suffered many things
of many physicians,
and had spent all
that she had, and
was nothing bettered,
but rather grew
worse,
(27) Having heard
the things concern-
ing Jesus, came in
the crowd behind,
and touched his gar-
ment.
(28) For she
said, If I touch but
his garments, I shall
be made whole (or,
saved) .
(29) And straight-
way the fountain of
her blood was dried
up; and she felt in
her body that she
was healed of her
plague (lit. scourge).
(30) And straight-
way Jesus, perceiv-
ing in himself that
the power [proceed-
ing] from him had
gone forth, turned
him about in the
crowd, and said, Who
touched my gar-
ments ?
(31) And his dis-
ciples said unto him,
Thou seest the multi-
tude thronging thee,
and sayest thou,
Who touched me?
(32) And he
looked round about
Mt. ix. 1826
(R.V.) contd.
(20) And behold,
Lk. viii. 40 56
(R.V.) contd.
(43) And a wo-
a woman, who had man having an issue
an issue of blood of blood twelve
which had
twelve years,
came behind
years,
spent all her living
upon physicians, and
could not be healed
of any, (some anc.
auth., followed by
W.H., omit had spent
...and)
(44) Came be-
him, and touched the hind him, and touch-
border of his gar- ed the border of his
ment: garment:
(21) For she
said within herself,
If I do but touch his
garment, I shall be
made whole (or,
saved).
and immediately the
issue of her blood
stanched.
(45) And Jesus
said, Who is it that
touched me ? And
when all denied,
Peter said, and they
that were with him
(some anc. auth. omit
and they that were
with him), Master
(eVio-rara) , the mul-
titudes press thee
and crush [thee].
(46) But Jesus
said, Some one did
touch me : for I
perceived that power
had gone forth from
me.
(47) And when the
95 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
may be profitably noticed as illustrating the nature of the
difficulties placed in the way of the Fourth Evangelist by the
differences of the Three.
Mk v. 21 43
(R.V.) contd.
to see her that had
done this thing.
(33) But the
woman fearing and
trembling, knowing
what had been done
to her, came and fell
down before him, and
told him all the truth.
(34) And he said
unto her, Daughter,
thy faith hath made
thee whole (or, saved
thee) ; go in peace,
and be whole of thy
plague (lit. scourge).
(35) While he
yet spake, they come
from the ruler of the
synagogue's [house],
saying, Thy daugh-
ter is dead : why
troublest thou the
Master (or, Teacher)
(Siddo-KoXov} any
further?
(36) But Jesus,
not heeding (or, over-
hearing) the word
spoken, saith unto
the ruler of the syna-
gogue, Fear not, only
believe.
(37) And he suf-
fered no man to
follow with him, save
Peter, and James,
and John the brother
of James.
(38) And they
come to the house of
the ruler of the syna-
gogue; and he be-
holdeth a tumult,
and [many] weeping
and wailing greatly.
(39) And when
Mt. ix. 1826
(R.V.) contd.
(22) But Jesus
turning and seeing
her said, Daughter,
be of good cheer ;
thy faith hath made
thee whole (or, saved
thee). And the wo-
man was made whole
(or, saved) from that
hour.
(23) And when
Jesus came into the
ruler's house, and
saw the flute-players,
and the crowd mak-
ing a tumult,
(24) He said,
Give place :
Lk. viii. 40 56
(R.V.) contd.
woman saw that she
was not hid, she came
trembling, and falling
down before him
declared in the pres-
ence of all the people
for what cause she
touched him, and
how she was healed
immediately.
(48) And he said
unto her, Daughter,
thy faith hath made
thee whole (or, saved
thee) ; go in peace.
(49) While he
yet spake, there
cometh one from the
ruler of the syna-
gogue's [house], say-
ing, Thy daughter is
dead ; trouble not the
Master (or, Teacher)
(diddcncaXov).
(50) But Jesus
hearing it, answered
him, Fear not : only
believe, and she shall
be made whole (or,
saved) .
(51) And when
he came to the house,
he suffered not any
man to enter in with
him, save Peter, and
John, and James,
and the father of
the maiden and her
mother.
(52) And all were
weeping, and bewail-
ing her : but he said,
96 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
Mark and Luke give the name of Jairus to a chief or ruler
of the synagogue. Matthew omits the name, and possibly he
is justified 1 . Matthew also omits the statement that Jairus'
Mt. ix. 1826
(R.V.) contd.
for the damsel is not
dead, but sleepeth.
And they laughed
him to scorn.
(25) But when
the crowd was put
forth, he entered in,
and
took her by the hand ;
and the damsel arose.
Mk v. 21 43
(R.V.) contd.
he was entered in, he
saith unto them,
Why make ye a
tumult, and weep ?
the child is not dead,
but sleepeth.
(40) And they
laughed him to scorn.
But he, having put
them all forth, taketh
the father of the child
and her mother and
them that were with
him, and goeth in
where the child was.
(41) And taking
the child by the
hand, he saith unto
her, Talitha cumi :
which is, being
interpreted, Damsel,
I say unto thee,
Arise.
(42) And straight-
way the damsel rose
up and walked; for
she was twelve years
old. And they were
amazed straightway
with a great amaze-
ment.
(43) And he
charged them much
that no man should
know this : and he
commanded that
[something] should
be given her to eat.
1 Mk v. 22 SS gives Jairus as "loarash"
Mk's contextual words as " one of the heads of (*BW"i) the synagogue."
This similarity between "Jairus" and "head" (or "ruler") indicates
possibilities of confusion. In Gen. xlvi. 21, J^K"), Rdsh, is a name of
one of the sons of Benjamin. It is retained by Jer. Targ. with
the addition that he was "a chief m his father's house," and Gen. r.
ad loc. explains why he was called "chief." In Ezek. xxxviii. 2,
(26) And
fame hereof
forth into all
land.
the
went
that
Lk. viii. 40 56
(R.V.) contd.
Weep
not; for she is not
dead, but sleepeth.
(53) And they
laughed him to scorn,
knowing that she was
dead.
(54) But he,
taking her by the
hand, called, saying,
Maiden, arise.
(55) And her
spirit returned, and
she rose up immedi-
ately: and he com-
manded that [some-
thing] be given her
to eat.
(56) And her
parents were amazed :
but he charged them
to tell no man what
had been done.
Delitzsch gives
A. L.
97 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
-- - ....... i . . -.1, _
daughter was twelve years old. But this may be because
was an isolated tradition, placed by Mark almost at the enc
but by Luke at the beginning of his narrative 1 . Matthew
have regarded it as referring to the duration (mentioned in the
context) of the disease of the woman with the issue 2 . Quite at
the end of Mark's narrative come words that may be literally
rendered "said [for somethin'g] to be given to her to eat 3 ."
This might be taken to mean that the girl (thereby proving
that she was restored to life) asked for something to eat 4 .
Similarly a son of R. Gamaliel, at the exact moment when he
was cured of fever by the prayers of R. Chanina, "asked for
something to eat 5 ." Matthew, omitting this request (after
omitting the words Talitha cumi), has, in its place, "And there
went forth this report into the whole of that land 6 ." It is by
no means improbable that this, too, is based on some Hebrew
or Aramaic corruption 7 .
3, xxxix. i " Rosh" is regarded by Gesenius (9126) as a name,
but rendered by the Targ. as "head."
1 Mk v. 42, Lk. viii. 42.
2 Mk v. 25, Mt. ix. 20, Lk. viii. 43. In Lk., the two mentions of
"twelve years" come in consecutive verses.
3 Mk V. 43 fiTTfv dodfjvai avrfj (fraye'tv, Lk. viii. 55 Sie'raei> airf)
8o6fjvai (payelv.
4 For Heb. "say," meaning "command," see Gesen. 56 &. This
is unambiguously expressed by Lk. duragev, but not quite by Mk
5 So Schlatter (on Jn iv. 53) quoting /. Berach. g d. A similar
story in B. Berach. 34 b has "asked them for something to drink."
6 In Mk v. 41 TaXfidd, e has tabea acultha, and Dr Chase suggests
(Syro-Latin Text p. no) that this is a relic of the word Nr^lDSD
"food." If so, it may have some connection with the Mk-Lk.
tradition about "giving food." The word mn in Schlatter's quota-
tion from /. Berach. "demanded food," might be rendered by tabea.
7 The above-mentioned word acultha, if the initial a were dropped
after the final a in tabea, would become cultha, and confusable with
words meaning (Thes. Syr. 1737) "universim" etc., so as to give rise
to Matthew's view that " the fame went out [everywhere, or] into all
that land."
Another explanation, however, of Matthew's words is that they
98 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
The Synoptists also differ as to the interval between the
girl's death and restoration to life. In Mark and Luke, her
father describes her to Jesus as "breathing her last" or "in
the act of dying"; but in Matthew he says "She has just
died 1 ." This needs little comment since "she is dying" in
Greek, "she dies'' when rendered into reported speech,
might easily be taken to refer to an accomplished fact: "he
said that she [had] died."
As for Marcan peculiarities omitted by Luke, the principal
one refers to the fact that physicians, attempting to cure the
woman with the issue, caused her the loss of her fortune and
made her worse rather than better 2 . This may possibly be
explained from a Hebrew original differently translated by
Mark and Luke 3 . In any case, it can hardly be regarded as a
failure of the rule of Johannine Intervention.
are a paraphrase of Mk v. 42 " they were amazed with a great amaze-
ment." Lk. viii. 56 restricts the amazement to "the parents,"
Diatess. to " her father." Matthew extends it to "all that land."
''Hearing" and "amazement" (tfD^and DDK') are confusable in Heb.
(see Indices to Diatessarica, p. 33).
1 Mk v. 23 eV^ciroas- e'x, Mt. ix. 18 apri Te\i>Trjo-v , Lk. viii. 42
2 Mk V. 26, parall. to Lk. viii. 43 OUK ur^uo-ev an* ovdevbs dfpcurev-
In Lev. v. 7, xxvii. 8 OUK to-^i'ei with ^ei'p means "cannot
afford," "is not rich enough," so that Luke's original may have
meant "Was not rich enough to [pay physicians so as to] be healed by
anyone."
3 Lk. viii. 43 air' ovdevbs (not VTT* ovdevbs) is given by W.H.
without alternative. But Bepcnrfva) d-rrb in Luke elsewhere (3 or 4
times, not in Bible elsewhere, except 2 K. ix. 16 (LXX), nor in
Steph. Thes.} means "heal of" some disease. 'ATTO, if correct, suggests
that the original meant "healed from any part of her disease," and
that it corresponds to Mk v. 26 "not benefited, but rather made
worse."
There is no space to deal with other Marcan details. But see
Clue 84 foil, and 241 foil, for proof that Heb. " And be thou made
whole" might be confused with "And she was made whole." In
Mk v. 34 (Joh. Voc. 1728 e] "(i) go back (OVaye) in peace and (2) be
whole (or, sound) (vyi^s] from thy plague (pdo-riyos) ," there seems
99 (Mark v. 21 43) 7 2
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
There is, however, one important point as to which Join
does appear to intervene in order to shew the reality of Christ's
power of revivification. But the intervention, if there is one,
is not for Mark against Luke. Some might say it was for
Luke against Mark and Matthew. More exactly, it might
described as an intervention against an unspiritual inter-
pretation of words assigned to Jesus by all the Synoptists
"she is not dead but sleepeth." Luke attempts to meet such
a misinterpretation. But John meets it in a different way, as
will be seen in the next section.
2. "Knowing that she was dead" in Luke, "Lazarus
is dead" in John 1
Luke has two ways of meeting the objection that, if the
girl was, as Jesus declared, "not" really "dead," then no miracle
followed. First, he puts into the mouths of the crowd in the
ruler's house an implied statement which he does not make
in his own person that she "was" really "dead." Then he
adds, in his own person, after Jesus has pronounced the com-
mand to "arise," that "her spirit returned*." This, he might
suppose, would lead his readers to conclude that it had previously
passed out of her, and consequently that she had really been
"dead." But the usage of Scripture would not justify the
conclusion 3 . Hence, this is not quite satisfactory. Nor do
to be a conflation. The parall. Lk. viii. 48 has simply " go (nopci/ov) in
peace." Mt. ix. 22 has "and the woman was made sound (fo-^d^}
from that [very] hour," i.e. at once. Heb. yil "moment" might be
confused with JJJJ "plague" or "stroke" (pdo-Tig (3), n\r]yr} (2)) so
that "from the plague" might be confused with "in that same
moment." See Exod. xxxiii. 5 "moment (ym)," LXX n\rjyrjv
(Tromm. leg. yjj).
1 Lk. viii. 53 ei&ores- on d-rrfSavev, Jn xi. 14 Aafapos d-rreOavev.
z Lk. viii. 55 KOL eTTfO-Tpe^ev TO irvevpa avrfjs.
3 See Judg. xv. 19 "And his [Samson's] spirit returned, and he
lived," KCU eTTco-rpftycv TO irvev^a avTov KCU efro-ev, and COmp. I S. XXX.
12 (Heb.). Neither of these cases implies anything more than re-
covery of strength after extreme faintness.
100 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
we get much help from Jerome (who explains Matthew's "not
dead" by saying "because all things live to God") or from
other early comments 1 . Perhaps the most satisfactory explan-
ation is the one given by Pseudo- Jerome on Mark, that Jesus
meant "She is dead to you [the crowd]; she sleeps to me."
John represents Jesus (in the Raising of Lazarus) as Himself
using the terms "sleeping" and "dead" in such a way as to
give the disciples at first a false impression which He Himself
subsequently removes 2 . Thus John meets the objection that
what Christ called a mere "sleep," and "not death," Christ's
disciples called "death" in order to magnify their Master's
fame. He answers, in effect, "It was the custom of Jesus to
describe 'death' as 'sleep.' I can give you an instance where
He did thus. But on the same occasion He not only described
it as 'death' but brought the dead man out of his tomb, after
he had been four days dead. No one can doubt that this was
real 'death.' It is said 'For three days the spirit [of the
departed] wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may
return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect
of the face is changed, then it hovers no more but leaves the
body to itself 3 .' Hence some might argue against Luke's
tradition 'The spirit returned to her,' in the story of the raising
up of the ruler's daughter. ' This proves nothing ' they might
say 'for three days had not elapsed.' But in a case that I
shall mention, a sister of the dead man said to Jesus 'Lord,
by this time he stinketh, for he hath been [dead] four days 4 .' "
1 Cramer (on Mt. ix. 24) prints two explanations, (i) "Those
who have hope of the resurrection in Christ are not dead but sleep,"
(2) Jesus "makes light of the work He is about to perform," and
" conceals it," afterwards saying " Tell no one." These are attributed
to Origen.
2 Jn xi. n, 14.
3 This is a tradition of Ben Kaphra in Gen. r. 1 14. 3 (on Gen. 1. 10,
Wii. p. 504) quoted by Hor. Heb. (on Jn xi. 39) with other passages
to the same effect.
4 Jn xi. 39.
101 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
As against such objections to the reality of the Synoptic
revivification, the effectiveness of the Johannine narrative
seems plain, but there is a great deal more that is not plaii
First take, in their order, the sentences that follow the message
"He whom thou lovest is sick" sent to Jesus by the sisters of
Lazarus : (i) " This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory
of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby," (2) " Now
Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus," and the
(3) what appears to be a non sequitur "When therefore he
heard that he was sick, he abode at that time two days in the
place where he was."
Still more perplexing are the sentences "Our friend Lazarus
is fallen asleep" and "Lazarus is dead," and then the saying
to Martha "Thy brother shall rise again," followed by her
answer " I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at
the last day," to which Jesus does not reply with a correction
of her misunderstanding, but with words that might still
further perplex her, " I am the resurrection and the life. . . .
Whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die." It is
difficult, even for those who are confident that all this is right,
to explain how it is right.
"Surely," we say, "Jesus could not mean, and Martha
could not suppose Him to mean, that every disciple of His was
immortal. 'Die' must mean spiritual death. 'Rise again *
must mean spiritual resurrection. Yet Jesus seems to have
been purposing, both then and some days earlier, to raise
Lazarus from a literal grave. Then why does John give us
the impression that Jesus is, as it were, mystifying the friends
and relations of the dead? Why does he not represent Jesus
as saying at once, straight out, that He intends to raise Lazarus
from the tomb ? "
Perhaps we may find some suggestion of an answer to this
question in Origen's declaration that the raising of Jairus'
daughter, like the raising of Lazarus, was in answer to a
request of Jesus, though in neither case is a definite request
102 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
recorded 1 . John seems anxious to warn us against supposing
that the Son ever performed a miracle of healing as if it were
from Himself, and without some kind of special intercommunica-
tion whether by vision, or by answer to request, to prayer, or
to unuttered aspiration between the Son and the Father. And
he leads us to infer that, when Jesus spoke to His disciples about
such miracles, signs, or works resulting in "life," or "sound-
ness," or "awakening," or "rising again" He often used such
language (natural to Him but not natural to them) that they
failed to understand it. That is to say, they failed while He
was living, but they understood it afterwards when He had
died and risen again and sent His Spirit into their hearts.
Before that time, Jesus, being in the position of one seeing
works performed for Him (as it were) celestially before He per-
formed them terrestrially, was wont to speak about them in
the language of heaven to disciples accustomed to the language
of earth.
If this is the Johannine view we may find some kind of
answer a partial answer at all events to the objection "The
narrative of the Raising of Lazarus would be much more
beautiful if the narrator did not represent Jesus as knowing
beforehand all that He purposed to do and yet concealing it
from His disciples and from the sisters of the deceased."
Logically we must admit that there would be great force in
1 Jn xi. 41 "I thank thee that them heardest me" implies that
Jesus had sent forth some request to the Father. But it is not
recorded. Origen says (ad he. Lomm. ii. 319) "We must not suppose
that the soul of Lazarus was [still] present with the body after the
departure [from it], and that, as being [still] present, it quickly
heard Jesus when He cried and said, 'Lazarus! Hither/ [Come]
outside !'.. .~But I think nearly the same thing came to pass also when
He raised up the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, praying
about this (? Trepi TOVTOV vdnvos), for He asked that the soul
should come-back-again and be caused to dwell again in the body."
The words "praying about this" appear to mean "praying about
this [same thing in both cases]," namely, the return of the departed
soul.
103 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
this arraignment if Jesus were to be regarded here and elsewhere
in the Gospel as having complete foreknowledge. But is that
the case? Does the Fourth Gospel consistently maintain thj
Jesus (as in the Feeding of the Five Thousand) "knew what
was to do" in every minute detail?
It would be truer to say that Jesus is to be regarded as h
by emotion blended with knowledge, and that the emotion
that leads Him may be best summed up as filial Love 1 . The
Son, representing the Love of the Father, is regarded as depen-
dent at every moment on the Father, and as not knowing, not
wishing to know, and even perhaps as refusing to know, all the
details of that which will come to pass, until the time comes for
their performance. He knows that, in some sense, the sickness
of Lazarus is "not unto death but for the glory of God." But
He awaits further revelation. This seems to come to Him
step by step, or by oscillations. All sorts of words describing
earthly "love" and "friendship" (the personal affection of
Jesus for Lazarus and his sisters), "weeping," "trouble,"
"groaning" and passionate emotion 2 , are introduced or
reiterated in this narrative in such a way as to indicate that we
are witnessing a gradual accumulation of human as well as
divine emotions, destined to achieve as it were by natural
means, if we take enlarged views of nature some supreme sign
of the vivifying Love of the. Father for all mankind.
We have seen above that one ancient comment on the
Synoptic words "she is not dead but sleepeth" explains them
as proceeding from Christ's desire to disparage His own
wonderful work. In the Fourth Gospel, there is no desire to
1 Not "love" merely, for a dog loves his master, and a babe
loves its mother. But the "love" of Christ means love combined
with that insight which the Son has into the Father's will, owing
to unity of nature.
2 E.g, 0iXeo) in Jn xi. 3, 36, (j)i\os in xi. n (and ayoTra'co in xi. 5),
e'/i/3pi/za'oju,ai in xi. 33, 38. KAm'co is used twice, about Mary and the
Jews (xi. 33), dcLKpva) once, about Jesus (xi. 35).
104 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
disparage, but to express Christ's different moods, at one moment
speaking to the disciples in His own language "Our friend
Lazarus is fallen asleep," at another in their language "Lazarus
is dead." At the same time beneath both of these moods
there is the recognition that man's life consists, not in the
continued act of material breathing, but in the continued act
of spiritual breathing, and this kind of breathing is a loving
faith by which man passes through the Son into the Father
("whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die").
This Jesus feels to be a solid reality. Hence it is unnatural for
Him to say at first to the disciples about anyone whom He
dearly loves "He is dead." He says this afterwards. But it
is the language of the nursery. The spiritual truth is "Our
friend is fallen asleep," and, at the same time, He receives a
special intimation that, even in the popular sense, the "sleep"
is only a temporary sleep, so that He adds "But I go, that I
may awake him out of sleep."
How far the Raising of Lazarus may be regarded as historical
is a most difficult question, not discussed here. If it is historical,
then Luke who mentions the sisters Martha and Mary but
makes no mention of their brother, nor of any Lazarus except
the beggar raised from the dead to Abraham's bosom appears
to forfeit all claim to be a well-informed biographer of Christ
with any sense of proportion. A similar forfeiture, though in
a less degree, would seem to be incurred by Mark and Matthew 1 .
1 It has been suggested that the earlier Evangelists suppressed
every written account of the raising of Lazarus because of the
danger that (Jn xii. 10) the Jews might kill him. No doubt, such
a danger might exist in the early days of the Church of Jerusalem.
But when Peter and John healed a lame man, though the rulers of
the Jews said (Acts iv. 16) "What shall we do to these men? For
that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them is
manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem," we do not find them attempt-
ing to kill the lame man. And it is hardly probable that at the time
when Mark wrote his Gospel perhaps a generation after the alleged
raising of Lazarus in Alexandria or Rome, he would seriously say
105 (Mark v. 21 43)
JESUS RESTORING TO LIFE
If it is not historical, it would be best explained, not as fiction,
but as narrative deduced from other traditions about Christ'*
acts of revivification, combined and amplified symbolically in
order to shew, in one specimen, the spiritual aspect of such
mighty works. But even in that case we may say that the
Fourth Evangelist throws light on the Synoptic tradition "she
is not dead but sleepeth." It was the custom of Jesus to regard
what the world called "death" as being what He called "sleep,"
but in a special case, where He received an intimation that
there was to be an immediate rising up from this sleep, He
might mix as it were the two dialects "Not [what you call}
death, but [what I calf] sleep [and a sleep from which there is
to be an immediate awakening]."
to himself "We Christians have known for thirty years that Jesus
raised a man named Lazarus of Bethany from the dead, but I will
not describe it and put down his name on paper as I ventured to
put down the name of Bartimaeus for it might endanger his life."
If the Synoptists had anticipated any danger for Lazarus, they
might have omitted his name, as Matthew and Luke omit the name
of Bartimaeus, and as Luke omits the name of the young man whom
Jesus raised from the dead at Nain. When John says (xii. 10)
"The chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to
death," he implies that they did not carry out their "counsel."
And he leads us to the inference that after they had killed Jesus it
was not worth their while to kill Lazarus. The same thing would
be true in after years. Moreover, at the time when Luke wrote,
after the fall of Jerusalem, "the chief priests" had no longer the
power to kill Lazarus, even if Lazarus was still alive.
106 (Mark v. 21 43)
CHAPTER V
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
[Mark vi. I 6 a]
i. The agreements and disagreements of the Four Gospels
THIS is one of the very rare occasions where the Fourth
Gospel, as will be seen below 1 , agrees roughly with the Three
1 Mk vi. i 6 a
(R.V.)
1 i ) And he went
out from thence ;
and he cometh into
his own country ;
and his disciples
follow him.
(2) And when
the sabbath was
come, he began to
teach in the syna-
gogue : and (some
anc. auth. insert the)
many hearing him
were astonished,
saying, Whence
hath this man these
things? and, What
is the wisdom that
is given unto this
man, and [what
mean] such mighty
works wrought by
his hands ?
(3) Is not this
the carpenter, the
son of Mary, and
brother of James,
and Joses, and
Judas, and Simon ?
and are not his
sisters here with
us ? And they were
Mt. xiii. 53 58
(R.V.)
(53) And it came
to pass, when Jesus
had finished these
parables, he de-
parted thence.
(54) And coming
into his own coun-
try he taught them
in their synagogue,
insomuch that they
were astonished,
and said, Whence
hath this man this
wisdom, and these
mighty works ?
(55) Is not this
the carpenter's son?
is not his mother
called Mary ? and
his brethren, James,
and Joseph, and
Simon, and Judas ?
(56) And his
sisters, are they
not all with us ?
Whence then hath
this man all these
things ?
(57) And they
were offended (lit.
caused to stumble)
in him. But Jesus
Lk. iv. 16 17,
21 24, 28 (R.V.)
(16) And he
came to Nazareth,
where he had been
brought up : and
he entered, as his
custom was, into the
synagogue on the
sabbath day, and
stood up to read.
(17) And there
was delivered unto
him the book of the
prophet Isaiah ....
(21) And he be-
gan to say unto
them, To-day hath
this scripture been
fulfilled in your
ears.
(22) And all
bare him witness,
and wondered at
the words of grace
which proceeded
out of his mouth :
and they said, Is
not this Joseph's
son?
(23) And he
said unto them,
Doubtless ye will
say unto me this
107 (Mark vi. i 6)
Jn iv. 4345
(R.V.)
(43) And after
the two days he
went forth from
thence into Galilee.
(44) For Jesus
himself testified,
that a prophet
hath no honour in
his own country.
(45) So when he
came into Galilee,
the Galilaeans re-
ceived him, having
seen all the things
that he did in Jeru-
salem at the feast:
for they also went
unto the feast.
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
in a few words attributed to Jesus; and there is a general
agreement in the thought, namely, that it is difficult for a
prophet to obtain full recognition "in his own country." But
the verbal variations in the context are of such a kind as to
lead early commentators to divergent conclusions as to what
the "country of Jesus" was. Luke makes Jesus say that a
prophet is not "acceptable" (lit. "received [with welcome]")
in his own country. John says that the Galilaeans "received"
Him because they had seen in Jerusalem the miracles that He
had done in Jerusalem. Luke represents the hearers of Jesus
as saying "The things that we have heard as having been done
[by thee] at Capernaum" not in Jerusalem "do also here in
thine own country." Lastly, Luke deviates from all the
Mk vi. i 6 a
(R.V.) contd.
offended (lit. caused
to stumble) in him.
(4) And Jesus
said unto them, A
prophet is not
without honour,
save in his own
country, and among
his own kin, and in
his own house.
(5) And he
could there do no
mighty work, save
that he laid his
hands upon a few
sick folk, and
healed them.
(6 a] And he
marvelled because
of their unbelief.
Mt. xiii. 53 58
(R.V.) contd.
said unto them,
A prophet is not
without honour,
save in his own
country, and in his
own house.
(58) And he did
not many mighty
works there because
of their unbelief.
Lk. iv. 1 6 17,
2124, 28 (R.V.)
contd.
parable, Physician,
heal thyself : what-
soever we have
heard done at Ca-
pernaum, do also
here in thine own
country.
(24) And he
said, Verily I say
unto you, No pro-
phet is acceptable in
his own country*.
(28) And they
were all filled with
wrath in the syna-
gogue, as they
heard these things.
* Luke proceeds as follows (iv. 25 30) :*
(25) But of a truth I say unto you, There were many widows in Israel
in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six
months, when there came a great famine over all the land; (26) and unto
none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon,
unto a woman that was a widow. (27) And there were many lepers in
Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet ; and none of them was cleansed, but
only Naaman the Syrian. (28) And they were all filled with wrath in the
synagogue, as they heard these things; (29) and they rose up, and cast
him forth out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon
their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. (30) But
he passing through the midst of them went his way.
1 08 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
Gospels by representing the visit as terminated by an attempt
on the part of the audience to cast Jesus down a precipice.
This last fact suggests, as a working hypothesis, that in
this narrative Luke, as compared with John, has pursued the
same course as in the Calling of the Fishermen 1 . That is to
say, Luke has combined with the visit to what people would
call "his father's house" in Nazareth an account of an attempt
on Christ's life made, according to John, later on, and not at
Nazareth but in what Jesus would call His Father's House
(i.e. the Temple) at Jerusalem 2 . Such an explanation is at all
events less improbable than any that would require us to
believe that Mark and Matthew, as well as John, either did
not know of this attempt on Christ's life at Nazareth, or knew
it but concealed their knowledge.
2. "His country" and "his own country," in all the
Gospels
Writing in their own persons, the Evangelists say severally,
that Jesus came: (Mark and Matthew) "into his country"]
(Luke) "to Nazareth where he had been brought up] (John)
"into Galilee*." Afterwards, recording the words of Jesus, all
of them use the word "country 4 '." The Greek word, patris,
here used for country, occurs rarely in canonical LXX. There
1 See Proclamation, Preface pp. vi vii, on the Lucan story of
the Draught of Fishes.
2 Comp. Lk. ii. 49 (R.V. txt) "Wist ye not that I must be in
my Father's house (eV roTs roO narpos p.ov) ? "
3 Mk vi. I, Mt. xiii. 54 els TTJV narpida avrov, Lk. iv. 16 els Naapei,
ov rfv re^pa/i/xeVoy, Jn iv. 45 etf rrjv FaXtXatai/. Mt. xiii. 54 "in their
synagogues (pi.) " is read by the best Latin and Syriac versions.
This implies that the translators regarded irarpis as a district, not
a city.
4 Mk vi. 4 Iv rfj jrarpidi avrov KOI ev rols (rvyycvevcriv avrov KOI ev rfj
OLKta avrov, Mt. xiii. 57 ev rfj [W.H. marg. ins. I8ia] irarpidi Kal ev rfj
OLKLOL airov, Lk. iv. 24 ev rr\ Trarpt'Si avrov, Comp. Jn iv. 44 ev rfj Idia
Trarpi'Si.
109 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
it corresponds mostly to a Hebrew word meaning "kindred,'
but once to "land of one's kindred 1 ." It is not limited to a
"city." The Syro-Sinaitic Version uses a word that in Syriac
may mean either " city " or " region " ; but in Aramaic it mostly
has the latter meaning, as it always has in Hebrew 2 . Comparing
the eight passages of the four Gospels together we see that,
beneath all their variations, the thought in all of them was of
"country" in the sense of "place of rearing," which is usually
also "place of kinsfolk." This may be almost said to imply
in one word all that Genesis expresses in three, "thy land and
thy kindred and thy father's house 3 ."
One might have supposed that all commentators from the
first would have agreed that, since patris must here have this
suggestion of "kinsfolk," the word must mean the region
round Nazareth. Jerome takes it so. But he adds "It may
however be otherwise understood, namely, that Jesus is
despised in His house and His country, that is, among the people
of the Jews, and that on this account He ' worked few miracles '
there, lest they should become absolutely inexcusable. But
He works greater signs daily among the Gentiles through the
Apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies as in the saving
of souls 4 ."
This latter view is that of Origen, who says that perhaps
the Evangelists (that is, Mark and Matthew) did not say precisely
what the patris was "because of something mystically signified
in the passage concerning the patris, namely the whole of the
1 Gesen. 4096, Jerem. xlvi. 16 (Heb.) "land of our kindred."
2 Gesen. 1936 nJHB, Levy Ch. ii. 10 n, Thes.-Syr. 844.
Delitzsch, in Mk vi. i, Mt. xiii. 54, has simply "his land," comp.
Gen. xii. i "Get thee forth from (Heb.) thy land (TTJS y^s <rov) and
thy kindred and thy father's house."
3 Gen. xii. i. This is the first instance of Heb. (sing.) "land"
with a possessive suffix. The Greek irarpis does not usually suggest
allusion to "kinsfolk." Hence, perhaps, Mk vi. 4 adds
and oiKia.
4 Jerome on Mt. xiii. 58.
no (Mark vi. i 6)
v
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
Jewish [land]*." He also interprets "His sisters, are they not
all with us?" as meaning "something of this kind, 'They have
our thoughts, not the thoughts of Jesus, and they have no strange
element of preeminent understanding as Jesus has z ." Others
might agree that patris, "native country," meant something
larger than "city/' but might urge that it ought not to be
regarded as including the whole of Palestine but only the
northern portion, where Christ's home lay. This would be
appropriately represented by "Galilee" which John substitutes.
3. "And his disciples follow him," in Mark
Mark alone inserts that the disciples followed Jesus 3 . He
also alone inserts "the many" (i.e. the majority) in the next
verse: "And when the sabbath came he began to teach in the
synagogue, and the majority, hearing [him] were astonished 4 ."
Matthew mentions no disciples and no majority but only
" them," i.e. the natives of the patris just mentioned : " Having
come into his country (patris) he began to teach them in their
synagogue (v.r. synagogues) so that they were astonished 5 ."
This "astonishment" is followed both in Mark and Matthew
by remarks of the hearers about their familiarity with the
1 Origen on Mt. xiii. 53 4 appears to use 0X7/9 rrjs 'lovdaias to mean
here, not "the whole of [the province of] Judaea," but "the whole
of the land and people of the Jews." The context shews that he
assumes the Mark-Matthew visit to be distinct from the Lucan
visit, which expressly mentions Nazareth.
2 Origen on Mt. xiii. 56 doicel /not TOLOVTOV n aTjp.aivfiv TO. rjfjieTepa
) ov TO. TOV 'irjaov' /cat ouSei/ t-evov e^ovcriv e^atperou (rvvO~a>s &>s 6
Taken in a literal sense, the words " Are they not all with
us?" Mark ("here with us"), could hardly mean anything but that
the sisters were (perhaps married and certainly resident) in Nazareth.
3 Mk vi. I feat a.KO\ovdov(TLv avrat ol fjLaOr]Tal avrov.
4 Mk vi. 2 KOI ol TroXXoi duovovTfs e^fTrXrjcro-oi'To. Ot is inserted by
B and L.
5 Mt. xiii. 54 KCU e\0av els TTJV irarpida avrov e8ida(TKv avrovs eV TTJ
r] (Syr. and latt. mostly pi.) avTa>v wore ex 77X17 o-o~e(rd<u O.VTOVS. . . .
in (Mark vi. I 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
kinsfolk of Jesus, and then by the statement "And they
stumbled because of him."
Obviously Mark does not intend us to suppose that the
disciples joined in this disparaging astonishment. He repre-
sents the hearers as being, practically, divided into two sections
the disciples, who were not likely to be astonished, and the
natives, of whom most 1 were astonished. Matthew recognises
no such division.
Luke takes a course difficult to understand until we read
his text in the Diatessaron. There we find the Lucan visit to
Nazareth divided into two parts separated by a long interval
so as to make two distinct visits. In neither visit is there
described any division of mind. In the first Lucan visit "all
began to bear witness to him and to marvel at the words of
grace that were proceeding out of his mouth 2 ." In the next
Lucan visit "all" were "filled with wrath" and tried to kill
Jesus 3 .
John does not in the present passage describing this
particular visit to Galilee mention any division of opinion.
He merely implies that the Galilaeans derived most of their
recognition of Jesus from what they had seen of His works in
Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, and that they "received"
Him on that account 4 . But if we ask whether elsewhere John
recognises divergences of opinion, and changes of mind, and
divisions between a majority and a minority such as Mark
obscurely suggests we shall find that such recognition is
frequent. John thrice uses the word "schism" to express this
division ; and it is not in the "multitude " alone, but also among
1 "Most" but not all. For Jesus is said to have healed (Mk vi. 5)
"a few sick folk." These would hardly disparage Him.
2 Lk. iv. 16 22 a placed in Diatess. 5.
3 This is in Lk. iv. 23 30 (omitting 226 "and they said, Is
not this Joseph's son?"). It is placed in Diatess. 17 following
immediately after Mt. xiii. 55 7 (see p. 107 above).
4 Jn vi. 45.
112 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
"the Pharisees," and among "the Jews 1 ." The last mention
of this "schism" is followed by an attempt to stone Jesus in
the Temple.
4. "Were astonished" in Mark and Matthew, how
expressed in Luke
The Diatessaron, combining Mark and Matthew, says "He
taught them in their synagogues so that they were perplexed.
And when the sabbath came, Jesus began to teach in the syna-
gogue, and many of those that heard marvelled, and said,
Whence came these things to this [man]? And many envied
him, and gave no heed to him, but said, What is this wisdom
that is given to this [man] that there should happen at his
hands such as these mighty works? Is not this a carpenter,
son of a carpenter. . . ?" This is a very remarkable accumu-
lation of verbs apparently intended as renderings of Mark's
(< were astonished."
This leads us to consider the uses of the word "astonished"
elsewhere in Mark and Luke. One Marcan instance is repro-
duced by the parallel Luke, but the other Lucan instances are
not parallel to a Marcan instance 2 . To two other Marcan
instances Luke has either no parallel, or one that perhaps
1 Jn vii. 43 " So there arose a division (o-^i'o-jMa) in the multitude
because of him" (see also the contrast in the context between "the
officers" and the Pharisees), ix. 16 "Some therefore of the Pharisees
said, This man is not from God. . .But others said. . .And there was
a division among them," x. 19 21 "There arose a division again
among the Jews. . .And many of them said, He hath a devil. . .Others
said. . .Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" This is followed
by a second attempt to stone Jesus (ib. 31) "The Jews took up
stones again to stone him."
2 Lk. iv. 32 is exactly parall. to Mk i. 22 e^eTrX^o-o-ovro eV! rfj
8i8axfi avrov. The other instances of e/c ir\r) ao-opai in Luke are Lk. ix.
43 fgc7r\yo-a-ovTo (pec.), Lk. ii. 48 ^7r\dyrjo-av (about the parents of
Jesus seeing Him in the Temple).
A. L. 113 (Mark vi. I 6) 8
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
implies Hebrew confusion 1 . A third Marcan instance requires
special attention :
Mk xi. 1 8 Lk. xix. 478
And the chief priests and . . . But the chief priests and
the scribes heard it, and sought the scribes and the principal
how they might destroy him : men of the people sought to
for they feared him, for all the destroy him : and they could
multitude was astonished at his not find what they might do ;
teaching. for the people all hung upon
(lit. from) him, listening.
Here Matthew begins, as Mark and Luke do, with "the chief
priests and the scribes," but goes off into a separate tradition
about " the children crying in the temple 2 ." It seems as though
Matthew, like Luke, was not satisfied with Mark's commonplace
reiteration of "astonished at his teaching," and desired to
substitute, or to go back to, some tradition descriptive of the
passionate excitement of the multitude. Luke's expression
(lit.) "hung from him" rendered by Delitzsch "clave after
him" is rather Greek than Hebrew, for the Hebrew "hang"
is very rarely used metaphorically 3 ; but the Syriac versions
have it here ("hanging on him to hear him 4 ").
1 To Mk vii. 37 virepirepio-arcos e&tr^vvovro, Luke has no parallel.
On Mk x. 26 irfpiao-us cgeirXtjcraovTO, Mt. xix. 25 aKova-avres ee-
7r\r)(rcrovTo ar(p68pa, Lk. xviii. 26 ol aKoixravres, see Corrections 392 a,
441, 443, where some Heb. confusion is indicated.
2 Mt. xxi. 15 1 6 "But when the chief priests and the scribes
saw the wonderful works . . . and the children crying in the temple, . . .
they were moved with indignation.. . .And Jesus saith unto them,
Did ye never read. . . 'thou hast perfected praise'?"
3 See Gesen. 1067 b on the rare form in Deut. xxviii. 66 "thy life
hung up [i.e. in suspense] before thee" and Hos. xi. 7 " (lit.) hung up
to" R.V. "bent to" (Gesen. "certainly corrupt"). The more usual
form (Gesen. 10676 foil.) is always literal. In New Heb., "hang
from" occasionally means "depend on," "trust" (Levy iv. 645 a,
Levy Ch. ii. 539^)-
4 The word also occurs in Solomon's Odes iii. 2, on which see
Light 36736.
114 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
The origin of Luke's " hung from him" must be discussed
in its order, but the parallelism between it and the Marcan
"astonished" is noted here because we must now call attention
to the fact that in the Lucan parallel to the Marcan Visit to
Nazareth, where Luke's text mentions "casting down a preci-
pice," some Syriac quotations of it mention
5. "Cast down a precipice" and "hang" confused in
a version of Luke
In the Lucan account of the Visit to Nazareth, the Syro-
Sinaitic Version concludes thus : " They were filled with fury,
and they put him forth out of the city and brought him even
unto the Pharos (?), the hill that their city was built on, so that
they might hang him 1 ." The Greek has ophrus, "brow"
('brow of the hill"). Ophrus occurs nowhere else in the Greek
Bible except where the Hebrew phrase "the ridge of the eye"
is rendered in LXX by the single word ophrus, "brow 2 ." The
Hebrew for "ridge" there and elsewhere, is gab, and Walton's
Syriac has it here, "the gab of the hill." But further the
Hebrew and Aramaic for " hang " often represents our " crucify "
as in Paul's quotation "cursed is he that hangeth on a tree 3 ."
And what appears to be a form of the Hebrew gab is used by
John in a passage describing Jesus as brought out to receive
sentence before crucifixion, " at a place called the pavement,
but in Hebrew Gab-batha*"
On this Westcott says "There can be little doubt that
this represents Gab Baitha, the ridge (back) of the House/''
i.e. of the Temple; but as the author of Horae Hebraicae
1 Lk. iv. 29 (SS, Burkitt). The word printed "Pharos" repre-
sents Gk ocfrpvs, of which it may be a transliteration. SS "hang"
corresponds to Gk KaraKprjp.viarat, on which see p. 117, n. i.
2 Lev. xiv. 9.
3 Gal. iii. 13, quoting Deut. xxi. 23.
4 Jn xix. 13.
115 (Mark vi. i 6) 82
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
expresses doubt, and Prof. Dalm\n has recently changed his
views on the subject 1 , we shall be safer in saying that in the
first century Gab-batha might be taken by some to mean "
brow of the House of the Lord." If so, it might be taken by
Christians, ignorant of Jewish usage, in more senses than one.
Jews and some Christians would take it as a ridge near the
House of the Lord, the Temple, in Jerusalem, but some
Christians might take it as a ridge near the house of the Lord
Jesus in Nazareth. If however the name was found in con-
nection with the "hanging" of Jesus, or an attempt at
"hanging," such a tradition could only be applied to Jerusalem.
No one could seriously and permanently maintain that an
attempt was made to "hang" (that is, to "crucify") Jesus in
Nazareth.
What therefore would be Luke's natural course if he came
to the conclusion that the visit of the Lord Jesus to His home in
Nazareth had been misunderstood by Mark-Matthew, and that
it really terminated in an attempt to take away His life in a place
of which the name meant something like "the ridge of the
hill of the Lord's house"? We may infer his probable course
from what he seems to have done in the analogous case of the
Draught of Fishes which he places early, in contrast with John
who places it late 2 . There Luke appears to have retained a
difficult word kateneusa, but to have interpreted it as meaning,
not "swam to shore" but "made signs," and to have adapted
his context accordingly 3 . Somewhat similarly here, we could
explain the difficult Syro-Sinaitic "hang" and the difficult
1 See HOY. Heb. on Jn xix. 13 quoting Jer. Sanhedr. fol.
18. 3 as possibly to be rendered "the elders that sit in the upper
'Gab' in the Mount of the Temple" (lit. House}. Westcott refers to
Jer. Sanhedr. 18 d as mentioning "Gab of the House." This HOY.
Heb. does not exactly mention. See Hastings Diet. "Gabbatha,"
and Dalman Words p. 7.
2 See Proclamation pp. i foil., 35 foil., 91 foil.
3 Proclamation pp. 92 3, 97.
ii 6 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
Greek "precipitate" by an early confusion between similar or
identical Greek words that have both these meanings 1 .
That Luke had some textual basis for his account of the
attempt on Christ's life in Nazareth seems all the more probable
because of the intrinsic improbability of the account, indicating
that he could not have invented it. The traditional supposition
of a Rock of Precipitation, two miles from Nazareth, is generally
abandoned 2 , and no other has been substituted with any
probability that could resist the argument "If this was the
real place, how came it to be supplanted by the false and
traditional one?" If Jesus had been stoned just outside the
synagogue, and in company with a few disciples to stand round
Him, we could understand His escape; but, as Luke relates
the story, the escape is manifestly miraculous. Accordingly
Ephrem says about it "When they threw Him from the hill,
He flew in the air," and Aphraates, "He shewed the power of
His majesty when He was thrown from the height into the depth
and was not hurt 3 ."
1 Steph. Thes. iv. 1107 gives KaraKp^vrj^i as meaning, in the
middle, " dependeo," " praeceps dependeo," but in the active the
same thing as KaraKprjp.vifa " praecipitem dejicio." Ib. 1944 emends
Kpe/jLvav ("hang the maiden") into " Kprjp.vav vel. upcpav." Ib. 1950
gives Kpr)p.vdo> and Kpqp^/u as i.q. Kprj/jivifa, according to Eustathius,
but really meaning "hang," and quotes other instances of cor-
ruption. Confusion was very natural since Kprjp.v6s "precipice"
etymologically means "an overhanging place," like the English local
term "hanger."
The only other Biblical instance of Ka.TaKprjij.vifa is in 2 Chr. xxv. 12
KdTKpr]iJ.viov O.VTOVS OTTO TOV aKpov TOV KpT)p.vov, where Syr. has (but see
context "broken in pieces") "venerunt autem omnes vincti catenis
(Nn 1 ?^) " not mentioned in Thes. Syr. 4343.
2 Enc. Bib. 3359.
3 Burkitt vol. ii. pp. 130, 183. It is worth noting that Luke's
first use of fKir\j]a-(rop.ai occurs in the narrative of the first visit of
Jesus to the Temple (Lk. ii. 48) "they were astonished (dgfTrXdyrjo-av)."
Mary says to Jesus "Thy father," meaning Joseph. Jesus replies
"The [house] of my Father," meaning God. Probably Luke intends
to suggest that the parents of Jesus were bewildered and almost
out of their minds with astonishment.
117 (Mark vi. I 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
6. Attempts on Christ's life, in John
Mark (as also Matthew) describes no open attempt to take
Christ's life. There would therefore be no breach of the rule
of Johannine Intervention if the Fourth Gospel were equally
silent. But John mentions two such attempts. Both of them
were made in the Temple, and in both cases the attempt is to
stone Him 1 . The first of these says that Jesus "was hidden
and went out of the temple." Our R.V. text renders this as
"hid himself." But there are reasons for retaining the passive
rendering: "Luke had described Christ as 'passing through'
the Nazarenes, but had not explained how this was effected.
John suggests that it was literal and miraculous, but also
that it was typical of a spiritual blinding whereby Christ 'was
hidden' from those who rejected Him 2 ."
There is less difficulty in John's narrative than in Luke's.
On the only other Biblical occasion where "stoning" in the
Temple is mentioned, a repairing of the Temple is described
as going on at the time, so that stones might be lying about 3 .
Such repairs in the Herodian Temple would be frequent, and
a reference to the possibility occurs in the Talmud 4 . A sudden
rush of the crowd to snatch up such stones on the spot, and the
escape of Jesus, hidden in part at all events by the faithful
disciples round Him, are very different things from the Lucan
picture which describes how a Nazarene crowd seized and
conveyed Jesus apparently by Himself and without a single
disciple near Him to a rock at a distance (traditionally
estimated at two miles) from the town, and then how Jesus,
"passing through the midst of them, went his way 5 ."
1 Jn viii. 59 (on which see Joh. Gr. 2538 43) and x. 31, 39.
2 Joh. Gr. 2543. 3 Comp. 2 Chr. xxiv. 21 with ib. 13.
4 See HOY. Heb. on Jn viii. 59 quoting Sabb. 115 a "R. Jose
saith, They whelmed him (a heretic) under a heap of clay. 'Is there
any clay in the mountain of the House ? ' Gloss : ' There was mortar,
which they used in building.'"
5 Lk. iv. 30.
118 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
7. "Wisdom" and "mighty works," in Mark and
Matthew
Mark speaks of "mighty works" as emphatically present,
"through his hands [continually] coming to pass"; Matthew,
omitting this phrase, leaves the time an open question 1 . Luke
has "Whatsoever we have heard [as] having come to pass at
Capernaum, do also here in thy country 2 /' as though the
speakers spoke of the past, and of things that they knew only
by hearsay and hardly believed to be true. John says "The
Galilaeans received him having seen all things whatsoever he
had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they themselves also had
come to the feast 3 ."
This appears to be an instance of Johannine Intervention, so
far as concerns the nature of the evidence that led people in
Christ's "country" to believe in His "mighty works"; but as
regards the mention of "wisdom" by Mark and Matthew we
cannot say that John intervenes at all events verbally and
directly. "Wisdom," sophia, is a word that he never uses
either in his Gospel or in his Epistle. Perhaps he would have
shrunk from attributing it to Jesus (except in very special
contexts) because it was often associated by many, as by Paul,
with "wisdom of word" and with the "wisdom" "sought
after" by "the Greeks 4 ," largely consisting of the disputations
of those who were called "philosophers," i.e. "lovers of wisdom."
The parallel Luke says "All. . .were marvelling at the words
of grace that were proceeding out of his mouth," and John, in
1 Mk vi. 2 Hodfv TOVTO) Tavra, KOI ris 17 <ro<pt'a f] Sotfeura TOVTO> KOL at
dwdptis Toiavrai 8ia TWV ^eipav OVTOV yivopevai ; Mt. xiii. 54 TloBfv TOVTW
fj (To(pia avrrj /cat at Suva/iets ;
2 Lk. iv. 23 *O(ra r^KOixrap-ev yevofieva els TTJV KcXpapvaovp, Troirjo'ov KOI
<o5e fv rf) Trarpidi o~ov.
3 Jn iv. 45 fdeavTo OVTOV ol TaXtXatot, navra eatpciKOTes otra faoajO'tlf
ev 'ifpocroXv/ioty tv rfj eopr/;, KOI avrol yap tf\dov els rrjv eoprrjv.
4 i Cor. i. 17 22 "wisdom of word... the Greeks seek after
wisdom."
119 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
his prologue, repeatedly mentions the "grace" or "grace and
truth'' that abounded in "the only begotten 1 ." Mark and
Matthew never mention "grace." May we then say that John
here intervenes for Luke? Not in this passage. There is no
thought of real "grace" in the reception of Jesus by the Gali-
laeans as described by John. For the most part Luke uses
"grace" to mean "favour" or "gratitude." And here the
"grace" mentioned by Luke in the reception of Jesus by the
Nazarenes, "marvelling at the words of grace that were pro-
ceeding out of his mouth," is no real "grace" at all. It is
nothing but an empty sound of "words of grace"- -"words"
that seemed quite out of proportion to the merit of a prophet
who had not done anything in their presence to justify them, so
that they elicited from the audience nothing but marvel at the
speaker's presumption. The marvel is followed by disparage-
ment ("Is not this the son of Joseph? ") and then by an overt
act of hostility. In all this there is nothing that resembles
the Johannine "grace" that overflowed into the hearts of
the disciples from "the only begotten."
8. " The carpenter," in Mark and Matthew*
There is reason to think that "the carpenter" may not have
conveyed, in Mark's original, the contemptuous impression that
it conveyed to Celsus and would probably convey to the Roman
, "grace," is peculiar to the third and fourth Gospels
(Joh. Voc. 1775 c). But in Luke it mostly means "favour" or
"gratitude." In John it means "divine graciousness " (contrasted
with Law) abounding in the incarnate Logos from whom it flows
forth to those who receive Him: (Jn i. 14 17) "full of grace and
truth . . . from his fulness we all received, and grace succeeding (dvri)
grace... the [gift of] grace and the [gift of] truth (see Joh. Gr.
2284 7, 2301, 2411 e, Son 3566) came into being through Jesus
Christ."
2 Mk vi. 3 6 TfKTav 6 vlbs. . . . , Mt. xiii. 55 6 rov TCKTOVOS vios. In
Mk, some Greek cursives have 6 roC TCKTOVOS vios .... and similarly
some Latin codices have "fabri films."
1 20 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
world 1 . The Hebrew for "carpenter," a word that means
"artificer," whether in wood, or stone, or metal 2 , is sometimes
used in the Talmud for a distinguished Teacher 3 . The word
used in the Syriac of Mark and Matthew for "carpenter" is
frequently used in the same way in Talmudic treatises. For
example, about some difficult critical question, a Rabbi says,
"There is no carpenter and no son of a carpenter" that could
answer it, and another Rabbi, while declaring that he can
answer it, adds nevertheless, in modest deprecation, that he is
"no carpenter and no son of a carpenter*."
This appears to have been a frequent phrase, and there is
perhaps an allusion to it when it is said "Better is the saying of
the Smith than that of the son of the Smith," where "the Smith"
is the name given to a Rabbi Isaac and "the son of the Smith"
is the name given to the celebrated Rabbi Jochanan 5 .
Jochanan's early date attests the antiquity of such titles; for
he is connected with legal questions that arose before the
destruction of Jerusalem, and legend tells that he predicted
to Vespasian his future elevation to the imperial dignity 6 .
1 Origen (Cels. vi. 36) quotes Celsus as saying, about Jesus,
tfv TTJV T4xyr]v and denies that any Gospel makes this statement.
Origen is mostly so accurate that we may pardonably conjecture
that he read TKTONO (i.e. TCKTWV 6) as TGKTONOCO (Joh. Gr. 2652).
2 Gesen. 3606. . 3 Levy ii. 118 9.
4 Aboda Sara 50 b. See Levy iii. 338 (133) who gives other
instances of "carpenter and son of a carpenter."
6 Sanhedr. 96 a. Levy iii. 419 b quotes and renders Sanhedr.
thus, but refers to B. Metz. 85 b "son of the Smith" as a name of
R. Isaac, whereas Goldschm. says, in a note, that it is "a name of
R. Jochanan." Levy himself says that Chull. 77 a "R. Isaac son
of the Smith" is an error, and refers to Sabb. 25 b as one of many
instances where R. Isaac is called "the Smith." Comp. 2 Tim.
iv. 14 "Alexander the Coppersmith (xa\<cvs)." There Schottgen says
" I do not believe that he was a smith (fabrum) by trade (professione)
but that he was a Rabbi," and quotes Joma 546 about "Isaac the
Smith." But Alexander may have been both.
6 See Schiirer ii. i. pp. 366 7 referring to Lam. r. on Lam.
i. 5 (Wii. p. 66 foil.).
121 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
After the fall of Jerusalem he became the most important
the scribes. It is said of him that he lived one hundred an<
twenty years, of which the first forty were given to "business"
and although that must not be accepted as literally true, i1
shews what we know from other sources that a training ii
"business" was regarded as a credit rather than a discredit to
the career of an eminent rabbi 1 . It may therefore be taken
for granted that the title eulogistically applied to him, "son of
a Smith/' and the (apparently) earlier and more general title
"son of a carpenter," together with the rabbinical titles
"smith" and "carpenter," were in use before Jochanan's time,
and consequently in the days when Jesus came bringing the
Gospel to Galilee.
In view of these facts we must clear our minds from the
modern notion, which was also the ancient Greek and Roman
notion, that there was something disparaging in the name
"carpenter" applied to Jesus 2 . We must even prepare our
minds to accept the conclusion astonishing to us perhaps
that it was complimentary, and that it must be taken with
what precedes, thus: "Whence hath this man these [gifts]?
And what is the wisdom that is given to him ? ... 7s not this
indeed a carpenter [i.e. a Chief among the Rabbis] ? " Along with
this tradition might go one that Matthew has preferred, "Is
not this a son of a carpenter!" Both would naturally be soon
1 On Jochanan's "business" (fcODIOJ", Trpoy/iaret'a) see Levy ii.
227 a quoting R. hasch. 31 b, and Levy iv. 99 b. For other instances
(very numerous) see Wagenseil's Sota pp. 596 600.
2 In his comment on Mk vi. i foil., Pseudo-Jerome reads "films
fabri," and says, "et hoc mystice, sed fabri qui fabricatus est
Auroram et Solem." Origen, as we have seen, denies that Jesus
was called a carpenter. The only mentions of T(<TQ>V in Goodspeed
are in Justin Mart. Tryph. 88 describing Jesus as "deemed (i/o/wi-
o/xeVou) the son of Joseph the carpenter/' and as "deemed a
carpenter" because he wrought the "works of a carpenter," making
"ploughs" and "yokes." This might mean instruments for the
sowing of the seed of the Gospel, but Justin says "by which He
taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life
122 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
taken by Greeks to mean "the carpenter, or, the son of the
carpenter [whom we all knew in Nazareth]." Of course, all
this does not exclude the possibility that Jesus, or Joseph, or
both, were actually "carpenters." But it makes highly im-
probable the usual assumption that the term was employed
in the first instance with a sense of disparagement.
On our hypothesis (of non-disparagement), the sentence in
Mark which originally perhaps combined "carpenter" and
"son of a carpenter," meaning, in effect, "Is not this a prince
/
of Rabbis?" corresponds in meaning, though not in words,
to a long paraphrase in the parallel Luke "And all bare
witness unto him, and wondered at the words of grace that
came forth out of his mouth." But Luke has erroneously
added to this a more literal but incorrect version of Mark's
original, in which he has substituted "son of Joseph" for "son
of a carpenter."
As regards what follows in Mark and Matthew, we may
suppose that, in spite of this outburst of superficial admiration
for Jesus as a mere popular preacher, the Nazarenes speedily
relapsed into the reflection that after all He could not be so
very different from His brothers and sisters who were quite
ordinary people.
There is something a little grotesque and abrupt in this
argument against the claims of Jesus: "His sisters are here
with us, so that he cannot be a very great prophet." Perhaps
Luke the historian omitted it though very true to human
nature because it was grotesque. Mark's context favours the
view that he himself interpreted "carpenter" in a disparaging
sense. But about that we cannot be sure. We can be sure,
however, that, in the first half^ of the first century 1 , a dis-
paragement of "carpenter" that would seem natural to Greeks
would seem quite unnatural to Jews.
1 That is, before the Christian " carpenter " had become recognised
by Jews in general as their enemy, and referred to by that name,
"the Carpenter," in polemical discussions.
123 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
If "the carpenter" has this metaphorical meaning, we may
perhaps say that as Luke has paraphrased it here, so John has
paraphrased it elsewhere in passages where the eloquence of
Jesus is described as producing an effect on the crowd. But
we cannot maintain that there is anything in John corre-
sponding to the Mark-Matthew mention of Christ's "sisters."
About Christ's "brethren,'' of whom Luke makes no mention
here, John makes mention elsewhere in terms that describe
them as being out of touch with Christ's disciples and not
disposed to believe in Him 1 . The omission of the names
James, Joses, Judas and Simon may perhaps be explained by
John's general habit of omitting Synoptic names that are not
essential to his narrative 2 . But as to the "sisters" we must
admit that John's silence constitutes an instance of exception
to the rule of Johannine Intervention.
9- "Offended," in the Synoptists
This narrative ("and they were offended in him") contains
Mark's second use of the word "offend 3 ." The first was in
the Parable of the Sower, "when. . .persecution ariseth. . .they
are offended*." But the discussion of it was deferred to the
present occasion, that its meaning in the narrative of the
Evangelist might be compared with its meaning in the lips of
Christ. The third Marcan instance is transitive, "whosoever
shall offend one of these little ones 5 ." In all these passages
A.V. has "offend," but the text of R.V. has "stumble" in the
1 Jn vii. 5.
2 If the sisters of Jesus had "not the thoughts of Jesus" (see
p. in, quoting Origen on Mt. xiii. 56), that might account for their
dropping out of view in all but very early Christian records.
3 Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 57. Luke differs.
* Mk iv. 17 ti'ra yfvofj.vr)s ^Xi^ecar rj Stooy/zou dia TOV \6yov evdvs
<TKav8a\iovTai, Mt. xiii. 21 (sim.) yei/optv^s Se. . . o-KavSaXt'^frat, Lk. viii.
13 fv Kcupa) -rreipaa-fiov d^iararrat.
6 Mk ix. 42 (and sim. Mt. xviii. 6, Lk. xvii. 2) a-Kav8a\ia-rj eva
TOVTQiV.
124 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
first of them and "cause to stumble" in the third. It will be
convenient to retain "offend" for the most part, with the
warning that it is used to mean "cause to stumble," so that
"I am offended" means "I am caused to stumble." Luke
agrees with Mark-Matthew in the warning not to "offend" a
"little one," but never uses the word elsewhere except in the
saying "Blessed is he that shall not be offended in me," where
he agrees verbatim with Matthew Tl . He uses it, in all, twice.
Yet the word is very freely used by Mark and the parallel
Matthew, and also sometimes by Matthew independently.
What induced Luke to avoid this ancient Synoptic word?
John, like Luke, uses it but twice. Do John's instances and
abstinences throw any light on Luke's motive, and on the
meaning, or meanings, of the Greek "offend"? How is it
used, if at all, in Greek literature? How in LXX? If there
is a Hebrew original, or originals, what are the renderings
given by the Targumists and by the Greek translators of the
second century? Such are the questions before us.
The Greek for "offend" does not occur in Greek literature.
Nor does it occur in the LXX in the transitive ("cause to
offend"). It occurs in the canonical LXX once, in the passive,
"Many [countries] (R.V.) shall be overthrown*." There it repre-
sents the passive of a Hebrew word (cdshal) meaning "stumble."
But Theodotion's parallel rendering is "be weak," and the
LXX itself has previously rendered cdshal in the same context,
no less than four times, by other words 3 .
1 Mt. xi. 6, Lk. vii. 23. This is in the Double Tradition, commonly
called "Q." In the Double Tradition, Luke comparatively seldom
differs from the Greek of Matthew.
z Dan. xi. 41.
3 R.V. also varies. In Dan. xi. 14 "they shall fall," ib. 19 "he
shall stumble," ib. 33 " they shall fall" Heb. has hvfo, LXX Trpoo-Kon-ra).
In ib. 35 "some of them that be wise shall fall, to refine them,"
LXX has 8iavor}dr)<TovTai (confusing ^BO with *?yy which it renders by
in ix. 13, 25). In xi. 41 "many [countries] shall be
125 (Mark vi. I 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
If we ask why such a recondite Greek word as scandalizein
rather implying "snare" or "trap 1 " should be used in this
single passage, we may perhaps find it in the conception of
conquered countries as being caught in the snare of the con-
queror. This view is confirmed by two instances in which the
Hebrew of Ben Sira gives, for the passive Greek "offended,"
a Hebrew original (ydkash) meaning "ensnared 2 ." The Greek
noun scandalon mostly corresponds in LXX to two Hebrew
nouns, one of them derived from cdshal, "stumble," but the
other iioTH ydkash, "ensnare 3 ." Both these Hebrew nouns are
rendered by one and the same Aramaic noun 4 . It follows that
the Aramaic word used by Jesus in His doctrine about "offend-
ing" might have a wide significance according to context,
sometimes implying a retrievable "stumbling," but sometimes
an "ensnaring" almost, or wholly, irretrievable.
For example, in the Parable of the Sower, where Mark has
overthrown," LXX has o-Kav8a\io-6r]a-ovTai. Theod. has always d
For a connection between 6 dcrdev&v, 6 irpocrnoirTUiv, and
see Rom. XIV. I rbv Se do-devovvTa, ib. 13 p.T) Titievai Trpoo-KO/i/za rai
aSeX0w 77 (TKavdciXov, ib. 2O 21 ra> 8ia Trpoo-KO/z/zaro? evQiovri. . . ei> G> 6
d8e\<f)6s o-ov TTpoo-KOTrrei, XV. I ra d(rdfvr]^UTa TO>V ddvvdrtav.
1 See Steph. Thes. vii. 319 20 on o-Kav8d\i]0pov the "trigger" in
a mousetrap, and on a-KavdaXov explained by Hesychius as TO ev rals
pvaypais. It is metaph. in Aristoph. Ach. 687 "mousetraps (O-KCIV-
dd\T)0pa] of words."
2 Sir. ix. 5 o-KavdaXia-Orjs (v.r. o-<av8a\io-fl ae) (fc^pin from fc?p'),
xxxii. (Gr. XXXV.) 15 orKavSaAio-^o-erai (8?pV).
3 Gesen. 430 gives the verb Wp as "lay a bait," "lay snares,"
and the noun E^plD as a "bait in a fowler's net," and then "snare,"
but Job xl. 24 (R.V.) "pierce through his nose with a snare" is
difficult. A.V. has "[his] nose pierceth through snares," Rashi
explains " snare " as " instrumenta artificialia piscatorum." 2 K dvda\ov
(from ^O) in Lev. xix. 14, i S. xxv. 31, Ps. cxix. 165, but
(from B>p) in Josh, xxiii. 13, Judg. ii. 3, viii. 27, i S. xviii. 21,
Ps. Ixix. 22, cvi. 36 etc.
4 Onk. has (Brederek) fcOpn in Lev. xix. 14 "nor put a stumbling-
block before the blind," and also in Exod. x. 7 "a snare unto us,"
xxiii. 33 etc.
126 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
"they are offended," as quoted above, the parallel Luke has
a word that would etymologically denote "apostasy 1 ." Also
Hermas a writer often closely akin to Mark says "These
are they that have faith indeed, but, having also the riches of
this world, when tribulation arises, by reason of their riches
and their business-affairs they deny their Lord 2 ." Something
like entanglement in a snare is implied by the context, which
speaks of "the deceitfulness of riches 3 ."
Luke does not differ from Mark and Matthew as to the
warning against "offending little ones." But he omits the
sequel ("If thine eye offend thee") and the context which
imply that the flesh, as well as the deceitfulness of riches,
can "offend 4 ." Also he omits Christ's prediction to the dis-
ciples "All ye shall be offended," and Peter's protest that he,
at all events, will not be "offended 5 ." Apparently Luke thought
scandalizein which he perhaps connected with "ensnaring"
too strong a word to describe the temporary and unpremeditated
lapse of Peter and the disciples.
We have now to ask what we can learn from the Johannine
use, and non-use, of this word.
1 In Lk. Vlii. 13 01 irpos <aipbv 7Tio~Tevovo~iv /ecu Iv Kaipa>
d</>i0Tai>rcu, the preceding Trtcrrevova-iv obliges US to supply OTTO rrjs
TriVreooy after d(j)i<TTavTcu, so that it means "depart from [the faith],"
i.e. apostatize. Comp. I Tim. iv. I d-n-oo-Trjo-ovTai rijs iriaT(os.
2 Hermas Vis. iii. 6. 5. Comp. Gesen. 430 b on s?p, in Prov.
vi. 2, = "ensnared, in business entanglements."
3 Mk iv. 19, Mt. xiii. 22, ff dirdrr} TOV TT\OVTOV, parall. to Lk. viii. 14,
which does not mention diraTrj.
4 Mk ix. 43 foil., Mt. xviii. 8 foil. Luke also omits Mk xiv. 38,
Mt. xxvi. 41, "the flesh is weak (dadfvrjs)."
6 Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xxvi. 31 (adding "in me"). The parallel
Luke has in the context (xxii. 31) Si'pai/, 2ip.a>v, I8ov 6 Saravas e^-njo-aro
vp.ds TOV o-Lvida-ai ws TOV alrov . Comp. Dan. xi. 35 "Some of them that
be wise shall fall (or, be offended] to refine them," quoted above
(p. 125, n. 3), where LXX has "shall bethink themselves."
127 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
10. "Offended," in John
"Offending" is not mentioned by John till he describes a
" murmuring" of "disciples" against Christ's teaching in Caper-
naum 1 . The teaching begins by referring to " the living bread,"
and proceeds to the gift of Christ's "flesh" and "blood." At
first, it is only the Jews that murmur, saying, "Is not this
Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know 2 ? "
Then, as the doctrine rises in paradox, "The Jews strove with
one another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to
eat 3 ?" Still it is only "the Jews." But at last, when the
climax is reached, "many of his disciples, when they heard [it],
said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it 4 ?" And now
Jesus for the first time introduces the word in question, implying,
not indeed that the disciples have already "been offended"
but that they are on the brink of it: "Jesus, knowing in
himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said unto
them, Is this offending you 5 ? "
This saying should be read with what comes early in the
narrative, namely the purpose of the multitude to make Jesus
a king, and also with what concludes the narrative the saying
of Jesus "Was it not I that chose you, the Twelve? And one
of you is a devil," followed by the Evangelistic statement
1 Mk ii. i "Capernaum" is parall. to Mt. ix. i "his own city."
Some confusion might arise from various interpretations of a
tradition that "they murmured against Jesus in His own house"
meaning (Son 3460 c) "among His own disciples," but wrongly
taken to mean "among His own folk," i.e. in Nazareth, Capernaum
or Galilee.
2 Jn vi. 42. This resembles the Synoptic comments assigned
to Christ's hearers in "his own country" (Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 55,
Lk. iv. 2.2.}. But John does not say that these Jews "were offended."
3 Jn vi. 52. 4 Jn vi. 60.
5 Jn .vi. 61 TOVTO vfjias <rKavSd\iei; The present tense here seems
to have an inceptive force, describing a process that is just, or
almost, beginning and is to be arrested.
128 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
"Now he spake of Judas 1 ." Then it will be seen that the
"offending" involves a stumbling at the Law of self-sacrifice,
a falling back which Jesus regards as originating from "the
ruler of this world," who is already acting on Judas, and,
through Judas, attempting to cause the Twelve to "go away"
from Him. This falling back is implied in the words " From
this [time] many of his disciples departed backward and would
no longer walk with him. Jesus therefore said to the Twelve,
Can it be that even ye desire to go away 2 ?" This means, in
effect, that many of Christ's disciples "were offended," in a
sense approaching to apostasy or denial of their Master; and
the context suggests that Jesus regarded such apostasy not
only as being a falling back from the Son of God but also as
indicating a tendency to follow after, or worship, Satan, "the
ruler of this world 3 ."
In the same serious sense does Jesus repeat the word
"offended" to His disciples, when He warns them, on the night
before the crucifixion, of the persecution that awaits them.
"These things have I spoken unto you that ye may not be
offended . . . whosoever kiileth you shall think that he doeth
service to God 4 ." In word, this almost amounts to a contra-
diction of the Mark-Matthew tradition " All ye shall be
offended**." But it is not a contradiction in thought. Only
John expresses the Synoptic thought differently, thus: "The
1 Jn vi. 15, ib. 70 71.
2 Jn VI. 66 7 a7rrj\dov eiS 1 ra 07rura)...i>7r<ryeiJ' implies that ei? TO,
OTTUTCO should be repeated after inrdyeiv. In the Parable of the Sower,
where Mark iv. 17 has "they are offended," the parall. Luke viii. 13
d(f)io-TavTai is rendered by Delitzsch "they depart backward."
3 Such "following" is not mentioned here, but it seems to be
implied by the context. Several passages of the Gospels and
Epistles teach us that men must serve one of "two masters," and
that Satan claims authority over all the kingdoms of the earth and
offers it to those who worship him ; and Jesus Himself recognises
that, in some sense, Satan is "ruler of this world" for those who
do not accept the Son of God as having "overcome the world."
Jn xvi. i 2. 6 Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xxvi. 31.
A. L. 129 (Mark vi. i 6) 9
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man
to his own, and shall leave me alone 1 ." That is to say, the
"stumbling," or "being offended," of Peter and the Twelve
was not to be a deliberate going backward from Christ, or a
going after Satan, like the treachery of Judas. Against that
Jesus took measures to secure them. But He could not secure
them against a flight for safety, caused by temporary panic,
like the temporary "stumbling," predicted in Daniel, which was
to befall even some of "the wise," in order to "refine" them 2 .
Concerning that other kind of "stumbling" in which a
man causes others to "stumble" or "be offended" John says
nothing in his Gospel, but he probably refers to it in the Epistle,
as follows " He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother
is in the darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother
abideth in the light, and there is no scandalon, i.e. stumbling-
block, or cause-of -offence, in him*." This resembles the words
of the Psalmist "Great peace have they that love thy law, and
there is no stumbling-block to them*." But the Psalm, which has
"to them," means simply (as A.V.) "Nothing shall offend them."
The Epistle, which has "in him," enlarges the meaning: "In
him there is no cause of stumbling [either for himself or for
others]."
In the Epistle, "he that loveth his brother" is assumed
also to love God as Father, so that there is a chain of causes and
effects: (i) "love of the Father," (2) "love of the brethren,"
(3) "light," (4) "no stumbling-block." Antithetical to this,
there would be (i) "idolatry" or homage to "the ruler of this
1 Jn xvi. 32.
2 Dan. xi. 35. On the startling words peculiar to Matthew
(xvi. 23, addressed to Peter) o-Kav8a\ov et e/*o, see Joh. Gr. 2566 c.
They are omitted by the parall. Mk viii. 33, which will be discussed
later on.
3 i Jn ii. 9 10 (TKav8a\ov ev avTtp OVK earn/. "Is" is emphatic,
" Cause-of-stumbling, in him, has no existence."
4 Ps. Cxix. 165 OVK. <TTIV avrols (TKcivBaXov.
130 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
world," (2) "hate of the brethren," (3) "darkness," (4) "stum-
bling." Similarly, in Ezekiel, stumbling is connected with
idolatry: "Son of man, these men have taken their idols into
their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before
their face 1 ." Jewish tradition explains Ezekiel's peculiar doc-
trine connecting " stumbling-block " and "iniquity," as referring
to the unmasking of " hypocrites 2 ." Thus, although John never
uses the Synoptic word "hypocrite," we perceive, through
Ezekiel, that John expresses a condemnation of the thing, in
words of his own that help us to realise what the thing is.
John also helps us to think for ourselves in an intelligent
and Christian spirit about the meaning of another important
Biblical word, namely, "desire" such "desire" as is the cause
of "stumbling." Mark says, in the Parable of the Sower,
somewhat obscurely, that the good seed is choked by "the
desires concerning the remaining things 3 ." This might be re-
garded as meaning that "desire," in itself, is evil. And Paul
might be regarded as meaning the same thing when he (too
briefly) quotes the Law as saying "Thou shalt not desire*."
1 Ezek. xiv. 3.
2 See Son 3553 i, quoting Ezek. iii. 20 ("if he commit iniquity
and I lay a stumbling-block before him") with Rashi "He does his
own deeds in secret, and shews himself off as just," and with Joma
87 a which infers that "hypocrites are to be unmasked." Comp.
Jn iii. 19 20 "men loved the darkness rather than the light, for
their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth ill hateth the light
and cometh not to the light lest his deeds should be reproved."
3 Mk iv. IQ at nfpl ra XOITTOT (Delitzsch D'HDin 1X^
There is perhaps some error. In LXX, Xoind is represented by
which also means "flesh," and by in* which also means "super-
fluous." Either of these words would make better sense than Xocn-a.
4 Rom. vii. 7, and xiii. 9 where it is quoted after "thou shalt
not steal," without any modifying words such as are given in Exod.
xx. 17 " Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's house . . . ." The Targum
uses the Heb. in Exod., 1DP1, in a bad sense (as it is always used
in Aram.), but in Heb. (Gesen. 326) it is sometimes used in a good
sense. Paul uses ciri0vp.4a>, briefly, in a bad sense. But in LXX and
131 (Mark vi. i 6) 9 2
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
The Law did not forbid "desire." It merely forbade desire of
that which belongs to one's neighbour. All God's fatherly gifts,
the visible as well as the invisible, may rightly be "desired,"
and may come to a man with the divine blessing, increasing
his love for the Giver and Father.
The only Johannine mention of desire is in Christ's saying
to the Jews, " Ye are from [your] father the devil, and the desires
of your father it is your will to do 1 ." The Jews had just
protested, "We were not born of fornication 2 , we have one
Father, even God." Jesus is contradicting their protest.
The many "desires" of Satan are here tacitly contrasted with
the will of the "one Father." And love, as in the Epistle, so
in the Gospel, is made the test that convicts the hypocritical
idolater, who worships Satan in worshipping himself: "If God
were your Father ye would love me."
Thus, in order to explain and reinforce the Synoptic negative
doctrine, which warns us against "stumbling" or "being
offended," or against "offending" others, the Fourth Gospel
gives us a positive doctrine about love, and peace, and the unity
of man with the Father through the Son which make all
stumbling impossible. Where the Psalmist says "Great peace
have they that love thy Law, and there is no occasion of
stumbling to (or, for) them," John, in effect, teaches us, in the
place of "thy Law," to read "thy Son." Moreover, he leads
us to substitute, for the negative "no occasion of stumbling,"
the positive "peace." For he brings Jesus before us as saying,
N.T. it often has a good sense. See Origen Comm. Joann. xx. 20
(Lomm. ii. 246) Kara ras Qfias ypa<pas 17 firidv^La TCOV /zeVon/ eVrtV.
1 Jn viii. 44.
2 See Ezek. xvi. 15, 26, etc. on this metaphor. Comp. Clem.
Alex. 551 2 on 7rAeoi/fi'a as being called iropveia, and as being
opposed to avrapKcta. He adds K(ii ws fificoXoXarpei'a CK TOV evbs els TOVS
TTO\\OVS fTTLve/j.rjo'is O~Tt $eov, OVTCOS TJ TTOpvfia ex TOV evbs yafjiov fls TOVS
7ro\\ovs eo-Tiv fKTTTOMTis.... A thought of this kind is latent in Jn iv.
17 1 8 "thou hast had five husbands" and comp. Philo i. 131 on
the "seducer ((pOopevs)" who acts through the five senses.
132 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
at first negatively, "These things have I spoken unto you
that ye may not be made to stumble," but afterwards, positively,
"These things have I spoken unto you that in me ye may have
peace. In the world ye have tribulation, but be of good cheer ;
I have overcome the world 1 ."
ii. "Not without-honour ," in Mark and Matthew*
The Greek adjective, atimos, here applied to a "prophet"
and rendered by R.V. "without honour," was often applied to
persons by Attic writers, but only in the sense of "disfran-
chised." And Greek writers in general used it to mean
"dishonoured" rather than "without honour 3 ." Origen
explains the word as implying "treating as an outlaw," "per-
secuting" and as referring to the treatment of Christ by the
1 Jn xvi. i, 33.
Space has not allowed us to discuss John's use of
which expresses "stumbling" without conveying any notion of
"ensnaring." It is not used by the Synoptists except in Mt. iv. 6
and Lk. iv. n (both quoting Ps. xci. 12) and Mt. vii. 27 ("smote
upon that house"). It occurs in Jn xi. 9 10 "Are there not twelve
hours in the day ? If a man walk in the day he stumbleth not. . . .
But if a man walk in the night he stumbleth" uttered by Jesus
when resolving to go into Judaea, at the peril of His life, in order
to raise Lazarus from death.
The Johannine passage seems to mean that even if a man dies
while attempting to do God's work in God's appointed work-time
of "twelve hours," he does not really "stumble (TTPOO-KOTTTQ))." As to
the "twelve hours," see Pesikt. (Wii. p. 173, a Midrash on Cant,
viii. i) where Joseph says to his brethren that he is bound to help
them, for it would be against the course of nature to do otherwise :
" Ye represent the course of the world. The day hath twelve hours,
the night hath twelve hours. . .can I alter the course of the world?"
Another version (quoted in Wii. ib. p. 173 n.) adds "My father [i.e.
Jacob] begot you, and shall I bury you ? "
2 Mk vi. 4, Mt. xiii. 57 OVK. . .a'n/zor, Lk. iv. 24 ovftels. . .dfKrbs.. . .
3 With a negative, and applied to things, "not dishonourable"
may mean "honourable," but the Thesaurus, which gives no instance
of this applied to persons, quotes only (col. 2377) Aesch. Sept. 589
OVK art/iov eATrifo) popov.
133 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
Jews as a whole 1 . In the LXX it represents Hebrew words
thrice once " without-name " and once "lightly-esteemed 2 ."
In the third instance, where Isaiah says, of the Suffering
Servant, " he was despised," the LXX says " his form was without-
honour (atimon) 3 ." This is a passage that has greatly influenced
early Christian literature.
Justin Martyr represents Trypho the Jew as saying "Your
so-called Christ was atimos and without-glory (adoxos), so that
he actually incurred the extreme curse [contained] in the Law
of God, for he was crucified 4 ." But this is, so to speak, a trap
made for Trypho to fall into. For Justin replies at once that
this argument might have held good, but for the prophecy that
he, Justin, had previously quoted : " If I had not explained from
the scriptures that I quoted above that His form would be without-
glory and his generation inexpressible. ..." Justin is referring
to Isaiah's description of the Suffering Servant, which he has
previously quoted in full, and which contains many references to
the absence of " glory 5 ." Justin does not on this occasion repeat
the word "atimos." Elsewhere he repeatedly uses it with allusion
to this prophecy, as referring to Christ's first Advent, but almost
always inserts some phrase denoting that the " atimia" was tem-
porary and earthly, referring merely to outward "form" "appear-
ance" or "presence." Nowhere does he say what he makes
Trypho say that Christ Himself was "atimos*"
1 Origen on Mt. xiii. 57 (Lomm. iii. 47 51) uses d/ud&> and
arijuoo) repeatedly. Moses, he says (ib. 49) qripo^ among his country-
men when they tried to stone him, "And his 'country' was not the
stones of this or that place [i.e. city] but those following him, the
people."
2 Job xxx. 8, Is. iii. 5.
3 Is. liii. 3 ntU (nif. of n?2), LXX dXXa TO eifior avrov anpov, Sym.
* Justin Martyr Try ph. 32 art/ioy KCU a8oo$ yeyovcv . . . e
6 Tryph. 13, quoting Is. Iii. 14 foil. (LXX) OVTWS
fldos Kai 77 fioa vov . . . OVK eo"Tii> fidos ca>ra> oufie 86a. . ..
6 Justin quotes art/xoy in Apol. 50 and alludes to it in ib. 52
(with a)?), Tryph. 14, 36, 49, 85, 100, no, 121.
134 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
It has been shewn that the Hebrew in Isaiah, corresponding
to LXX "his form was without-honour (atimori)," is "he was
despised/' and is rendered by Symmachus " [he was] set at
naught 1 ." "Set at naught" is applied by Mark alone to the
sufferings of Christ as predicted by Jesus 2 , and by Luke alone
to the contumelious treatment of Christ by Herod 3 . When the
Hebrew of Isaiah repeats "he was despised" in the same verse,
the LXX renders it "he was dishonoured 4 ." This word occurs
in Christ's words apart from parables only once in the
Gospels, "I honour my Father and ye dishonour me," uttered
shortly before the attempt of the Jews to stone Him 5 .
These facts give us glimpses into the reasons that might
induce early Christians to use, or not use, the word atimos in
the description of Christ's reception by His own people. The
use of it might seem to Mark (followed by Matthew) to point
to a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy. But to the later Evan-
gelists conveying as it did to Greeks the sense of civic
degradation the word might seem inappropriate to the
circumstances. The circumstances might fairly be said to
warrant no more than this a complaint that a prophet, in his
own neighbourhood, did not find (i) " a favourable reception"
or (2) "honour." Of these two interpretations, Luke adopts
the former, John the latter 6 .
1 Is. liii. 3 Sym. egovSevu/jifvos. "He was despised" is repeated
later in the same verse, and similarly rendered by Aq. e^ovSevco/ieVoy.
2 Mk ix. 12 fgovdt-vrjOfi (om. by parall. Mt. xvii. 12 ; Lk. omits the
whole) .
3 Lk. xxiii. n.
4 LXX 'Hrt^acr#77 (not r)TL^a>6rj) , Aq. eov8(va>p.(vos.
6 Jn viii. 49 dri/za^Vre followed by (viii. 59) "they took up stones."
'Ari/zaa> occurs nowhere else in the Gospels except in the Parable of
the Vineyard, Mk xii. 4 parall. to Lk. xx. n in connection with
"wounding in the head" or "scourging."
6 Lk. iv. 24 "No prophet is acceptable (or [favourably] received)
(Sejcros)," Jn iv. 44 "a prophet. . .hath not honour (rt/ij?!/ OVK e^")-"
Jn iv. 45 "the Galilaeans received (fdegavro) him" seems, at first
sight, a complete contradiction to Luke. But John goes on to say
135 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
No new spiritual truth emerges from these Lucan and
Johannine corrections of the ancient Mark-Matthew tradition
about atimos as applied to the Saviour. But they exemplify
the difficulties of rendering the Gospel into Greek in the earliest
days of the Church. They help us to realise cross-currents of
Greek and Jewish thoughts, meeting and jostling each other
in Christian interpretations of the Prophets, and especially of
Isaiah, when prophecy became the basis not avowed but
latent of Evangelistic expression 1 .
Moreover the Fourfold Tradition at this point is also of
special interest as an instance of Johannine Intervention,
because John does not exactly support Mark against Luke,
but rather explains Mark, and, as it were, apologizes for him.
Indeed, as to the meaning of the text, he seems to correct Mark
in a Lucan direction, but he does it with the minimum of verbal
alteration, as if saying: "Luke substitutes 'acceptable' for
that the reason why they "received" Him was that they had been
to Jerusalem and had seen the wonders that He had performed
there. This suggests the thought: "If the Galilaeans 'received'
Jesus, it was not as 'neighbours' receiving a prophet belonging to
their 'neighbourhood,' but because some of their number had
reported at home what He had done away from home, in Jerusalem."
Comp. Lk. iv. 23 " Whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum,
do also here in thine own country." Luke's tradition resembles
John's, but with important differences, (i) In Luke, the Nazarenes
are regarded as murmuring because the works reported to have
been done elsewhere were not done in their presence ; in John, the
Galilaeans are regarded as receiving Jesus because of those works.
(2) In Luke, the "elsewhere" is Capernaum; in John, it is Jeru-
salem.
1 The word art/no? (sing.) does not occur in the Early Fathers
except Clem. Rom. 16, and there as a quotation from Isaiah liii. 3
(LXX). [The pi. ari/jLoi occurs only in Clem. Rom. 3 as a quotation
from Is. iii. 5, where LXX has sing.] In the early Apologists, it
does not occur except as quoted above from Justin Martyr where,
with the exception of one pi. instance (Apol. 9 aripcov . . .O-KCV&V,
comp. Rom. ix. 216 p.ev els rip.r)v (TKfvos, 6 Se eir drt/iiW), it practically
always alludes to Is. liii. 2 3. Clem. Alex. 252 explains Is. liii. 3
fldos as referring merely to Christ's outward appearance.
136 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
Mark's 'not-honourable,' which, for Greeks, often means 'dis-
franchised.' Luke is quite right. But the same result may
be effected by a less violent change, simply altering 'is
not-honourable' into 'has not. . .honour.'"
T2. " And he was not able to do there any mighty
work," in Mark 1
Origen in his commentary on the parallel Matthew ("and
he did not many mighty works there") calls attention to Mark's
words "He did not say 'was not willing,' but 'was not able';
for there had to come toward the energizing mighty work a
joint-action from the faith of him on whom the mighty work
was energizing.... 2 " Luke's context differs so widely from
Mark's that we cannot attach much importance to his omission
of "was not able." But Matthew's omission of the Marcan
"was not able," in the midst of an otherwise Mark-following
narrative, makes the passage conspicuously suitable for testing
the Rule of Johannine Intervention.
John not only adopts the bold saying but also extends its
application and places it in the mouth of Jesus Himself: "The
Son is not able to do anything from himself [anything] except
he see the Father doing something ; for such things as he [i.e.
the Father] is doing, these things also the Son likewise doeth 3 ."
These words, though applicable to all action on the part of the
Son, and though applied later on to the action of "judging 4 ,"
1 Mk vi. 5 KOI OVK edvvaTo e'/cel TTOI^CTCU oie/zt'ai> 8vvafj.iv . . . , Mt. xiii.
58 KOI ov< erroirjo-fv e'xel 8vvdp.fi$ TroAAas 1 . . . . Lk. omits the whole.
2 Origen on Mt. xiii. 58 <$ epxo/j.evr)s p.fv eVi TTJV fvepyova-av 8vva/j.iv
(TV/nTrpa^eooy VTTO TrtWecos cKftvov fls ov evrjpyfi r) dvPOftiff.... He adds
that this is "hindered from energizing by the [man's] faithlessness
(Kto'Xvofj.fVTjs Se evepyetv VTTO rrjs aTTiortas)." Thus the light may fall on
our eyes, but it is "hindered from energizing" if we keep them
closed. There is a need of our o-vfiirpagis, i.e. opening our eyes.
3 Jn v. 19.
4 Jn v. 30 "I am not able from myself to do anything; as I
hear, I judge."
137 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
refer primarily to the healing of a man on the sabbath. What
Origen said about the necessity of a "combined-action (sum-
praxis) "if a " mighty work " was to be performed, John also
teaches but with a difference. Origen spoke of the "combined-
action" of the sick man and his Healer. John speaks of the
simultaneous action of the Son and the Father, who gives to
the Son insight into the condition of the diseased man and a
power or perhaps we should say a command to heal his
disease. The Father appears to be regarded as saying to the
Son about this or that particular sufferer: "This man has faith
to be healed by thee; or this man has the germ or spark of
faith ready to spring into flame at thy word: I give thee this
man to heal." This is not inconsistent with Origen's view of
sumpraxis. But it is wider, and deeper; and it helps us to
understand the cure at the pool of Bethesda, where the sufferer
was hardly capable of "combined action" in any degree at
first, and only in a slight degree even after he had been healed,
since he did not know who had healed him.
If we pursued this subject further, discussing the Marcan
doctrine about what God or man was "able" to do, or about
what was "possible," we should be carried on to much later
periods in the Gospel narrative. Suffice it to say, here, that
Mark, in such sayings as "All things are possible to him that
believeth" and "All things are possible unto thee 1 ," has com-
mitted himself to traditions that are probably historically
accurate and of great spiritual value, but at the same time
liable to be misunderstood and perverted by opponents of
the Christians. Epictetus declines to read the discussions of
the Greek philosophers about "things-possible." On that
subject, if any one asks him, "Which of these tenets do you
hold ? " he says he shall reply " I do not know 2 " ; he also ventures
1 Mk ix. 23, xiv. 36, not in the parallel Matthew-Luke.
2 Epict. ii. 19. 5 9. The words (ib. 9) "Chrysippus has written
wonderfully [well] in the First Book on Things Possible (eV ro> 7rp&>ro>
t 8wa.Ta>v)" are uttered to Epictetus, not by Epictetus.
138 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
to say that Zeus "was not able" to persuade all men to believe
the truth, and even to introduce Zeus as saying " If it had been
practicable, Epictetus, I would have done so-and-so for you 1 ."
In taking this view, Epictetus is not so far removed from
Hebrew thought as we might at first sight assume. The word
"Almighty," so frequent in our English Versions of the Old
Testament, represents, in Hebrew, " Shaddai, " which would
almost certainly be regarded by Jews in the first century as
implying "the Giver of Good." In the LXX, "Almighty"
(Pantokrator) besides rendering "Shaddai" is also used to
render " of Hosts (Sabaoth)" in "the Lord of Hosts." Neither
of these Hebrew titles denotes " almightiness 2 ."
John's method of dealing with this difficult, this insoluble,
question 3 of things "possible" and "impossible" for the
Son of God may be stated, first, in its negative, then in its
positive, aspect. Negatively, the Evangelist avoids the use of
the words "possible," "impossible," and of the kindred word
for miracle, which we render "mighty-work" (but which might
also mean "potentiality," so that to a Greek it is connected with
the thought of possibility 4 ). Also, whereas all the Synoptists
use the verb signifying ability or possibility, "to be able,"
without a negative, in the leper's petition to Jesus, "If thou
1 Epict. iv. 6. 5, i. i. 10; olov re rjv.
2 See TravTOKparap in Oxf. Cone., also Notes 2998 (xxvii) / m on
"Almighty," and Son 3120 a c, 3123 a.
J Note that the first use of d(Ware<o in LXX is in Gen. xviii. 14
(Heb.) "Is any thing (lit. word) too hard for (lit. from) the Lord?"
This refers to the promise of a son previously made to Sarah, so that
the meaning of "word" might here be ''word [of promise]." But
the Targumists, both Onkelos and Jer. Targ., have "Is any thing
concealed from the Lord?" and Rashi adopts it (though Gen. r.
ad loc. does not).
4 That is to say, Swa/jus. John does not use Swapis, "mighty-
work," or dwaros, "possible," or ddvvaros, "impossible." All the
Synoptists, besides frequently using 8vvap.is, use dBvvaros and 8war6s
in Mk x. 27, Mt. xix. 26, Lk. xviii. 27.
139 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
wilt, thou art able to cleanse me 1 ," John never uses the verb
except with a negative, or an interrogative implying a negative.
With a negative, he applies it, as we have seen, to the Son
"The Son is not able to do...," "I am not able to do 2 ."
So much for the negative point of view. From the positive
point of view, Christ's miracles in the Fourth Gospel are
regarded as "signs" or as works "given" to the Son by the
Father. John introduces them as "signs" without telling us,
at the moment, what they are signs of: "This beginning of
signs did Jesus." But the following words, "and manifested
his glory 3 ," explain how they are "signs." The first Biblical
mention of "signs" refers to the heavenly bodies. They were
created "for signs" as well as "for seasons," and part of their
work, as "signs," was to make "the heavens declare the glory
of God 4 ." So the "signs" of Jesus declared the glory of the
Father through the Son.
These "signs" were also gifts, and Jesus calls them "the
works that the Father hath given me 5 ." He also repeatedly
describes as "given" to Himself those whom He has spiritually
healed, and brought into the circle of His disciples. "All that
which the Father giveth me will come unto me, and him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out 6 ." In effect, the Fourth
Gospel may be said to substitute for "God Almighty" "God
the Giver." The Father gives His Son to die for the world;
He also gives the Church to the Son ; and when the Son prays
to the Father for the disciples "Keep them in thy name that
thou hast given me 7 ," it is implied that the relation between the
Father and the Son is not only one of perfect unity, but also
one in which God the Father is to be regarded as giving Himself
1 Mk i. 40, Mt. viii. 2, Lk. v. 12, all having 8vvaa-at.
2 Jn v. 19, 30. 3 Jn ii. n.
4 Gen. i. 14, Ps. xix. i. 5 Jn v. 36.
6 Jn vi. 37. See Joh. Gr. 2740 on trav 6 dedaxas in Jn.
7 Jn xvii. ii.
140 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
to the Son and the Son as giving Himselt to the Father, and in
both cases the gift is for the sake of man.
Reviewing this Johannine doctrine we perceive that John
does not attempt to reconcile the Creator's foreknowledge and
almightiness with the existence of sin in His human creatures.
He ventures to represent Jesus as saying " Was it not I that
chose you the Twelve ? And one of you is a devil" ; and, later on,
to the Twelve, "I speak not of you all, / know whom I chose;
but that the scripture might be fulfilled, ' He that eateth my
bread lifted up his heel against me'"; and, later still when
Judas had gone out "/ chose you, and appointed you that ye
should go and bear fruit. . ./ chose you out of the world*." We
are not told when Judas began to become "a devil." The
Evangelist perhaps assumes that, when Judas was first "chosen,"
he was a sincere follower of Jesus, but that, when the doctrine
of self-sacrifice was proclaimed, the "hard saying" repelled
him, and he fell back into a darkness that became antagonism
to his Master. All this, however, is not stated. We are left to
infer it from what we are told later on, that Christ's "choosing"
was for a certain purpose, to be fulfilled by the person chosen,
namely, to "bear fruit." If the chosen one, the branch in the
Vine, does not "bear fruit," then the Husbandman "taketh it
away 2 ."
This might lead us to say, " Then the Evangelist commits
himself to the view that God's 'election' is not absolute."
But this, if true, would not be the whole truth or a fair state-
ment of the truth. It would be truer to say that he leads his
readers to refrain from committing themselves to any views
about "election" that might interfere with their trust in divine
love and righteousness, and their sense of a consequent respon-
sibility and duty to make a return which their consciences
1 Jn vi. 70, xiii. 18, xv. 16 19.
2 Jn xv. 2 "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he
taketh it away."
141 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
tell them they can make of human love and human right-
eousness. He uses the term "electing" in different senses
perhaps deliberately now including, now excluding Judas.
Not improbably John has Synoptic usage in mind. Mark,
alone of the Synoptists, uses the strong phrase "the elect whom
he [i.e. God] elected 1 " ; Luke, alone of the Synoptists, describes
Jesus as "having elected twelve" out of the mass of the dis-
ciples 2 . Mark's phrase would probably exclude Judas; Luke
includes him. John, in two of the three passages in which he
describes Jesus as avowing that He "chose" or "elected"
disciples, represents Him as including Judas and as presaging
evil ("one of you is a devil," "but in order that the Scripture
might be fulfilled 3 "). The third passage drops all presage
except of good ("I chose you. . .that ye should go and bear
fruit. . .1 chose you out of the world 4 "). None the less, since
they are still to be, locally and actively, "in the world," He
prays for them to the Father: "I pray not that thou shouldst
take them from the world, but that thou shouldst keep them
from the evil [one] 5 ."
This doctrine teaches all of us even those of us who are
most confident that they belong to "the elect" to feel that
we need this prayer of the Saviour in our behalf. We are to
fix our thoughts not on His constraining "might" but on His
constraining "love." Love cannot constrain by anything
except by itself. Not even the Love of the Father in heaven
1 Mk xiii. 20. Comp. Mk xiii. 22 "to deceive, if [it were]
possible, the elect," where Mt. xxiv. 24 adds "even" before "the
elect" (Luke omits the whole). Clem. Alex. 969 (Fragm.) says that
"the men of the calling (TOVS /xei/ TJJS KX^o-eoor avOpairovs) will be led
astray at the coming of Antichrist, but it is impossible for the elect,
wherefore He says ' even, if [it were] possible, my elect.' "
2 Lk. vi. 13, fK\egdp.(vos. The parall. Mk iii. 13 14, Mt. x. 2
do not use eKXcyopcu.
3 Jn vi. 70, xiii. 18. * Jn xv. 16 19.
5 Jn xvii. 15.
142 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
"is able to do any mighty work" in a heart that will not
receive the Spirit of His Son.
13. "And he marvelled because of their unbelief,"
in Mark 1
Matthew (as well as Luke) omits this. The Greek word
in canonical LXX, when meaning "marvel," often implies
astonishment or dumb dismay 2 . In Greek literature its mean-
ing varies. Pythagoras said that the fruit of philosophy was
to "wonder at nothing," and Plutarch protests against the abuse
of this maxim by " many 3 ." It has probably influenced Horace,
Epictetus, and Seneca, in their use of the word or its Latin
equivalent 4 . In Johannine Vocabulary it is shewn that John
mostly, if not always, uses the word in a bad sense 5 . That
being so, we ought not to expect him to intervene verbally in
behalf of Mark. And, as a fact, he nowhere describes Jesus,
on any occasion, as "marvelling." Are we then to say that this
is a case where, owing to special verbal circumstances, the
rule of Johannine Intervention is broken?
Possibly it is so. But it is worth noting that, on the only
other occasion (beside this Marcan one) where Synoptic writers
describe Jesus as "marvelling," the "marvel" is represented
by Matthew and Luke (not by Mark, who omits the narrative)
as being caused, not by "unbelief" (as here in Mark) but by
"belief*." This coincidence (or we may call it anticoincidence?)
leads us to ask whether Hebrew Prophecy on any occasion
represents the Lord Himself as "marvelling"; and, if so, how
the Greek translators rendered the Hebrew; and whether the
1 Mk vi. 6.
2 See Oxf. Cone, (excluding the phrase davpdfa Trpoa-cnrov).
3 Plutarch Mor. 440 (De Audiendo, 13).
4 See Schweig. Epict. i. 29. 3, quoting Hor. Epist. i. 6. i "Nil
admirari," and Seneca Epist. 45 praising " mirabilia calcantem."
5 Joh. Voc. 1673 a b.
6 Mt. viii. 10, Lk. vii. 9. The marvel is caused by the "faith,"
or "belief," of a centurion.
143 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
context may have any bearing on our Marcan passage; and
further, by what indirect means John might approximate to a
representation of the Messiah as in some sense "marvelling"
even though he could not bring himself to use the word.
Isaiah twice uses the word concerning the Lord, the Redeemer
of Israel, at the moment when the nation had gone astray from
"judgment"; "The Lord saw it, and it displeased him that
there was no judgment; and he saw that there was no man,
and marvelled that there was no intercessor," whereupon the
Lord Himself "put on righteousness as a breastplate" to come
to their help 1 . The Septuagint (but not Aquila) misrenders
this; so does the Targum; Jewish comment (such as there
is) suggests a various reading for "marvelled," or explains it
as meaning "was silent 2 ."
John nowhere represents Jesus as being "silent," or as
being silenced by "astonishment," in view of human "un-
belief." On the contrary, in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus appears
to regard inability to believe as necessary in some men the
men being what they are. Emphasizing "ye" as if it were
"ye of all people" Jesus says to the Jews "How are ye
able to believe, [ye] who receive glory one from another and
seek not the glory that cometh from the only God 3 ?" And
John, in his own person, says about them "For this cause they
were not able to believe" namely, because they were blinded to
the glory and love of God by their love for the glory of men 4 .
Having written about Jesus, early in the Gospel, "He knew
what was in man 5 ," John could not consistently describe
Him as "astonished" by what He "knew."
1 Is. lix. 15 17 (comp. Ixiii. 5).
2 Is. lix. 16 KaTfvorjfTf, Targ. "notum est coram eo"; Rashi,
"conticuit"; see his context, and Ibn Ezra (who dissents from
Menahem's connecting the passage with Numb. xxiv. 3 Din')- In
Is. Ixiii. 5, LXX Trpoo'ei'o^o'a, Aq. has fr)TropT]6r)v.
3 Jn V. 44 ira>s Bvvaarde VjueTy 7rtcrreO(7at;
4 Jn xii. 39- 5 J n " 25.
144 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
This is true, and yet it is not the whole truth. Jesus is
regarded in the Fourth Gospel as knowing at a very early
date the future treachery of Judas. And yet, when it is
close at hand, He is "troubled in spirit"; and, just before
that, as though brought face to face with the divine decree,
not in collision, but in silent resignation, He says "I know
whom I have chosen, but that the scripture may be
.fulfilled.... 1 ." The Saviour is not "astonished," but He is
brought to a position where He recognises that He can do
nothing as a Saviour for a soul that He desires to save, and
this "troubles" Him.
It is reasonable to conclude that John, though not inter-
vening in any definite way in favour of Mark, might be said to
intervene against a superficial interpretation of all the Synop-
tists, in order to point out that Jesus never "marvelled" and
never encouraged others to "marvel," in the sense of mere
amazement and astonishment. That, conclusion is reasonable
because those for whom John wrote, even if they did not
discuss the superficial difference between Mark and the two
later Synoptists, would be likely to talk about the "admira-
tion," "wonder," or "marvel," ascribed to the Messiah by all
the Synoptists alike in defiance of philosophic doctrine.
Beyond that, we cannot speak with the same confidence.
But we may also, though with less confidence, regard it as
probable that John went further in his allusive thought, some-
what to this effect : "I find Mark saying that the Messiah 'mar-
velled' because of the 'unbelief of His neighbours at Nazareth,
while Matthew and Luke say that He 'marvelled' because of
the 'belief of a centurion. Both sayings are correct in a
certain sense. But in the Greek world they are likely to be
misinterpreted. Of the two sayings, Mark's comes nearer to
the general truth. Jesus said to a nobleman, 'Except ye, the
dwellers at Capernaum, see signs and wonders, ye will assuredly
1 Jn xiii. 21, 18 (comp. xvii. 12).
A. L. 145 (Mark vi. i 6) 10
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
not believe 1 ' increasing the man's own belief, but certainly not
praising it, and rather suggesting a general dispraise. Before
this, He said to Nicodemus 'If I told you [and your friends]
earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell
you heavenly things 2 ? ' Also He said to the Jews 'How is it
possible for you to believe you who receive glory one from
another? '
"These things I shall make clear in my Gospel, shewing
how belief in God and in His glory was not possible in those
who did not place the love of God and of God's glory above the
love of themselves and their own glory, the glory that comes
from this world ; so that even the Lord's brethren said to Him
'If thou doest these things shew thyself unto the world.' For
neither did His brethren believe on Him 3 .
"It was a custom of Jesus, when He was brought face to
face with a seeming triumph of the powers of darkness, a triumph
for a time, darkness before dawn, to say 'But in order that
the Scripture might be fulfilled.' Thus He left the disciples
to ask ' But what? ' He Himself gave no answer to the question,
but broke off from speech into silence. This He did at the
moment when He was arrested. After saying to the Jews
'I was with you day by day in the Temple and ye did not
seize me' He is recorded by the Evangelists to have spoken
thus :
Mk xiv. 49
' but stilt \ in order
that the Scripture
might be fulfilled.'
Mt. xxvi, 56
'but all this is
come to pass in order
that the Scriptures of
the Prophets might
be fulfilled.'
Lk. xxii. 53
'but still this is
your hour and the
power of darkness.'
"Matthew and Luke have paraphrased the Saviour's words
1 Jn iv. 48.
3 Jn vii. 45.
2 Jn iii. 12.
146 (Mark vi. i 6)
JESUS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY
as to explain them. Mark alone has retained the Saviour's
actual utterance and silence. I also shall retain it, as shewing
how the Lord sometimes kept silence not through blank aston-
ishment but as recognising the unsearchable wisdom of the
power by which things evil are permitted to come to pass in
order that good may follow 1 ."
1 See Joh. Gr. 2105 11 quoting Mk xiv. 49 dXX' Iva, Mt. xxvi. 56
8e, Lk. xxii. 53 dXXa.
147 (Mark vi. i 6)
CHAPTER VI
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES 1
[Mark vi. 6b 13]
I. Johannine "sending of the apostles"
BEFORE discussing the expressions peculiar to Mark in the
Synoptic accounts of the sending of the Apostles by Jesus, it
*Mk vi. 6613
(R.V.)
(66) ... And he
went round about
the villages teaching.
(7) And he called
unto him the twelve,
and began to send
them forth by two
and two ; and he
gave them authority
over the unclean
spirits ;
(8) And he charged
them that they
should take nothing
for [their] journey,
save a staff only ; no
bread, no wallet, no
money (lit. brass)
in their purse (lit.
girdle) ;
(9) But [to go]
shod with sandals :
and, [said he], put
not on two coats.
(10) And he said
unto them, Where-
soever ye enter into
a house, there abide
till ye depart thence.
(u) And what-
soever place shall not
receive you, and they
Mt. ix. 35, x. i,
5-15 (R.v.)
(35) And Jesus
went about all the
cities and the vil-
lages, teaching in
their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and
healing all manner of
disease and all man-
ner of sickness.
(i) And he called
unto him his twelve
disciples, and gave
them authority over
unclean spirits, to
cast them out, and
to heal all manner of
disease and all man-
ner of sickness.
(5) These twelve
Jesus sent forth, and
charged them, say-
ing, Go not into [any]
way of the Gentiles,
and enter not into
any city of the Sa-
maritans :
(6) But go rather
to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel.
Lk. xiii. 22, ix. i 6,
x. 4 (R.V.)
(22) And he went
on his way through
cities and villages,
teaching, and jour-
neying on unto Jeru-
salem
(1) And he called
the tw r elve together,
and gave them power
and authority over
all devils, and to cure
diseases.
(2) And he sent
them forth to preach
the kingdom of God,
and to heal the sick
(some anc. auth. omit
the sick).
(3) And he said
unto them, Take
nothing for your
journey, neither staff ,
nor wallet, nor bread,
nor money ; neither
have two coats.
(x. 4) Carry no
purse, no wallet, no
shoes : and salute no
man on the way.
(Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
will be convenient to note the very few and brief Johannine
mentions of such "sending" that is to say, sending of disciples
Mk vi. 6b 13
(R.V.) contd.
hear you not, as ye
go forth thence,
shake off the dust
that is under your
feet for a testimony
unto them.
(12) And they
went out, and
preached that [men]
should repent.
(13) And they
cast out many devils,
and anointed with
oil many that were
sick, and healed
them.
Mt. ix. 35, x. i,
Lk. xiii. 22, ix. I 6,
x. 4 (R.V.) contd.
(7) And as ye go,
preach, saying, The
kingdom of heaven
is at hand.
(8) Heal the sick,
raise the dead,
cleanse the lepers,
cast out devils : freely
ye received, freely
give.
(9) Get you no
gold, nor silver, nor
brass in your purses
(lit. girdles) ;
(10) No wallet
for [your] journey,
neither two coats, nor
shoes, nor staff: for
the labourer is worthy
of his food.
(n) And into
whatsoever city or
village ye shall enter,
search out who in it
is worthy ; and there
abide till ye go forth.
(12) And as ye
enter into the house,
salute it.
(13) And if the
house be worthy, let
your peace come
upon it : but if it be
not worthy, let your
peace return to you.
(14) And whoso-
ever shall not receive
you, nor hear your
words, as ye go forth
out of that house or
that city, shake off
the dust of your feet.
(15) Verily I say
unto you, It shall be
more tolerable for
the land of Sodom
and Gomorrah in the
day of judgment,
than for that city.
(ix. 4) And into
whatsoever house ye
enter, there abide,
and thence depart.
(5) And as many
as receive you not,
when ye depart from
that city, shake off
the dust from your
feet for a testimony
against them.
(6) And they
departed, and went
throughout the vil-
lages, preaching the
gospel, and healing
everywhere.
149 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
or apostles, described as a past act, not as future. Almost tl
only one that comes under this category is in an utterance
Jesus (following shortly after the last words of John the Baptist)
"/ sent you to reap that whereon ye have not laboured. Others
have laboured and ye are entered into their labour 1 ." The
next also an utterance of Jesus saying that an apostle "is
not greater than he that sent him," cannot be said (at most)
to do more than imply past sending 2 . The third ("I have
sent them into the world") seems to hover between past and
future, as if it meant "I made them messengers, bearers of a
message that is destined to go forth to the world 3 ." The last
instance is in the present tense ("I send"), contemplating
future result, and the verb for "sending" is varied: "As the
Father hath sent me, even so send I you [severally on your
several errands]*."
Returning to the first of these instances, we perceive that,
if it refers to any past and literal sending, the reference is
probably to the previously mentioned "baptizing" practised
by Christ's disciples after they and their Master had passed
into "the Judaean land," that is, the districts of Judaea round
about Jerusalem 5 . Concerning this, it is said that "Jesus
himself baptized not, but his disciples [did]," and their converts
are described as "more" than those baptized by John the
Baptist 6 . The context informs us that "John was not yet
1 Jn iv. 38. The last words of John the Baptist are (iii. 30)
"He must increase, but I must decrease" (see Joh. Gr. Pref. p. viii).
2 Jn xiii. 1 6 " A servant is not greater than his lord, nor an apostle
(aTroo-roXoy) greater than he that sent him (TOV -jri^avTos avrov)." R.V.
txt " one that is sent, " though it makes smooth reading, conceals two
facts: (i) that John here, and only here, uses the word aTrooroXos-,
(2) that he uses two different words to express "sending." But
R.V. marg. says "Gr. an apostle."
3 Jn xvii. 18 "As thou didst send me into the world, even so
sent I them into the world." See Joh. Voc. 1723 .
4 Jn XX. 21 a7rt(TTa\Kv p.(...Trcp.ir(t> vjj.as. See Joh. Voc. 1723 / g.
5 Jn iii. 22 els TTJV 'louSaiW yrfv, see Joh. Gr. 2670 b.
8 Jn iii. 22 foil., iv. i 2.
150 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
cast into prison," but we are led to infer from the tone of the
Baptist's last words that his imprisonment and death followed
shortly afterwards 1 . If the first Johannine Mission of the
Twelve referred to this circuit in "the Judaean land," it would
seem to have been brief, unimportant, and limited in scope 2 .
It appears to have hardly taken the disciples away from their
Master's side, so that in referring to the converts made as
the result of their mission the Evangelist hesitates between
saying "Jesus baptized" and "the disciples baptized."
In this first mention of "sending," Jesus apparently desires
to caution the disciples against self-conceit. "Others have
laboured," He says. Who are those "others"! Later on,
when Jesus says "Nor is an apostle greater than he that sent
him," there is no such perplexing plurality, but here the question
arises whether "others" meant merely the Law and the Prophets,
so that the meaning is, in effect, this, "Do not suppose you are
inventing, or are following me as inventing, a new religion."
The meaning is probably more than this. " The Law and the
Prophets" included John the Baptist, the greatest of all the
prophets. And the time was a crisis for John the Baptist and
for Jesus. The Jews were making comparisons between them
and endeavouring to sow jealousies between their several
disciples, the group that still adhered to John, and the larger
group that was gathering round Jesus. Andrew had been a
disciple of the Baptist before he became a disciple of Jesus, and
so had a companion of Andrew, unnamed 3 . When Jesus said
1 Jn iii. 24 30.
2 It is possible that some misunderstood tradition about this
early mission to the villages, or village-cities, rpund Jerusalem
may have originated the Tradition peculiar to Matthew x. 5 6
"Depart not into the way of the Gentiles. . .but go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." A very early evangelist,
explaining "the Judaean land," might say "This meant merely the
Jews [not including Peraea, Samaria, or Galilee] ." A later one might
say " This meant that they were not to go to Samaritans or Gentiles."
3 Jn i. 40.
151 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
"Others have laboured," Andrew and his companion coulc
hardly fail to remember that, if they had been lately baptizing
and making converts more numerous than those of John the
Baptist, it was to the Baptist that their success was partly
due. Moses and Isaiah had "laboured," but so had John.
John was soon to pass out of men's view, to prison, and then
to death perhaps was already in prison. The disciples of
Christ were to take up the work, the Baptist's work and Christ's
work, gathering in the harvest. Let them prepare themselves
to discharge their task by reverence for the Lord of the Harvest,
and for the unity that bound His workers to one another and
to Himself, and for the continuity of their work, which was,
in truth, His work. Such seems to be the meaning of the
Johannine "I sent you" and its context.
2. Jesus "going round the villages in a circle," in Mark 1
The Diatessaron does not quote from Mark at this point,
but from Matthew. Its quotation from Mark, with the addition
1 Mk vi. 6 (R.V.)
. . . And he went
round about the vil-
lages (lit. went about
(ircpiriytv] the villages
in a circle) teaching.
Mt. ix. 35 (R.V.)
And Jesus went
about (-TTfpLriyfv) all
the cities and the
villages, teaching in
their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and
healing all manner
of disease and all
manner of sickness.
Lk. xiii. 22 (R.V.)
And he went on
his way through
cities and villages,
teaching, and jour-
neying on unto Jeru-
salem.
Matthew repeats the very rare intransitive -rrcpiTJyfv in a similar
tradition placed much earlier, as follows:
Mk i. 39 (R.V.)
And he went in-
to their synagogues
throughout all Gali-
lee, preaching and
casting out devils.
Lk. iv. 44
And he was
preaching in the
synagogues of Judaea
(so W.H., and R.V.
marg.).
Mt. iv. 23 (R.V.)
And Jesus went
about (itfpiriyfv) in all
Galilee, teaching in
their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and
healing all manner of
disease and all man-
ner of sickness among
the people.
Here Diatess. omits the first half of Mt. iv. 23, but quotes, in its
152 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
of "Nazareth" and "in their synagogues" ("And he went
about in the villages that [were] around Nazareth, and taught in
their synagogues"), does not occur till later on 1 , just before
the story of the execution of John the Baptist. The parallel
Matthew, "And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages,
teaching in their synagogues," is placed by the Diatessaron
in two positions, not only here 2 , before the Sending of the
Apostles, but also much earlier 3 , when Jesus came out of
Simon's house in Capernaum saying "Let us go into the next
village-cities." These, as has been shewn elsewhere 4 , might
mean the villages round Jerusalem. This somewhat favours the
arrangement adopted in Rushbrooke's Synopticon, which places,
as parallel to the Mark-Matthew tradition, the Lucan words
"And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching,
and journeying on to Jerusalem*." The centre of the Marcan
"circle" appears to be quite uncertain 6 . The Lucan tradition
may have been one of several attempts to explain "the villages
in a circle."
place, words from Mt. ix. 35 (Diatess. vii. 7) "And Jesus was going
about all the cities and the villages, and teaching in their synagogues,
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all the diseases
and all the sicknesses, and (Mk i. 39 b) casting out the devils."
It also quotes Mt. ix. 35 before the Sending of the Apostles., in
Diatess. xii. 40. Its version of Mk vi. 6b "And he went about in
the villages that [were] around Nazareth. . ." it places much later
(in Diatess. xvii. 53).
Lk. iv. 44 is read by Diatess. as "in the synagogues of Galilee"
and placed very early (Diatess. vi. 35), after the healing of the
nobleman's son (Jn iv. 46 54), and before Mt. iv. 13. On Lk.
iv. 44 " the synagogues of Judaea," read by W.H. without alternative,
see Beginning p. 209 foil., Proclam. pp. 233, 241 foil.
1 Diatess. xvii. 53. 2 Diatess. xii. 40. 3 Diatess. vii. 7.
4 See Proclam. p. 241 on (Mk i. 38) Kco/xoTroAetr.
5 Lk. xiii. 22.
6 The interpretation of the Diatessaron (which transfers Mark's
tradition to a later period) "Nazareth," although following naturally
from Mark's context, is antecedently improbable since Nazareth had
given to Jesus but a poor reception.
153 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
Matthew at this point between the mention of "the citi<
and villages " and the Sending of the Twelve inserts a saying
of Jesus about "the harvest" and the need of "labourers 1 ."
Luke also has this. And we have seen above that John has
a saying about the harvest in his first use of the word "sending,"
as applied to the Apostles by Jesus ("I have sent you"). If,
therefore, Matthew, Luke, and John agreed in prefixing tl
saying to an early Mission of the Twelve, about the time of the
death of John the Baptist, we might feel some confidence that
they all referred to the Mission described by Mark. But Luke
has the following preface to his harvest-tradition: "Now after
these things the Lord appointed seventy [two] others, and sent
them, two and two, before his face into every city and place
whither he himself was about to come. And he said unto them,
The harvest is plenteous.... 2 "
This, if taken with the Lucan context, makes it clear that
Luke deviated from Matthew in his account of the Sending of
the Apostles. Precepts that Matthew regarded as addressed
to the Twelve, Luke regarded as additions erroneously made
by Matthew to the brief tradition of Mark. They were really
(in Luke's opinion) addressed to the Seventy [Two] who were
sent later on 3 . In all these varying traditions, there is nothing
to disprove the supposition that John accepted the Marcan
Sending of the Twelve and referred to it in the words "I sent
you to reap." Nor is there anything, so far, that calls for
Johannine intervention.
1 Mt. ix. 37 8. It prefixes a saying that Jesus (ib. 36) had
compassion on the multitudes, because they were "as sheep not
having a shepherd."
2 Lk. x. i 2.
3 See Clue 2336, From Letter 922, 1015.
154 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
3. "He began 1 to send them out by two and two,"
in Mark
Why does Matthew reject the Marcan "by two and two"?
And why does Luke reject it in his Sending of the Twelve but
retain it in his Sending of the Seventy?
Matthew may have omitted it because it might be felt by
some to be out of harmony with his epithet of "first 2 ," which
he alone attaches to Peter in his account of the appointment of
the Apostles, inserted by him here. Also, as he alone mentions
"Israel" in the context 3 , he may have thought that the
symmetry between the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the Twelve
Apostles, one for each tribe, was disturbed by the insertion of
"by two and two."
Luke may have rejected it for similar reasons, so far as
concerned the Sending of the Twelve, but may have recognised
that it was a historical fact referring to some Mission of Apostles,
and that it ought to be inserted in connection with that Mission.
He accordingly inserted it in a Mission of Seventy (or Seventy
Two) Apostles, which he described vaguely as occurring "after
these things 4 ." This Lucan insertion favours the view that
"two," in Mark, is part of the original tradition. And, in itself,
"two" is antecedently probable. In certain circumstances,
there are obvious advantages in sending Missionaries in pairs.
1 Mk vi. 7 "began." See Corrections 535 a on apxop-ai, which, in
the course of some five and twenty instances in Mk, is never retained
by Mt.-Lk., jointly, except in the parallels to Mk xiv. 19. It is used
by John only once. We can hardly expect Johannine intervention
on a grammatical point of this kind. But see Joh. Voc. 1674 a on
the unique instance of ap^o^ai in Jn xiii. 5 "He began to wash,"
interpreted by Origen as meaning that Jesus "began" the purification
then, and completed it afterwards. "Apxop-ai in Mark, here, may have
been interpreted by some as implying "the first of several acts of
sending."
2 Mt. X. 2 TTpu>ros 2i'/xo)v 6 \yop.fvos Tlerpos.
3 Mt. x. 6, 23. * Lk. x. i.
155 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
But a question arises as to the nature of those "circumstances. 1
What view would Luke and John, severally, be likely to tal
of them?
Luke's view is that the Apostles were to be "witnesses"
Christ's resurrection. With an expression of this view, we
may almost say, his Gospel terminates, and the Acts begins 1 :
Hence "two" becomes at once probable. For the Law said
"In the mouth of two witnesses, or three, shall every word be
established," and this saying is quoted both in Matthew and
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 2 , as being familiar to
those who heard it.
John never uses the masculine noun, "witness," martus, so
frequently employed by Luke in the Acts. Even when he
ought to have used it in the words of Jesus quoting from the
Law about witnesses, he avoids it, thus: "Yea, even in your
law it is written that the witness (marturia) of two human beings
is true," and continues, "I am he that witnesseth concerning
myself, and the Father that sent me witnesseth concerning
me 3 ." One reason perhaps why John never uses the masculine
noun martus, "witness," is that it is technically applied in the
sense of "martyr" to Stephen and others 4 . But another
probably is, that he desires to take this "witnessing" out of
the region of legal technicalities of the nature of an affidavit,
and to raise it into the region of a spiritual "witnessing," in
which there is a harmony or correspondence between the
members of a human family and the members of the divine
Family divine and yet, in some sense, "human-beings" the
1 Lk. xxiv. 48 "Ye are witnesses of these things," Acts i. 8 "wit-
nesses of me," ib. 22 "a witness of his resurrection," comp. ib. ii. 32
etc.
2 Mt. xviii. 1 6, 2 Cor. xiii. i quoting Deut. xix. 15.
3 Jn viii. 17 18 Svo dvOpanrcav f) p.apTvpia d\rj6r]s ecrrii>. e'yco et/u 6
papTvptoV Trepl epavTov KOL paprvpel Trepi epov 6 Trep-^as p.f Traryp.
4 Acts xxii. 20 "thy martyr (pdprvpos] Stephen," Rev. ii. 13 "my
martyr, Antipas." See Joh. Voc. 1696 e, and comp. Rev. xi. 3,
xvii. 6. It is also applied to Jesus in Rev. i. 5, iii. 14.
156 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
Father and the Son, answering one another and testifying
about the Spirit of Sonship. The "human being" is not to
merge himself in the martus, or "martyr."
Some thought of this kind may be implied in traditions
recorded by Matthew about the "two or three" gathered
together in the name of Christ, and about the "agreement" of
even "two" in prayer 1 . R. Jochanan interpreted the sayings
"Two are better than one," and "A threefold cord is not
quickly broken 2 ," as referring to father, mother, and child;
and the Fourth Gospel is pervaded, in spite of the lofty nature
of its mysticism, with the belief that the nature of God in
heaven is best revealed to men through the nature of the family
on earth.
As if to compensate for never using the masculine martus,
John freely uses the verb marturein, "bear witness," and marturia,
"witness [borne]," both in his Gospel and in his Epistle. But
the subject of the marturia is not Christ's resurrection alone, or
even prominently. It is Christ Himself, and His saving influence
or personality 3 . John the Baptist, no doubt, is said to have
"witnessed" concerning the descent of the Holy Spirit on
Jesus 4 . But he can hardly be supposed to have seen this with
the mere corporal eye. And the same statement may apply
to the Evangelist's vision of the water and the blood described
in the Gospel and referred to in the Epistle 5 .
Theophylact, illustrating the Marcan "by two and two,"
quotes from Ecclesiastes the saying "Two are better than one,"
and Jerome, commenting on the latter, says "It is better to
have Christ abiding in oneself than to be alone and open to
the assaults of the Adversary 6 ." A similar thought is expressed
in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus not only says about Himself
1 Mt. xviii. 19 20. 2 Eccles. iv. 9, 12.
3 Jii xv. 27, i Jn i. i 2. 4 Jn i. 32 4.
5 Jn xix. 35 (comp. i Jn v. 6 7), see Joh. Gr. 2383 4.
6 See Prof. Swete on Mk vi. 7, and Jerome on Eccles. iv. 9.
157 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
' ' ' ' .. . . -.I., . . ._.
that He is never alone because the Father is with Him, but also
declares that the true believer shall never be alone but shall
have the helpful presence of Two in his heart : " If a man love
me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him and make our abode with him 1 ." Victor
of Antioch (on Mark) declares that Matthew, as well as Mark,
divides (though "not clearly") the Apostles into pairs. Luke,
as we have seen, divides the Seventy thus, but not the Twelve.
It seems impossible that these textual differences should not
attract the attention of Christians before the end of the first
century, leading them to ask questions about the nature of
apostolic testimony, and whether and if so, why, and for how
long a time it was necessary that the Apostles should testify
in pairs. When we realise this we shall feel that it is not so
wildly fanciful as it may have appeared at first sight, to suppose
that John desired to suggest a spiritual and permanent rule in
place of one that was becoming mechanical. The invariable
need was that every Apostle, even when alone, should be able
to say, " And yet I am not alone 2 ," and that he should feel
himself to be bearing witness on earth in the Spirit of the Two
Witnesses in heaven, namely, the Father and the Son 3 .
4. "Save a staff only," in Mark*
The parallel Matthew and Luke say that the Apostles are
not to take "a staff" while Mark says that it is the one thing
1 Jn xiv. 23, xvi. 32. 2 Jn xvi. 32.
3 Comp. i Pet. v. i. On the allusions to twofold witness in
Philo and Jewish literature, see Joh. Gr. 2588 90, and on i Jn
v. 8 "Three are they that bear witness," see Joh. Gr. 2306. There
is an allusion to the Jewish doctrine about two witnesses in Heb. vi. 1 8
"two immutable things, "namely, God's "promise, "and God's "oath."
It is interesting to note the only Johannine mention of twofold
apostolic action in bringing people to Christ. It is little more than
passive. Philip and Andrew are (Jn xii. 21 2) the agents by whom
"certain Greeks" are introduced. But the Greeks take the
initiative, "Sir, we would see Jesus."
4 Mk vi. 8, Mt. x. 9io, Lk. ix. 3.
158 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
that they may take (or perhaps must take). Also, Mark and
Luke include "bread" in the things that are not to be taken.
But Matthew omits "bread 1 ," perhaps following some tradition
that identified it with "staff." For a sufficiency of bread might
be metaphorically called in Hebrew "the staff of bread," And
this might account for some of the Synoptic variations 2 . It has
been shewn that the original precept might have bidden the
disciples take " nothing except (IMH) the staff of bread " meaning,
in a spiritual sense, the "daily bread" that comes from the
Father altered by Greek corruption into " nothing, not (MH)
staff, bread," and then into " nothing, not staff, not bread 3 ."
To internal evidence must be added external. The words
of Jacob " With my staff I passed over this Jordan 4 ," though
(apparently) not much noticed in the Talmuds, are allegorized
by Philo and the Midrash. Rashi paraphrases them thus :
"I had with me neither silver, nor gold, nor cattle, but only my
staff" Rashi adds "There is also an allegorical exposition;
Jacob had cast his staff into the Jordan and the Jordan was
parted asunder." Philo takes "staff" as meaning God's
paideia, i.e. schooling, training, or chastening 5 . This recalls
the words of the Psalmist "Thou art with me; thy rod and thy
staff, they comfort me; thou preparest a table before me.. . ."
There the Targum has "Thy Word is for my support (or,
sustenance), thy upright rod and thy law shall comfort me";
and the context, as well as the special word "support (or,
1 "Bread" is mentioned in Didach. xi. 6 "Let the missionary
receive nothing except bread [to suffice him] until he reach his lodging
for the [next] night," but in such a way as to shew that the writer
may have accepted "nothing save a staff only" as meaning "nothing
save the staff, or sustenance, of bread [for the day]."
2 See Clue 263 7, which refers to " staff of bread" in Lev. xxvi.
26, Ps. cv. 16 etc., and to Nehem. v. 14 "the bread of" Dn 1 ?, perhaps
confused by LXX with "belonging to them," Qrt, avrwv.
3 Corrections 390 (ii) (a). 4 Gen. xxxii. 10.
5 Philo i. 823.
159 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
sustenance)," indicates that God is regarded, not only as guiding,
but also as "sustaining" with food 1 .
The Marcan tradition after the words "save a staff only"
proceeds as follows, "no bread, no wallet (A.V. scrip)."
Matthew altogether omits "bread," and changes the order, but
also has "no wallet (A.V. scrip)." Luke has "neither staff, nor
wallet (A.V. scrip), nor bread." Thus all mention "wallet" (or
"scrip"). Now the word for this in Delitzsch's Hebrew, and
also in the Syriac of the Gospels, is applied to a shepherd's
" scrip " both in Hebrew and Aramaic, and occurs in the Targum
of the only passage where "scrip" occurs in our English
Version of the Old Testament: "And he [David] took his staff
in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones . . . and put them
in the shepherd's bag. . .even (lit. and) in his scrip 2 ." Jewish
tradition said that David's coinage had on one side "a staff and
a shepherd's scrip 3 ." A proselyte says, "If an Israelite ap-
proaching the holy things shall die, how much more an insigni-
ficant stranger who comes with his staff and his scrip*\"
Shammai, when he believed that Jonathan ben Uzziel had
committed an error, is said to have "come to him (or, against
him) with his staff and with his scrip " which suggests a meta-
phorical meaning 5 . In view of these passages, and others
1 Ps. xxiii. 4 5. See Levy Ch. ii. 177 on "support" as meaning
"food." Jerome is in doubt whether "staff" means "chastisement"
or "sustenance and future consolation." The Greek pdfidos repre-
sents (Hastings iv. 291) (i) the shepherd's rod or club, (2) the
shepherd's staff, (3) the common staff. Aramaic (Brederek) does
not preserve these distinctions.
2 i S. xvii. 40. 3 Gen. r. on Gen. xii. 2 (Wii. p. 178).
4 See Hor. Heb. (on Mk vi. 8, Mt. x. 10) quoting Sabb. 31 a.
6 Baba Bathra 1336. Goldschmidt renders it "fiel mit Stab
und Sack iiber ihn (lv5?) her," and explains it as "strove with him
(zankte mit ihm) " apparently taking it metaphorically. But
Hor. Heb. (on Mk vi. 8) has "Shammai came to him with his
staff and with his scrip," and adds "the Gloss saith, 'He came to
contend with Jonathan, because he had violated the will of the
dead.' Behold the vice-president of the Sanhedrin carrying a scrip,
160 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
collected in Horae Hebraicae, two conclusions become certain,
first, that every Jew would expect "staff" and "scrip" to go
together; secondly, that if Jesus said ''staff, but not scrip,"
some paradox was intended.
In the dialogue between Goliath and David, when Goliath,
jeering at the shepherd's "staff," says "Am I a dog that thou
comest unto me with staves?" David replies, "Thou comest
to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin; but
I come unto thee in the name of the Lord of Hosts 1 ." This
suggests the thought that the shepherd's "staff" of David
might be regarded as the emblem of the protecting presence
of the Lord, like the staff of Jacob. And the question arises
whether the Marcan tradition could be explained in the same
way, as a combination of metaphorical with literal precept to
the early preachers of the Gospel: "Take staff but not scrip,
nor anything but the staff. As for your support, after the
day's journey, throw yourselves on the hospitality and kindness
of those to whom you bring the Good News. But not so for
the journey itself. For that, be like Jacob, and take 'the
staff.' "
5. A parallel from the Essenes
Josephus says about the Essenes that when they journey
they take nothing at all abroad with them "but go in arms
(or, in full armour) on account of robbers 2 ." This is absurd.
It is also contradicted, in effect, by Philo's statement about the
Essenes: "Darts, or javelins, or daggers, or helmet, or breast-
plate, or shield of all these you will find no craftsman among
them, nor maker-of-arms, or maker-of-machines, or, to sum up,
in which he laid up victuals for his journey." Rodkinson translates
it "came to rebuke him/' omitting all mention of " staff and scrip."
1 i S. xvii. 43, 45.
2 Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 4 TTOIOVVTO.I ras a.7ro8rjp,iaSj ovftev p,v oXoos" eVt-
Ko/u^d/Afi/oi, dt<z Se TOVS \rjo-ras fvoirXoi. On evoirXos, mostly meaning
"in full armour," or "fully armed," see Steph. Thes.
A. L. 161 (Mark vi. 6 13) n
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
anyone practising things that have to do with war 1 ." An
explanation of Josephus' error is suggested by Hippolytus,
who, instead of the adjective enhoploi, "in-arms," uses hoplon,
in the singular, which means "an implement [of any kind]."
The Essenes, he says, "go about, carrying nothing but an
implement 2 ." In Greek, enhoplon may mean either "one
implement," or "in-full-armour 3 ." It is a reasonable con-
jecture that Josephus has mistaken "one implement" for "in
full armour." But the reasonableness will be converted to
something like certainty if we can shew what the "one imple-
ment " was.
Now both Josephus and Hippolytus describe in detail the
Essenes as giving "a little hatchet," along with "white linen
raiment," to those who join their sect 4 . Later on, this is
identified with a "shovel 5 ." This "shovel" is described as
being used in fulfilment of the Deuteronomic precept to cover
excrement that it may not pollute the camp in which the Lord
1 Philo ii. 457 " maker-of-arms
2 Hippol. ix. 15 (T. and T. Clark, p. 353, but ed. Duncker ix.
2O, p. 474) irfpuiKTi de TTJV narpwav yfjv eKacrrore drrodrifjLoiivTfs p.Tj8ev
(pepovTfs rrXfjv oTrAov, Clark "nothing except arms," Duncker "nihil
gestantes praeter arma." But Steph. Thes. gives no instance where
the sing. OTT\UV means "arms." It means an implement of any kind.
When meaning an instrument of war, it mostly means "shield" in
LXX, e.g. Ps. xxxv. 2, Ixxvi. 3, xci. 4 "his truth is a shield and a
buckler," LXX cVAta KVK\d)crei ere 17 dXrjdeia avrov. In Hippolytus,
the sense requires "They go about [as it were, perh. ins. u>s] their
native land whenever they travel abroad."
3 That is to say, eNonAoN may mean (i) Ii/ oir\ov or (2) evo-n-Xov.
Hippolytus, adopting the former, might drop !i> as being superfluous
and unintelligible. The clause in Josephus, " on account of robbers,"
might naturally be added to explain why peaceful folk like the
Essenes travelled (as he thought) "in-arms."
4 Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 7 (simil. Hippol. ed Duncker ix. 23) d^wdpiov.
5 Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 9 rrj (rie.aXidc, TOIOVTOV yap eWii> TO Si$6(J.fvov
VTT' avrfov a^ividiov rot? vfoo-vo-rdrois (sim. Hippol. ix. 25 but with
vgivdptov (Duncker)).
162 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
God "walketh 1 ." Our R.V. says "Thou shalt have a paddle
among thy weapons" (where A.V. has "upon thy weapon").
But the margin gives "shovel." The Hebrew regularly means
" [wooden] nail" or "peg." Also the literal Hebrew says that
it is not "among" but "upon," or " above," the "implements"
or "weapons" of the Israelites 2 . The Jerusalem Targum has
"A nail shall be fixed for you upon the implements of your
arms in the place where ye gird on your swords."
The scriptural passage, and the varieties of rendering it,
indicate that some may have regarded the "nail," or "peg,"
or "little hatchet," as an instrument of war, but others as one
of peace, and may have severally adapted their descriptions
to their views 3 . It is important to note that Zechariah uses
1 Deut. xxiii. 13 "paddle (in* 1 )," marg. "shovel." Gesen.
450 a gives only this instance of the meaning "spade." Elsewhere
it mostly means "peg," or large pin, nail etc., and is rendered by
LXX 71-uo-cruAos 1 , as here. Metaphorically, it is applied to any leader
on whom Israel depends, e.g. Zech. x. 4 "From him shall come forth
the corner stone, from him the nail," Targ. "King. . .Messiah," comp.
Is. xxii. 23 and Ezr. ix. 8. The Patriarchs (Levy ii. 277) were called
"nails." In LXX, Heb. "nail" = avdptoiros (i), ap^wv (i), Trdo'craXos
(ll), o-rrjpiyfia (i), ruo-0-&> (i).
2 The word rendered "weapons" occurs only here (Gesen. 24 b).
Walton has " super tuam zonam," as LXX eVi rrjs {MVTJS aov, Onk. and
Syr. "super arma tua."
3 Comp. the description of the weapons of the Roman infantry
in JosephuS (Bell. iii. 5. 5) r) 8e XOITT?) <f>d\ayg [<e'p] &O-TOV re KOI
Svpeov eirifirjKr)) Trpos ols irpiova KOI KoCpivov aprjv (v. r. ap,r)v) re *cai
TTf\Kvv, Trpos e tfidvra KOI ftpeiravov /cat aXvcriv, i]p.pwv re rpicoi/ f<p68iov
a)9 6\iyov aTTodelv TO>V dxdocpopovvrw ope'coj/ rov Tre6v. Here the
writer's object appears to be to shew that the Roman foot-soldier
was so burdened that he "did not fall far short of a pack-mule"
(Whiston, quaintly, "hath no great need of a mule to carry his
burdens"). Now a recognised part of this burden was the " vallus,"
or stake for palisading the camp, to which Virgil alludes (Georg.
iii. 347 "Romanus in armis injusto sub fasce") and which Horace
mentions (Epodes ix. 13 "fert vallum et arma miles"). Why does
Josephus, who gives so fully the details of the "injustus fascis"
and the "arma," make no mention of the "vallus"? And wiiat
163 (Mark vi. 6 13) n 2
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
"the Nail" absolutely (along with "the Corner Stone") whei
the Targum has "the Messiah' 1 (along with "the King") t<
describe one on whom Israel hangs or depends ; and this meta-
phor was carried into the Midrash, so that Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob are called "the three nails of the world 1 ." This
favours the supposition that the Essenes attached to the tei
some emblematic significance. The language of Josephus
also, in introducing the term, makes it difficult to believe that
the Essenes regarded the implement merely as one for digging
a small hole 2 .
Philo describes the Deuteronomic "nail" as "meaning
symbolically the logos that digs up the secrets of things done,"
and allegorizes the context at great length 3 . Neither there nor
elsewhere does he give us a glimpse of Jewish tradition on the
subject. Nor does he mention it in his short account of the
Essenes. But in one passage referring to it he likens it to "a
kind of defensive weapon," using the very word we are in need
precisely does he mean by apr), which Hudson renders "rutrum,"
Whiston "pick-axe," L.S. (i) "shovel" or "mattock," (2) "water-
bucket," (3) "harrow" or "rake"?
The passage is of importance because it shews that Josephus (or
his secretary) is inadequate, if not inaccurate, in his description of
the arms of the Roman legionary, with which he must have been
well acquainted, and prepares us to believe that he was inaccurate
in his mention of the "full armour" of the Essenes.
1 Gen. r. on Gen. xiv. 20 (Wii. p. 200). See also ib. on Gen.
xxv. ii (Wii. p. 295) "the nails of the earth," in bad sense (Wii.
"die Machtigen " ) .
2 See Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 6 "To those who seek their sect admission
is not immediate ; but [the candidate] remains outside for a year,
and they prescribe to him the same way of life [as their own],
giving him both a little hatchet (dgivdpiov re) and the above-mentioned
girdle and white raiment." This is stated before we are informed
of the use (or one of the uses) of the "little hatchet." And the
passage suggests that the "little hatchet" (as well as the "white
raiment") is regarded emblematically.
3 Philo i. 72.
164 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
of (hoplori) to explain Josephus' mistake 1 . In conclusion, we
can say certainly that the Essenes did not travel about "in
arms," and, almost as certainly, that the statement to that
effect in Josephus is an error rising out of an erroneous inter-
pretation of the "peg" in Deuteronomy. But it is not so
easy to put aside his statement that the Essenes gave their
neophytes something that might be so termed. And, if they
did whether it was merely used as an emblem or not their
practice might influence the language of Jesus in sending forth the
messengers of His Gospel. Instead of "the Nail," Jesus might
speak of "the Staff," with the Psalmist's thought in His mind,
"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me," and with the desire
to impress that thought on His disciples. Every traveller
naturally had a "staff." But His travellers were to have one
spiritually as well as literally. Thus Jesus might utter a
mixture of the metaphorical with the literal which might be
misunderstood and altered by Matthew and Luke, but retained
by Mark, who often records what was certainly obscure and
what he himself possibly did not fully understand: "Take no
scrip, take no bread, but a staff must needs be taken."
6. What corresponds to "the staff" in John?
It would be an error to say that there is an allusion to the
Psalmist's comfort of the "rod" and the "staff" of God and
hence perhaps to the Marcan tradition about the "staff" in
the Johannine reiterated mention of the Comforter 2 . For the
Comforter does not mean the Sustainer or Supporter. It
means "the Paraclete," "the friend called in to aid," the
"alter ego" of Christ. Nevertheless, there is in the doctrine
of the Paraclete an emphasizing of the truth of the Marcan
1 Philo i. 118 " 0(0pr)fl," (770-1 yovv, "roJ Trao-o-aXw," is to be ex-
plained by the preceding (ib. 117) avv Xoyw Trapayevoi^eda, &(nrp oVXa)
nv\ dp.vvTr)picj>. We are to "arm ourselves" with the Logos, or
"nail," as being a defensive weapon like a breastplate.
2 See Joh. Voc. 1720 k, Joh. Gr. 2793 foil.
165 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
tradition "save a staff only" if we regard Mark as meaning that
Christ's Missionaries are to depend on the sustaining power oj
the Holy Spirit alone, and not to trust to aids of their own,
represented by the bread and the wallet and the silver and the
gold that they may carry with them. Such a doctrine is
expressed later on in Mark's and Luke's versions of the Dis-
course on the Last Days, when the disciples are told not to
"premeditate" their pleadings before the rulers of this world,
but to trust to the Holy Spirit to give them utterance 1 . But
in the Mission of the Apostles the doctrine is not expressed by
Luke.
In John this doctrine is everywhere. It branches into so
many metaphors that we are in danger of overlooking the one
radical thought that of "sustaining." The sustaining power
raises, supports, and uplifts, from the moment of our spiritual
birth. It is the water that regenerates from above; it is the
wind, or spirit, or breath that regenerates within; it is the
living water that quenches the thirst of the soul led astray by
sin ; it is the living bread ; it is the life of the vine that gives
life and fruit to the branches ; it is the flesh and the blood of
the Son bestowed on the disciples ; it is the Father, by whom
the Son lives; it is the Son, who is the resurrection and the
life of men ; and lastly, it is the Son's Friend, the Other Self,
who is to pass into the hearts of the disciples in the Son's
place, when the Son has ascended to the Father. Under cover
of all these metaphors John says to us, in effect, "The Lord
does not impose on you a number of definite practices or
definite abstinences. He said to His Apostles that they need
take nothing with them 'save a staff only.' He meant, and
He still means when He says the same thing to us, 'Take
nothing with you save me only. If you take my Spirit you
will take me. And, taking me, you will take your staff.' "
* Mk xiii. n, Lk. xxi. 14 15. It is not expressed there by
Matthew (xxiv. n 12) who inserts it in the Mission of the Twelve
(x. 19 20).
166 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
7. "Shod (R.V.) with sandals," in Mark 1
The word rendered "shod" is literally " f astened-below."
When applied to persons, it means "fastened-up [as regards the
shoe, or sandal]/' In the case of a light shoe or slipper, a
sloven, like Socrates, might go about not "fastened up 2 /'
But one who desired to be alert for action, as for example, a
soldier, must be ready for the general's orders, as Epictetus
says, "[with shoes] fastened, clothes on, armour on 3 ." The
Four Gospels all represent John the Baptist as using some
metaphor about "shoes" in speaking of himself as God's
messenger, and of Jesus, as his successor; and three of them
mention the "loosing" of the "latchet," or "strap," with
which the shoe was fastened 4 . It is in accordance with this
metaphor that Mark here mentions, as a positive precept for
the messengers of the Gospel, that they must go forth on their
mission "with sandals fastened."
But why does Mark speak of "sandals" instead of "shoes"?
Probably because he meant "not shoes but sandals." That is
to say, the shoes were not to be heavy, such as (according to
some interpreters) Matthew had in view when he wrote "whose
shoes I am not able to carry 5 ." They were to be light like
the "sandals" of Mercury 6 . That is what the word would
1 Mk vi. 9.
2 Plato Sympos. 174 A "He met Socrates, fresh from the bath,
(lit.) fastened up as to his shoes (ras /SXauray vnodedf/jLcvov) a rare
thing with him." Socrates explains that it is because he is going
out to dinner. Hesychius explains a-avdaXta as o-avSoXa, yvvatKfla
iWoS^/iara, a KOI fiXavria. Comp. Gorg. 490 E, where it is ironically
suggested that a shoemaker must "walk about fastened-up in very
large shoes laced Up fully (^yia-ra Set virodrj^ara /cat TrXftcrra inroSedf-
p.evov TTfpiTrciTflv}."
3 Epict. i. 1 6. 4 erotjiiot eicri ra> orpar^ya) VTroSeSe/zeVot, e
4 See Beginning p. 79 foil. 5 Mt. iii. n.
6 See Steph. Thes. quoting Horn. H. Merc. 79.
167 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
suggest to Greeks. Probably there was an original allusion to
Isaiah's saying (quoted by Paul) concerning the "beautiful
feet" of the preachers of glad tidings who "published peace 1 . 1
The precept was metaphorical. The preachers of the Gospel
were to be not only alert and unencumbered, but also joyful,
as messengers inviting guests to a feast 2 .
8. What corresponds to "sandals" in John?
If we accept "sandals" in Mark as an emblem of messengers
of peace and glad tidings, inviting the world to a feast of joy,
we can hardly fail to be struck by the fact that toward the end
of the Synoptic Gospels, and particularly in Christ's Discourse
on the Last Days, there are very few indications of this aspect
of the message. In that Discourse, Luke has "A hair of your
heads shall assuredly not perish," and, later on, "But when
these things are beginning to come to pass, look up and lift up
your heads 3 "; but Mark and Matthew omit both these utter-
ances. In Mark, the Greek "rejoice" is never used except in
the "rejoicing" of the chief priests over the treachery of Judas,
and in the ironical insult offered to Judas by the Roman
soldiers, "Rejoice (i.e. hail), King of the Jews 4 "; nor does
Jesus (in Mark) mention peace except in the phrase "Go in
1 Is. Hi. 7 quoted in Rom. x. 15. Comp. Targ. on Cant. vii. i
" How beautiful are the feet of Israelites going up to appear before
God thrice in the year with sandals of sealskin," where "sandal" is
the Greek o-ai/SaXoi/ transliterated. Sealskin is Talmudically con-
nected (Levy Ch. ii. 176 7) with "joy." It represents Heb. (A.V.)
"badgers' skin" used in the adornment of the Tabernacle (Gesen.
1065 a) and applied to "sandals" in Ezek. xvi. 10.
2 See Corrections 390 (ii) (f) a. The meanings of the Hebraized
word sandalon are various, and often different from Greek usage.
Matthew and Luke might find difficulty in a word that generally
meant, in Greek literature, a woman's shoe. But these considerations
increase the probability that Mark represents the earliest tradition.
In Goodspeed a-dvdaXov does not occur.
* Lk. xxi. 18, 28. 4 Mk xiv. n, xv. 18.
1 68 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
peace," and in the precept "Be-at-peace with one another 1 ."
The other Synoptists are less silent, but none of them come up
to the level of the joyfulness of Isaiah.
In explanation of Mark, it may be argued that "joy" and
"peace" are assumed in the first sentence that he records as
coming from Jesus, which ends with the words "Believe in the
gospel' 2 '," i.e. in the good tidings of Isaiah. That is no doubt the
case. And the acts of exorcism and healing and forgiving, and
the bringing of the "little ones" into Christ's circle of disciples,
are fulfilments of the good tidings. But this joyful aspect
fades away as we proceed. If the conclusion of Mark's Gospel
were extant it might have shewn the Saviour to us comforting
His disciples with the assurance that joy and peace were hence-
forth theirs, and theirs to give to others. But as it is, there is
no such assurance. And it is not very fully or directly expressed
in Matthew's conclusion. Luke is the only Synoptist who
ends his Gospel with a note of "great joy." And the "joy"
is merely described by Luke, not uttered by Jesus.
In contrast with the Synoptic Discourse on the Last Days,
the Johannine Final Discourse represents Jesus as saying to
the disciples, first about peace, "Peace I leave (or bequeath)
unto you, the peace that is my own I give unto you," and, later
on, "These things have I spoken unto you that in me ye may
have peace. In the world ye have tribulation. But be of good
cheer, I have been victorious over the world 3 ." Then, as to
"joy," it is mentioned no less than six times in the Discourse,
beginning with the saying "These things have I spoken unto
you that the joy that is my own may abide in you and that your
joy may be fulfilled 4 ."
There can be little doubt that these gifts of "peace" and
1 Mk v. 34, ix. 50. 2 Mk i. 15.
3 Jn xiv. 27, xvi. 33.
4 Jn xv. ii (bis), xvi. 20, 21, 22, 24. See also Jn iv. 36 "that he
that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together," and ib. xvi. 22
"your heart shall rejoice."
169 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
"joy," transmitted by Christ, who defines them as His "own,"
and testified to by all the Epistles, and by the history of the
early Church, were historically much more important subjects
in Christ's doctrine than would be inferred from the Synoptists
alone. What Mark has left us to infer from little more than
the mere mention of the "sandals" that are to be worn by the
messengers of the Good Tidings or Gospel John has expressed
and expanded in Christ's promises of that which was the
essence of the Gospel namely, the "peace" and the "joy"
that He alone could bestow.
9. "Scrip," "girdle," "purse 1 "
We now come to clauses of special importance in their
bearing on the question, "Were the precepts to the Twelve
literal, or metaphorical, or both?" It is largely through Luke
that we perceive this bearing. For Luke, who alone mentions
"purse" and that only in the Precepts to the Seventy, not
in the Precepts to the Twelve represents Jesus, later on, as
saying to the Twelve "When I sent you without purse and scrip
and shoes, lacked ye anything ? . . . But now he that hath a
purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip. And he that hath
not [one] let him sell his cloak and buy a sword 2 ." Also,
where Matthew has "Treasure up for yourselves treasures in
1 These words occur as follows in the Sending of the Twelve and
the Sending of the Seventy: "scrip," irrjpa, in Mk, Mt., and Lk.
(the Twelve), and also in Lk. x. 4 (the Seventy); "girdle," favii,
only in Mk vi. 8, Mt. x. 9; "purse," /SaAAaimoi/, only in Lk. x. 4 (the
Seventy) .
n?7pa occurs in i S. xvii. 40 (Sym.) "even in his scrip," LXX
<rv\\oyf)v. R.V. has not altered "scrip" there, but in N.T. it
has everywhere substituted "wallet" for "scrip." I have retained
"scrip" so as to indicate the possibility of allusion in N.T. to O.T.
Instead of "girdle" (the girdle being used as a purse) R.V. has txt
"purse," marg. " Gr. girdle." I have retained "girdle," so as to
distinguish Mk-Mt. avr), "girdle," from Lk. ftaXXdvTiov "purse."
* Lk. xxii. 36 R.V. marg. "and he that hath no sword. . .and
buy one."
170 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
heaven," Luke has, in a metaphorical sense, "Make unto
yourselves purses that wax not old, a treasure in the
heavens. . . . 1 "
These quotations, though they leave a great deal unexplained,
demonstrate at all events the following facts about Luke.
(i) He distinguishes between "purse" and "scrip." (2) He
represents Jesus as speaking to the Twelve about a past pro-
hibition to take "purse" and "scrip," whereas the past prohi-
bition to the Twelve, as he himself records it, mentioned
"scrip" alone 2 . (3) He records a prohibition of "purse" and
"scrip" as given to the Seventy. (4) He represents Jesus, on
the eve of the Crucifixion, as speaking to the Twelve and
cancelling the past prohibition of "purse" and "scrip 3 ."
(5) He represents Jesus, at the same moment, as inculcating
the "buying" of a "sword." (6) He represents Jesus, at an
earlier period, as using "purse" in a metaphorical sense where
the parallel Matthew ("treasure up treasures") does not
mention it. These facts point to the almost certain inference that
Luke was dissatisfied with the Mark-Matthew traditions about
"scrip" and "girdle," and to the highly probable inference that
he found difficulty in distinguishing between literal and meta-
phorical meanings in the Precepts to the Twelve and in the
Precepts (that he supposed to be given) to the Seventy.
Before passing to the parallel Mark-Matthew, with its
mention of "girdle," we should note the following Mishna which
can hardly fail to have been in force during the first half of the
first century : " Let no man enter into the mount of the Temple
with his staff, nor with his shoes, nor with his purse (or, pouch,
pondttho), nor with dust on his feet," where the Gemara has
1 Mt. vi. 20, Lk. xii. 33.
2 But Luke mentions money, lit. "silver" (ix. 3 /^re apyupiov).
Wetstein on Lk. x. 4 quotes a Scholiast explaining Aristoph. Nub. 157
wet; /SaXarrtou as avfv apyvpiov.
3 He does not record any cancelling of the prohibition of a
"staff."
171 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
" neither with his staff in his hand, nor with his shoes on his feet,
nor with money bound up with his linen, nor with a purse (ponditho)
hanging on his back 1 ." Horae Hebraicae, besides these passages,
quotes another in which, while the Mishna has tharmil, "scrip,"
the Gemara has ponditho, explained by the Horae as "an inner
garment with pockets to hold money etc.," but also denned by
an early authority as "a hollow girdle (or belt) in which they
put up their money 2 ." Here, then, we have "scrip," inter-
changed with "purse," and also with "girdle [for money]."
Now, returning to the Synoptic accounts of the Sending
the Twelve and the Sending of the Seventy, we find in them
these same utensils of a pilgrim mentioned with similar varia-
tions. It does not seem likely that the coincidence is accidental.
More probably Jesus alluded to ancient Jewish precepts
sometimes literally, but more often metaphorically when He
sent forth His disciples, or spoke of sending them. If so, and
if we take Mark as the closest approximation to His precepts,
He bade the disciples go forth as to the mount of the Temple,
observing the precepts of the Temple in some respects, but not
in all. They were not to lay aside their "staff," the staff of
Jacob; they were not to discard "sandals," fit emblems of the
"beautiful feet" of the messengers of the Gospel of Peace.
But they were to discard the "scrip," inasmuch as they were
to depend on the Father for their daily bread.
The next point is the "brass [money] " in the "girdle." An
ancient Greek grammarian says that ignorant and common
people used the word "brass" (equivalent to our "coppers"
1 HOY. Heb. on Mt. x. 9 quoting /. Berach. ix. 5 and Bab.
Berach. 62 b.
2 Hor. Heb. ib. pp. 182 3. It also quotes two authorities
defining the tharmil as hung round the neck (one adds "of the
shepherd") and carrying victuals. Comp. Levy iv. 6716 quoting
Gen. r. sect. 39 "How was David's coinage stamped? 'With a
staff and a scrip (tharmil} on one side," and also Kel. xxiv. n "there
are three kinds of tharmil." The connection between the tharmil
and David favours the rendering "scrip."
172 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
or "copper") about money in general 1 . Matthew and Luke,
taking it thus, might naturally object to the term thus standing
by itself. Matthew uses it, but not standing by itself. He
has "no gold, [no,] nor yet silver, [no,] nor yet brass," so as to
give the word emphatically its proper meaning of "coppers."
Luke substitutes the ordinary Greek word "silver [money],"
meaning "money" in general.
But it appears probable that "brass" was deliberately used
in the earliest tradition to mean " cumbersome and vile coinage,"
with perhaps a suggestion also of liability to rust 2 , and of the
confining and restricting effect of a girdle full of brass money,
hampering the limbs like a fetter. This view is supported by
Biblical instances of the Hebrew "brass" being used for
"fetters 3 ." The word in this sense is plural. But it is excep-
tionally singular, and rendered "brass" by LXX, where
Jeremiah says " He hath made my brass heavy 4 ." The Hebrew
"brass" is also used metaphorically to denote worthless
people, who are as "dross 5 ." Isaiah said about the Messiah
that " righteousness " and "faithfulness " should be His " girdle."
The "faithfulness" mentioned by Isaiah is, in fact, "truth,"
and is so rendered by LXX, and Revelation declared that it
1 See Corrections 390 (ii) (/3) quoting Pollux ix. 92.
2 See Corrections 390 (ii) (y) (e), and add Plutarch Mor. 665 A
describing how lightning rusted brass coinage belonging to "a man
asleep, girt with a money-belt containing coppers," favrjv ^aX/coCs-
e'xova-av UTre^axr/zeVov. Pesikt. sect. 15 (Wu. p. 167) quoting Is. i. 22
" dross," speaks of brass money silvered over by forgers. In Mk xii. 41
(contrary to Corrections] "brass" may be meant literally, besides
conveying a suggestion of contempt. " The multitude " gave as alms
"brass," which they could very well spare, "the rich" gave "many
things" both classes "out of their superabundance " but the poor
widow's two mites surpassed all their gifts. The parall. Luke has
(xxi. i) "the rich, casting into the Treasury their gifts."
8 Gesen. 639 a.
4 Lam. iii. 7 "He hath made my fR.V.) chain heavy," LXX
fftdpwc x a ^ K " v P- ov (Targ. "my fetters of brass on my feet").
* Ezek. xxii. 18 "all of them are brass. . .they are the dross of
silver."
173 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
was "a golden girdle 1 ." The Epistle to the Ephesians says
all Christians "Stand, having girded your loins with truth' 4
This "girdle" of truth, metaphorically represented by
"girdle" of "gold," would be the opposite of a "girdle" of
falsehood, dross or "brass." Interpreted thus, Mark's peculiar
tradition about "no brass in the girdle" falls into line with his
peculiar tradition about being "shod with sandals." Both
apply to the Apostles as messengers of the Gospel. The latter
means that their message is to be one of joy and divine beauty;
the former means that the messengers are to be alert, active,
and unencumbered, with consciences free from any hampering
sense of untruthfulness.
The Fourth Gospel does not intervene as to these negative
precepts about "scrip," "purse," and "girdle." It gives us
the impression that Jesus did not send His disciples away from
Himself, or prepare them for being thus sent, till just before
the Crucifixion. Then, and not till then, the Last Discourse
represents Jesus in the Fourth Gospel as saying and reiterating
to His disciples: "Do not suppose that I will desert you, when
I am taken from you in the flesh, leaving you as unhelped,
unguided wanderers in the wilderness of this world. Ask
what ye will, in my name, and I will give it you. 'Without
me ye can do nothing/ but with me, and 'in my name,' ye can
do all things. All shall be yours scrip, purse, staff, sandals
fit for the messengers of gladness, they shall all be given to
you in the Peace and Joy that I will bestow. Even the sword,
where need is of the sword, shall not be wanting to you in the
power of that Spirit of mine, that other Self, which shall comfort
those that need comfort, while it convicts those that need
conviction. In the world ye shall have tribulation. But be
of good cheer. I have been victorious over the world 3 ."
1 Is. xi. 5, Rev. i. 13. 2 Eph. vi. 14.
3 See Light 3829 on the "paradox" in N.T. contained in "the
few mentions of 'victory,'" which are "mostly accompanied by
mentions of what the world would call defeat."
174 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
10. "Anointing with oil," in Mark 1 and James
In N.T. apart from a quotation from the Psalms and from
a negative sentence in Luke ("my head with oil thou didst not
anoint ") 2 the only mention of " anointing with oil," besides this
of Mark, runs as follows: "Is any among you suffering [hard-
ship] 3 ? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.
Is any among you sick 4 ? Let him call for the elders of the
church, and let them pray over him, having anointed him with
oil in the name [of the Lord] 5 . And the prayer of faith 6 shall
1 Mk vi. 13 rj\L(pov eXai'o) no\\ovs dppa)(TTOvs KOI eOepaTrevov. The
text is ambiguous because, after edepdircvov, we might supply "them,"
or "sick folk in general." SS has "were anointing with oil many,
and were healing the infirm," indicating two classes. D, aXerv//-avre?
\ai(o TroXKovs dppvo-Tovs eQepdirfvov, makes it clear that there were
not two classes. So does the v. r. eQepairfvovTo, in some inferior MSS,
and in Pseudo-Jerome ("sanabantur") whose comment (on Mk vi.
4 5) says "cum ungebant oleo aegros infirmitatem fidei [i.e. eorum]
virtute corroborant," " they strengthen the infirmity of [their] faith
by a mighty work." This suggests a moral as well as a physical
strengthening.
2 Heb. i. 9 xp' La > (quoting Ps. xlv. 7) and Lk. vii. 46 dXftyw.
3 Jas. v. 13 KOKOTratfei. Comp. Jas. v. 10 n KaKoiraQias, instanced
by the prophets and Job. It would include, but not necessarily
mean, persecution.
4 'A<r#ei>i, "weak" in body, or in mind, or in soul, or in resources,
according to context.
5 'AXen//-ai/rey, not literally "anointing" but "having anointed."
"With oil" distinguishes the anointing from one with perfumed
ointments for luxury. "In the name of the Lord" distinguishes it
from mere medical anointing.
'AXei'<co, in LXX, represents thiee distinct Hebrew words,
(i) HID = "daub," "whitewash," (2) "pD = "anoint [for health
or comfort]," (3) nt^D = "anoint [priests, kings, and sometimes
prophets]." Delitzsch uses "pD here.
Heb. -pD = (Tromm.) d\fi(po> (6), xP ia > ( 2 )- Heb. n^O (holy
anointing) = dXei'<o> (4), xpi'oo (62). Thus, as a rule, holy anointing is
distinguished by LXX from sanitary anointing. The former, from
which "Messiah" ("the Anointed") is derived, = xp' La >, the latter
6 "The prayer of faith" emphasizes the fact that the anointing
is not merely medical.
175 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
save 1 the failing [man] 2 , and the Lord shall raise him up 5
and if he have committed sins it shall be forgiven him 4 ."
The difficulties of this passage are obvious. If "sick" an<
"save" and "raise up" refer to physical health, then the write]
1 "Save," o-axTfi. 2<of<a, in N.T., = A.V. "heal," R.V. txt "make
whole," R.V. marg. "save," in Mk v. 23, Lk. viii. 36, Acts xiv. 9;
A.V. and R.V. txt "make whole," R.V. marg. "save," in Mk v. 34,
Lk. viii. 48, 50, Acts iv. 9 etc.
Aia<rd>co, in Mt. xiv. 36, = A.V. "make perfectly whole," R.V.
"make whole"; in Lk. vii. 3, = A.V. "heal," R.V. "save."
2 T6v Ka^vovra " the failing [one]," is often used for "the patient,"
lit. "him that is failing [in vital power]." The only other N.T.
instance of Ka^vw is Heb. xii. 3 Iva ^r] jcd/i^r* rals ^u^ai? vpiov
K\v6pevot. Comp. the only instance of na^va in canon. LXX, Job
x. i Kapvtov rfj -^VXTI p-ov, Heb. "My soul is weary," and Hermas
Mand. viii. 1O Ka^vovras TTJ tyvxy napaKoXelv, e(TKa.vda\i(Tp.(vovs...
Trio-Tp(piv...afjiapTdvovTas vovQfTflv. These passages and the frequent
Biblical use of exXvo/zat absolutely (e.g. Heb. xii. 5 quoting Prov. iii.
n) meaning "fall to pieces," "collapse" indicate that in Heb.
xii. 3 TCUS tf/vxais goes with Kaprjre (not with eicXvopevoi). In Tatian
16 6 K.dp,vu)v depanevfTai and 18 (8at,p.oves) d7TO7rra/j.ei>oi rwv Kapvov-
TCDV, Kap-va) refers to those possessed with devils. The passages, as
a whole, suggest that Kap,va> in Jas. implies a spiritual breaking
down, a failure in faith, as well as a failure in health. Comp. Ps.
Ixxvii. 2 10 where the Psalmist, failing in faith and apparently
in health at the same time, exclaims " Hath God forgotten to be
gracious?" and then adds "This is my infirmity (Aq. dppoxrn'a) "
(see context in R.V. txt and marg.).
3 "Shall raise him up (e'yepei avrov)." This is ambiguous because
f-yfipo), when used transitively with a personal object, may mean
(i) "raise [from a bed of sickness]" or (2) "raise [morally and
spiritually]" (as in Clem. Rom. 59 TOVS Trfn-TaKOTas eyeipov...
cavd(TTr)(rov TOVS daOe^ovvTas^ irapa<dX(rov ruvs oXt'yo'V/Av^owras) , or
(3) "raise [from the dead]." But in N.T., though the third use is
frequent when the word is applied to God "raising up" Jesus, i.e.
from the dead, yet eyfipw without venpovs 4 s not applied to God
"raising up" men from the dead except in 2 Cor. iv. 14 "He that
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also with Jesus" where
the antithesis explains the exceptional usage. The evidence of N.T.
use favours the rendering (in James) "shall raise him up [from his
sick bed]."
4 Jas. v. 13 15.
17 j (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
seems to promise Christians immortality on earth, for no
Christian need die if he has time to " call for the elders." If the
words refer to spiritual health, then they appear to promise
forgiveness to the perpetrator of the most detestable sins if he
can induce "the elders" to "pray over him" with "the prayer
of faith." Origen, in a passage that does not quote James,
but only a phrase from the Johannine Epistle ("a sin unto
death"), yet indicates a danger that might arise from the
language of James, when he describes "certain men who claim
even more than the priestly power," and who profess to obtain
forgiveness for everything, "as though, through their prayer,
even 'the sin unto death' was remitted^" Also Irenaeus speaks
of heretics who professed to "redeem" the dying, anointing
them and teaching them invocations whereby they might evade
the powers of evil after death 2 . Elsewhere Irenaeus testifies
to the fact that, in his days, besides exorcism, and prophesying,
some had the gift of healing (by the laying on of hands) "the
failing [ones] " where he uses the Jacobean word above noted 3 .
He does not here mention "oil"; but Tertullian says that the
emperor Severus kept in his palace, till the day of his own
death, a Christian named Proculus, out of gratitude "for having
once cured him by oil*."
1 Origen De Orat. 28 ad fin. cos 8ta TTJS evx^s avToi)v...\vofjievT)s ai
rf)s Trpos davarov d/zapri'ay, an allusion to i Jn v. 1 6, which he proceeds
to quote.
2 Iren. i. 21. 5 "Alii sunt qui mortuos redimunt ad finem defunct-
ionis, mittentes eorum capitibus oleum et aquam. . .et cum supra-
dictis invocationibus . . . et praecipiunt eis, venientibus ad potestates,
haec dicere postquam mortui fuerint." The context proves Grabe
to be right in saying that "mortuos" is an error (for "morientes")
perhaps caused by a mistranslation of reXeurwi/ras. Comp. Epiph-
anius (borrowing from Irenaeus) Haer. 36 (vol. ii. p. 263) TOVS re A eu-
ro) v ray... KCU eV avTrjv TTJV eo8ov (^OdvovTas, and especially rr\ KfffoaXfj
TOV f^e\dovTos, which ought to mean " of the departed," but which
is rendered (as the sense seems to demand) "morientis."
3 Iren. ii. 32. 4 TOVS Kapvovras. . . t&Weu KOI vyiels a.TroK.a6i(TTa<Tiv.
4 Tertull. AdScap. 4 " qui eum per oleum aliquando curaverat."
A. L. 177 (Mark vi. 6 13) 12
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
These facts shew that in the second century there
much-discussed traditions about Christian anointing with oil,
pointing back to a first-century practice, which has been lei
unmentioned by all the Gospels but Mark's, and by all tl
Epistles except that of James.
ii. "The sin unto death"
Above, we have found Origen quoting the Johannine
Epistle about "the sin unto death" in a warning against some
who claimed for themselves, and for their prayers in behalf of
the sinner, a more than priestly power 1 . There, he did not quote
from James. Elsewhere, commenting on Leviticus ("If the
anointed priest shall sin"), he does quote from James. There,
he lays main stress on the confession of the sinner, not on the
prayer of the elders. He is describing the seventh and last of
the paths to the remission of sins. It is through penitence,
tears, and confession: "Herein is fulfilled that which James
the Apostle says, If anyone is infirm (infirmatur) let him call
the elders of the church, and let them place their hands on him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer
of faith shall save the infirm (infirmum) [om. 'and the Lord shall
raise him up '], and if he has been [entangled] in sins they shall
be remitted to him 2 ."
It is strange that so careful a quoter as Origen should here
omit the words " and the Lord shall raise him up." If the Latin
expresses what Origen wrote in Greek, it may be that he thought
the "raising up" an ambiguous phrase (meaning either "raise
up from the sick bed," or "raise up after a spiritual fall 3 ," or
1 See p. 177, quoting De Orat. 28.
2 Origen (on Lev. iv. 3 "if the anointed priest shall sin") Lev.
Horn. ii. 4 (Lomm. ix. 193).
3 Comp. Clem. Rom. 59 above quoted TOVS ncTTTaxoTas eyetpoi/
and see TTITTTQ) meaning "fall [through want of faith]" etc. in Rom.
xi. ii, 22, xiv. 4, i Cor. x. 12, xiii. 8 "love never falleth," i.e. never
utterly fails or breaks down.
178 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
"raise up at the last day") the insertion of which would obscure
what he deemed to be certainly the drift of the whole passage,
namely, the way open to forgiveness for the infirm soul entangled
in sins.
In the same commentary, later on, speaking of the path to
forgiveness through tears, Origen says "There are also those
sins which are said to be 'unto death 1 .'" But he does not
explain how far "the elders," in the Epistle, correspond to
"the priest of the Lord" whom he describes as receiving the
confession of sins under the Law, or why one "elder" would
not (apparently) suffice 2 . In his Johannine commentary he
says that John, while mentioning "a sin unto death," at the
same time "points out a distinction, namely, that a certain sin
is the soul's death and a certain sin is its sickness 3 ." But
elsewhere about an apparent proof from the Gospels and
Epistles that some sins are to the soul's loss but not to its
death he quotes the Johannine distinction between sins unto
death and sins not unto death, and adds "What kinds of sins
are unto death, and what are not unto death, but unto loss,
I do not think can be distinguished easily by any human
being 4 ."
1 Origen Lev. Horn. xi. 2 (Lomm. ix. 380) "Dicimus enim et ad
Deum quoniam (Ps. Ixxx. 5) ' Dedisti nobis panem lacrimarum . . . '
Sunt ergo ista peccata quae dicuntur 'ad mortem'" (i Jn v. 16).
2 Lev. Horn. ii. 4 (Lomm. ix. 193) "Est adhuc et septima
[i.e. via ad remissionem peccatorum] . . . cum lavat peccator in
lacrimis stratum suum. . .et cum non erubescit sacerdoti Domini
indicare peccatum suum et quaerere medicinam, secundum eum qui
ait (Ps. xxxii. 5) ' Dixi pronuntiabo adversum me injustitiam meant
Domino, et tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei.' In quo impletur. . .
( Jas. v. 14) ... vocet presbyteros ecclesiae. ..." Comp. Luc. Horn. xvii.
(Lomm. v. 150) quoting Ps. xxxii. 5 and mentioning as a condition
" Si revelaverimus peccata nostra non solum Deo sed et his (v.r. us)
qui possunt mederi vulneribus nostris." Rashi regards the "confes-
sion" in Ps. xxxii. 5 as made by David to Nathan (2 S. xii. 13).
3 Origen Comm. Joann. xix. 3 (Lomm. ii. 166).
4 Exod. Horn. x. 3 (Lomm. ix. 126) "Non puto facile a quoquam
hominum posse discerni," after quoting i Cor. iii. 15, Mt. xvi. 26 and
179 (Mark vi. 6 13) 12 2
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
This frank expression of inability to explain the Johannine
distinction justifies the conclusion that, in very early days,
when faith-healing was frequent in the Christian Churches, and
when anointing the sick was frequently used in the hope of a
miraculous healing, the Marcan tradition in the Precepts to the
Twelve would be a subject of much discussion. We cannot go
so far as to say that John alludes to it in his Epistle. But we
can say that such an allusion is by no means improbable.
12. "Anointing" among the Jews
Anointing among the Jews for the sick was practised as a
medicinal remedy. But the book of Job and very many pas-
sages in other books of the Bible testify to the belief that sickness
was regarded as a divine punishment for sin. And all would
admit that sickness does often come as the effect of intemper-
ance, sensuality and other vices. It would therefore be natural
i Jn v. 16. He adds "Scriptum namque est (Ps. xix. 12) Delicta
quis intelligit? " A connection between "sin unto death" under the
Law and "sin unto death" under the Gospel is traceable though
the phrase is not used in Heb. x. 28 31 "A man that [is found to
have] set at naught Moses' law (Deut. xvii. 2 6) dieth without
compassion.. . .Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be
counted worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God. . ./"
i.e. more particularly, by apostatizing and publicly "blaspheming
Christ." Comp. Acts xxvi. n "I strove to compel them to blas-
pheme," and Pliny's letter to Trajan ( 96) which says that he
acquitted those who "male dicer ent Christo."
See Schottgen (on i Jn v. 16) on the Talmudic distinction between
a sin that makes the sinner liable to death, and one that makes him
liable to excommunication. Numb. r. Wii. p. 268 quotes i S. ii. 25
"They [i.e. Eli's sons] hearkened not unto the voice of their father,
because the Lord was minded to slay them," in a recognition of
sins so persisted in that a "decree of death" goes forth. Jewish
expressions of this kind, referring to literal as well as spiritual death,
if retained by Jewish Christians in the first century, might explain
several apparent instances of confusion between the literal and the
spiritual. For the meaning perhaps attached by John to "the
sin unto death," see below, p. 188.
1 80 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
that among the Jews this anointing should be accompanied by
prayer. Ben Sira, in a passage printed below, instructively
indicates that the prayer might proceed from the physician
as well as from the patient, and shews how naturally a promise
of healing ("pray unto God for God will heal") might be made
with confidence, because, even if the patient was not physically
healed, his sins might be forgiven and he might receive spiritual
healing 1 .
A Jewish tradition about the celebrated Rabbi Meir shews
how anointing of this kind, no doubt accompanied by prayer,
might be practised by a patient's friends whose presence might
correspond to that of "the elders" mentioned by James:
"R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, R. Meir permitted the mingling
of wine and oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath. But
1 Ben Sira (ed. Schechter and Taylor) begins (xxxvii. 30 31)
by warning his readers against "luxury" that brings "sickness,"
against "surfeit" that is followed by "loathing," and against
"intemperance" that ends in "perishing." Then, after declaring
that God appointed the physician for men, and brought medicines
out of the earth, he proceeds as follows (xxxviii. 7 14) "By them
doth the physician assuage pain; and likewise the apothecary
maketh a confection : that his work may not fail ; nor health from
among the sons of men. My son, in sickness be not negligent :
pray unto God, for He will heal. Flee from iniquity, and from
respect of persons; and from all transgressions cleanse thy heart.
Offer a sweet savour as a memorial ; and fatness estimated according
to thy substance. And to the physician also give a place; and he
shall not remove, for there is need of him likewise. For there is
a time when in his hand is good success : for he too will supplicate
unto God, that He will prosper to him the treatment (or, draught),
and the healing, for the sake of his living."
The LXX differs somewhat from the Hebrew, and concludes
thus: "There is a time when also in their hands [i.e. the hands of
the physicians'] there is good success, for they too will supplicate the
Lord that He may prosper to them [the] relief [of the sufferer] and
healing for the sake of continuance in life." The plural appears
to refer to physicians, but it might represent also the sufferer's
friends administering the ointment prescribed by the physician.
181 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
when he once was sick, and we would do the same to him, he
permitted it not 1 ."
Quoting this, the author of Horae Hebraicae prefixes to it
the remark, "The Jews say, and that truly, such an anointing
was physical, although it did not always obtain its end. But
this anointing of the apostles ever obtained its end." The first
of these statements may be accepted. But the second is
hazardous. When Ben Sira writes (as quoted above) "My son,
in sickness be not negligent; pray unto God, for He will heal,"
we may say, "This means 'He will sometimes heal' or 'He will
give thee, if not bodily healing, something corresponding to it." 1
May we not also say the same thing about the anointing
described by Mark and that described by James? It seems
probable that, when the Jewish practice of medical anointing
passed into the hands of Christian elders who anointed in the
name of Christ, and who often effected marvellous results of
physical healing 2 the old words "sickness," "healing," and
"raising up" might be used sometimes physically, but some-
times spiritually, so that in the course of a few years, after
faith-healing had become comparatively rare in the Christian
1 See Hor. Heb. (on Mk vi. 13) quoting J. Berach. iii. i. The
story is repeated in /. Sabb. xiv. 3 (also in B. Sabb. 134 a).
2 Of these, the most remarkable is Peter's raising Tabitha to
life. But there is a difficulty in believing that Tabitha's friends
could have sent for Peter almost as if reckoning upon his power to
raise the dead (Acts ix. 37 8) "Now it came to pass in those
days that she fell sick and died (do-Qevrja-ao-av dtroOavflv}, and they
washed her and placed her in an upper chamber. Now, as Lydda
was nigh unto Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was
there, sent (dTrcV-mXai/) two men to him with entreaty, Delay not to come
on to us." The difficulty will be diminished if we suppose that the
aorist, aTrc'oreiXai/, here means " [previously] sent," i.e. when she fell
sick or reached such a stage that death seemed imminent. See Joh. Gr.
2460 quoting Jn v. 13 "Jesus [previously] conveyed himself away"
(R.V. and A.V. "had conveyed himself away"}. It is noteworthy
that the Acts and the Epistles (except that of James) make no
mention of "anointing with oil."
182 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
Church, the traditions about past faith-healing and those about
past spiritual healing were often not easy to distinguish.
13. "Anointing [with oil]" metaphorical
Eusebius quotes Philo as saying about the Essenes that they
were "anointed for fellowship 1 ," and this, not using the word
chriein, which denotes spiritual anointing, but using the word
we have been all this time discussing, aleiphein, "anoint [for
health, or comfort] 2 ." The explanation is this. The Greeks
used aleiphein to mean " anoint for gymnastic exercise." Hence
they applied it literally to the Master of a gymnasium, training
the young g3^mnasts for their exercises. But hence they also
applied it metaphorically to any kind of training for action 3 .
Philo here thus applies it metaphorically to Moses of whom
he says "Our Lawgiver anointed myriads of his disciples for
fellowship." Clement of Alexandria does the same thing,
saying that the Logos "anoints," not meaning "holy anointing"
or "consecration," but preparation for a wrestling against evil
such a wrestling as befell Jacob, the wrestler at Peniel, when
the Logos trained and anointed him for his conflict 4 .
In the only passage where the Apostolic Fathers mention
this "anointing (aleiphein)," it is connected with "teaching,"
where Ignatius writes "Be not anointed with the evil savour
of the teaching of the ruler of this world," contrasting this with
the "ointment" that "the Lord received on His head that
He might breathe incorruptibility to the Church 5 ." Its only
instance in Epictetus is literal, but yet such as to shew how
1 Euseb. Praepar. Evang. viii. n pvpiovs Se T>V yi/a>pi'/zon/ 6 r
fj\ei\lsev eVi KOii/am'ai/, ot KaXovvrai p.ev 'Eo-o-alot. . .OIKOVCTI Se
p.V TToXfLS TTJS 'louSatO?.
2 See above, p. 175, n. 5. 3 Steph. Thes. aAet'(/>o>.
4 Clem. Alex. 132 o o-vyyv^va^o^vos KOI aXfiffrwv Kara TOV rrovrjpov
TOV aa-Krjrrjv 'laxco/3. The context Calls the LogOS 6 dXeiirTrjs. . .TO)
'laKa>/3. See Mayor's Index (dXei'0o>).
6 Ign. Eph. 17.
183 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
a Christian writer might apply the word metaphorically to a
catechist, or recently baptized Christian still "under training 1 ."
Some traditions of this kind, applied to converts or catechists,
may have been intelligible enough in Rome (or other Western
Churches) to Christians familiar with vernacular Greek, but may
not have seemed to Matthew and Luke adapted for Eastern
Churches or for educated Greeks.
14. "Many that were infirm," in Mark 2
Returning to the word "infirm" in the Marcan passage
under discussion, we note that it is never used by Luke. In
Attic Greek it implies mostly "slackness"; it is hardly ever
used in canonical LXX, and never by any of the early Fathers
or Apologists 3 . Matthew uses it but once where the parallel
Mark describes Jesus not as healing but as "teaching," but
Luke mentions both 4 . Origen explains the word in Matthew
metaphorically ; and, in the same context, he explains the only
N.T. instance of the word outside the Gospels: "For this cause
among you many are weak and infirm, and not a few are falling-
asleep," that is to say (according to Origen) many are weak in
faith, or, as it were, chronic invalids, and not a few are falling
into a slumber that will make them dead to all faith 5 .
1 Epict. i. 2. 26 coy avT]p) ^p 7 ?? o.vr]p &' 'OXu/iTTia KeKTjpvyp,vos KOI
rjyo)vL(rfj.evos . . . ov%\ Tropa TO! Bdrcoi'i aXfKpo/jLfvos, i.e. a crowned veteran,
whose name has been proclaimed in the Olympian games, "no
longer under training in the school of Bato."
2 Mk vi. 13.
3 See appcao-Tos in Steph. Thes., Oxf. Cone., and Goodspeed. LXX
has more frequently appoocrrea) and appeuorta.
4 Mk vi. 34 Mt. xiv. 14 Lk. ix. n
And he began And he (lit.) And he spake to
to teach them many tended (eQfpaTrevo-fv) them of the kingdom
things. their infirm [ones]. of God and them that
had need of (lit.) tend-
ing (Qfpairfias) he pro-
ceeded to heal (IO.TO) .
5 Origen on Mt. xiv. 14 quoting and fully explaining i Cor. xi.
30 TToXXol acrdfvf'is KCU appoxrroi KCU Koip.S>vTai IKCIVOI. Apparently Origen
regards the loss of spiritual strength and spiritual health, and the
184 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES.
By Mark himself the word is obviously taken in a literal
sense when he says that Jesus, in His own "country," was not
able to do any "mighty work," except that He "laid his hands
on a few infirm [folk] and healed them 1 ." The Mark-Appendix
makes the unqualified promise "These signs shall follow them
that believe : in my name . . . they shall lay hands on the infirm
and they shall recover 2 ." This, like the similar passage in the
Epistle of James, must mean "they shall sometimes lay hands,"
or perhaps "they shall sometimes recover." Or "sometimes"
must be inserted in both cases. No "oil" is mentioned in the
Mark- Appendix .
The result of these traditions about the "infirm," as also
of those about "anointing," and "raising them up," is to
confirm the impression that the followers of Jesus did actually
heal in a physical sense, but that the accounts of physical and
those of spiritual healing were so expressed, and so mingled,
access of spiritual slumber, as being God's judgments on those who
partake unworthily of the Lord's Supper. Origen explains Kotjuo>i>rai
by vvo-TaovTs rrjv Trpoaipfaiv and vjrv<ao-(TOVTS rots 1 XoyKT/Mois, and
evvTrvia^onevoi as if it referred to fleshly dreamers who, he says,
(comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10) "blaspheme glories." But we must have
regard to the fact that Paul is alluding to some who made a
feast, or even a drunken feast, of the Lord's Supper. Isaiah after
frequent rebukes of those that (Is. v. n, 22) " follow strong drink,"
and after predicting that (ib. xxiv. 9) "strong drink shall be bitter
to them," and declaring that (ib. xxviii. 7) "the priest and the
prophet have gone astray through strong drink," at last bids the
drunkards go on their own wilful course and endure a "deep sleep"
as the consequent judgment, a sleep caused not by wine but by
retribution (ib. xxix. 9 10) "Take your pleasure and be blind. . .for
the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep "
Comp. Jerem. li. 39 " I will make them drunken that they may
rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake." Such a "sleep"
is a "judgment," but it is not a dreaming so much as a deadly
torpor. Comp. Ps. xiii. 3 "Lighten my eyes lest I sleep death."
1 Mk vi. 5 "healed," lit. "tended," eQepd-rrevorfv, on which see
Prod am. pp. 208 20.
2 [Mk xvi. 1718.]
185 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
that the enemies of Christians might sometimes shew good
reason for impugning their veracity 1 .
Another point to be noted is that Mark's statement of the
manner in which the Twelve carried out the precepts of the
Lord (" and they went forth and preached . . . and healed them 2 ")
makes no mention of their baptizing. We should have expected
"baptizing" to follow "preaching," thus: "And they went
forth and preached that men should repent, and they baptized
many.'' According to the Fourth Gospel, this was the one
thing that the Twelve did, namely, "baptized" many and so
"many" that the Evangelist calls them "more disciples than
John baptized." And that this was in the name of Jesus,
that is to say, under the authority of Jesus, we learn from the
fact that at first the Gospel says that Jesus baptized, though
afterwards it adds "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples
did 3 ." It is difficult to believe that Mark's original omitted
"baptizing." Perhaps, however, "baptizing" expressed by
"enlightening," or by "raising up from darkness," or by
"anointing with the Spirit," or by "anointing in the NAME"
is latent in the Marcan "anointing."
This is compatible with the hypothesis that the tradition
(which is omitted by Matthew) is antedated by Mark and belongs
1 See Lightf. on Clem. Rom. 59 (quoted in part above, p. 176)
" Raise up the fallen . . . ; heal the ungodly . . . ; feed the hungry ; release
our prisoners (decrp-iovs) ', lift up the weak (TOVS dadfvovvTas) ; comfort
the faint-hearted." Here "prisoners" is (doubtless) literal, but
"the ungodly" is, in Syr., " aegrotos." This might represent d
i.e. "the sick." Against this, however, is the subsequent
which would come superfluously after a preceding avBevtls. Harnack
says " dadevovvTfs animo, do-Qfvcls corpore imbecilles sunt." But
Lightf. replies " Both words are used indifferently either of physical
or of moral weakness." This remark gives us an insight into many
possibilities of error in the first century permeating Christian
accounts of healing error not arising from dishonesty, but from the
blending of the literal with the metaphorical and from consequent
ambiguity.
2 Mk vi. 12 13. 3 Jn iv. i 2.
1 86 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
to precepts given after the Resurrection. But, if the Marcan
tradition refers to a period before the Resurrection, we may
suppose that the Fourth Gospel intervenes, perhaps moved by
a thought of this kind: "Mark says that the Twelve, when
they were sent out by Jesus before the Resurrection, 'anointed
with oil.' Matthew and Luke reject this. But it means that
they baptized, not indeed with that complete baptism which
brings the chrism with it, but with the baptism of John ad-
ministered in the name of Jesus."
15. Johannine tradition
Passing now to Johannine tradition, we find that, although
John makes no mention of the "infirm" or of " anointing with
oil" either in his Gospel or in the Epistle, yet in the latter he
does mention that higher kind of " anointing," a spiritual one, or
chrism, which kept those whom he calls "little children" from
the doctrine of "antichrists," and from every "lie," so that
they might "abide in" the Lord and "have boldness at his
coming 1 ." But the chrism does not, of itself, suffice to save
them. They must "abide in" the Giver of the chrism 21 . This
strikes at the root of some above-mentioned heresies, which
inculcated material anointings, with incantations, as a means of
evading the clutches of such demons as might lie in wait for
a dying soul to intercept its passage to the region of blessedness 3 .
Toward the end of the Epistle, the writer goes even further in
his discouragement of any mechanical doctrine of saving by
prayer and anointing. If we ask anything according to God's
will, he tells us that God "heareth us," and "if any man see
1 ijnii. 18 28 "Little children. . .at his coming." "Anointing"
here is (ib. 20, 27) xpi< r l JLa > i- e - holy anointing, not aXft/x/za (from the
Marcan word aXei^co).
2 I Jn ii. 27 p.VTf ev avTa>, followed by KOI vvv, reKvia, yueVere eV
aiiTw whether the first /ueVere is indicative or imperative in any
case expresses, as a whole, a very emphatic warning.
3 See above, p. 177. n. 2.
187 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask." Bi
it is added "There is a sin unto death, not concerning this
I say that he should make request 1 ." In this, and in the contexl
there is a vagueness, and a reticence, that are very perplexing ;
but the words become less obscure if regarded as a protest
against immoral formalism and in behalf of instinctive and
spiritual morality. They appear to illustrate, and to
illustrated by, the saying peculiar to the Fourth Gospel,
"Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained." There are
circumstances where we are to be quiet and to believe in God,
but not to pray. "A man is not to pray, even for ' his brother,'
in such terms as go against his conscience, and against the
testimony of the Holy Spirit within him" this appears to be
the meaning of the Johannine warning. The necessity of such
a warning throws light on the degeneracy of many Christians
at the time when the Epistle was written, and on the probability
that "the anointing of the infirm with oil," mentioned by
Mark alone of the Evangelists, had been gravely abused.
John does not say this, nor does he say anything definitely
negative to forbid such abuse. But he directs our attention
to that higher kind of anointing, the chrism, the anointing
with the Holy Spirit, which we received from the Lord, and
which will abide in us if we abide in Him 2 .
1 i Jn v. 14 16.
2 No attempt has been made in this chapter to answer the very
natural question, "Why does Mark omit what James inserts
that the anointing with oil was ' in the name of the Lord ' ? " On this
see Son 3534 d. The Hebrew for "oil" is easily confused, and is
once (Prov. xxvii. 16) actually confused by LXX, with the Hebrew
for "name." If the original said, "They anointed many (a) with
oil (b) in the NAME," i.e. "name of the Lord," the similarity of
(a) and (b) might induce Mark to omit the latter, thus reducing the
tradition to the level of a mere sanitary or medical anointing. This
Matthew and Luke might naturally reject.
Also, the ambiguity of expressions bearing on the Resurrection
has been merely touched on. It will be more fitly discussed when we
come (Mk xii. 18 27) to the controversy between Jesus and the
1 88 (Mark vi. 6 13)
THE SENDING OF THE APOSTLES
Sadducees on that subject. The Pauline Epistles recognise that
even in the Church of Corinth (i Cor. xv. 12, comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18)
some said that there was no resurrection, perhaps meaning that they
had already "risen" in baptism, according to the words of the Chris-
tian song (Eph. v. 14) "Awake (or, arise] (ey"P e ) thou that sleepest,
and rise up (avdo-ra) from the dead, and Christ shall dawn on thee."
John exhibits Jesus Himself as twice using such ambiguous language
on subjects of this kind that His disciples were deceived. He said
"Lazarus is fallen asleep" (Jn xi. n) and they thought He meant it
literally; but He meant "Lazarus is dead." He also said to Martha
(ib. xi. 23) " Thy brother shall rise up (dz/ao-r^o-ercu) " and Martha replied
(ib. xi. 24) " I know that he will rise up in the rising up in the last
day" ; but He meant more than that.
Some critics may say that John describes Jesus as deliberately
and gratuitously mystifying the disciples. But perhaps they might
change their minds if they realised the variety of Christian thought
in the first century as to the time, place, and manner of the general
resurrection. It is manifest in the Epistles. It is manifest also in
Revelation (xx. 5 6) which speaks of "the first resurrection," to be
followed by a "second death." Realising this, many may feel that
the Fourth Evangelist wrote with wisdom as well as with a deep love
of fundamental truth. It is probable that Jesus did, as a fact, use
ambiguous terms, feeling that death was "a sleep" and that resur-
rection was a spiritual union with the Father. On both sides, and
in opposite directions, Christian extremists hardened Christ's meta-
phorical and prophetic language into materialistic dogmas. John
pointed out, between the two extremes, a midway path of spiritual
faith, faith in One who said or rather meant and taught in substance,
for He did not probably (Proclam. Pref . p. xii) use the exact words
(Jn xi. 25) "I am the resurrection and the life."
189 (Mark vi. 6 13)
CHAPTER VII
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
[Mark vi. 14 29]
i. What was said after the Baptist's death
THE parallel texts given below, relating what was said after
the Baptist's death about Jesus, differ in such a way as to
shew early confusion of traditional phrases, assigned to different
speakers, or placed in different contexts 1 .
For example, the saying that John was "risen from the
dead " is attributed by Mark (probably) to the people first, and
1 Mk vi. 14 1 6
(R.V.)
(14) And king
Herod heard [there-
of] ; for his name had
become known : and
he (some anc. auth.
they) said, John the
Baptist (lit. the Bap-
tizer) is risen (ey^-ytp-
rai) from the dead,
and therefore do
these powers work
in him.
(15) But others
said, It is Elijah.
And others said, [It
is] a prophet, [even]
as one of the pro-
phets.
(16) But Herod,
when he heard [there-
of], said, John, whom
I beheaded, he (OVTOS)
is risen
Mt. xiv. i 2
(R.V.)
(1) At that season
Herod the tetrarch
heard the report con-
cerning Jesus,
(2) And said unto
his servants, This is
John the Baptist ; he
(avros] is risen (rjyepdrj)
from the dead; and
therefore do these
powers work in him.
Lk. ix. 7 9
(R.V.)
(7) Now Herod
the tetrarch heard of
all that was done:
and he was much
perplexed, because
that it was said by
some, that John was
risen (qyepdrj) from
the dead ;
(8) And by some,
that Elijah had ap-
peared ; and by
others, that one of
the old prophets
was risen again
(9) And Herod
said, John I be-
headed : but who is
this, about whom I
hear such things ?
And he sought to see
him.
190 (Mark vi. 14 16)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
secondly to Herod 1 . Matthew mentions it only once, and then
assigns it to Herod, adding that he said it "to his servants 2 ."
Luke mentions it only once, but assigns it, not to Herod but
to "some" ("he was much perplexed because that it was said
by some 3 ") whom presumably Herod heard saying it. Luke
adds, as one of the popular rumours, "that one of the old
prophets was risen-again" where the sense seems to demand
that "risen-again" should mean "risen from the dead 4 '." Mark
concludes with Herod's own words "The John whom I beheaded
this [same John] is risen," where he does not say "risen from
1 Mk vi. 14 16 reading eAeyov with W.H. txt "TAeyoi/ 1 . So Field
Ot. Norv. ad loc. : "And king Herod heard [thereof] ; (for his name
had become known: and they" [i.e. folk] "said, John.... But
others said. . . ; and others said. . .). But Herod, when he heard
[thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, the same (OVTOS, see Mt. xxi.
42, Jn iii. 26) is risen." Field says "The sentence is suspended, in
order to introduce the opinions of the people, and taken up again
at vi. 16."
2 Mt. xiv. 2 eiTrcv rols iraio-lv avrov. This would explain how it
came to be known. It was not a soliloquy. Herod's guilty con-
science forced him to say it aloud to those about him.
3 If fiTrcv rots TraKrlv were written elTrov ev rols Traiarlv, " they said,
among his servants," this would correspond to the Marcan eXcyov,
"they said," and eV rots- Traialv would be a way of adding "in Herod's
own palace."
4 Lk. ix. 8 rrpofprjTrjs TIS TO)V dpxaiwv avfcrrrj (not rjyepOr)). But it
may mean "one of [the rank of] the old prophets has arisen." The
parall. Mk vi. 15 has TT pocpfjrrjs cos- fls T&V TT pofprjrfov , "a [new] prophet
as [great as] one of the [old] prophets." Mark's insertion of as
avoids the suggestion of a resurrection from the dead.
The preceding 'HXei'ay (pdvrj in Lk. ix. 8 is not the same as 'HAetas-
wfyQr] or dveo-TT). It is perhaps used with allusion to Sir. xlviii. i
" Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, and his word burned like
a lamp." Comp. Jn v. 35 "he [i.e. John the Baptist] was the lamp
that burneth [i.e. is burned] and shineth," 6 Av^i/os 6 Kai6p.fvos KOI
<paivav. Even when Luke is describing idle popular talk, he
perhaps prefers not to write that Jesus "is Elias," but rather to
use a phrase that suggests "shone forth" as well as "appeared"
(comp. Lk. i. 17 "in the spirit and power of Elias") so as to imply,
not identity of person, but similarity of glory.
191 (Mark vi. 14 16)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
the dead" as above, but "risen"; and the parallel Luke has
"John I beheaded: but who is this... 1 ?"
It will be found in the next section that the Lucan word
"much-perplexed," applied here to Herod's perplexity after
John's death, recurs in Mark in a shorter form, "perplexed"
but applied to Herod's relations with his living prisoner, John,
and probably in quite a different sense 2 . It will also be found
that, whereas Mark describes Herod as "fearing John" (that
is, as respecting him) and as "keeping him safe," the parallel
Matthew says that Herod would have put John to death, but
"he feared the multitude." These confusions, and the fact
that in all the Synoptists prominence is given to Herod a name
never mentioned in the Fourth Gospel might lead us to
anticipate that John would not intervene here in any way,
directly or indirectly. He generally intervenes where Luke
differs from Mark. But here Luke agrees with Mark more
closely than Matthew does. That is another reason for not
expecting Johannine intervention.
There are two sentences, however, one in Mark, and one in
Mark and Matthew, as to which we might expect Johannine
intervention because Luke omits them. The first is "for his
name had become manifest." This seems to mean that the
name of Jesus had been unknown to Herod, or obscure, up to
this time, but that now after the death of John the Baptist,
and after Jesus had sent out the Twelve to preach and heal
it became, or had become, so far manifest that Herod heard of
1 If Mark's original had some brief expression like "Whom I
beheaded, John this [is] he," it might branch out into the present
Marcan and Lucan texts. For clearness, (i) Mark might supply
"is risen" (shortened as a repetition of the previous "risen from the
dead"), (2) Luke, taking the sentence interrogatively, and regarding
the relative as an error for the interrogative, might read "Who
[for] I have beheaded John is this ? " Then he might supply
"about whom I hear such things."
2 Lk. ix. 7 dirjTTopfi, Mk vi. 20 tjTropei. See p. 199 foil.
192 (Mark vi. 14 16)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
it 1 . This is altered by Matthew into "Herod. . .had heard the
report about Jesus 2 /' without any previous contextual mention
of the works of the Twelve. Luke substitutes a perfectly
neutral phrase "heard all the things that were being done,"
that is, done by the Apostles, who are described in the previous
verse as "healing everywhere 3 ."
The second sentence is, in Mark and Matthew, "For this
cause the [miraculous'} powers work-inwardly in him [i.e. in
Jesus]*," where the "cause" has been previously expressed, in
Mark by "John the baptizer is raised from the dead," but in
Matthew by "This is John the Baptist, he [himself] is raised
from the dead."
In both these cases the Fourth Gospel appears to intervene.
As to the former, it tells us that even before the arrest of the
Baptist, Jesus was making more converts than those made by
John, and that this fact was known to the Pharisees 5 , so that
1 Mk VI. 14 fjnovfrev 6 (BaaiXevs 'UpcoBrjs, (fravepbv yap eye'vero TO ovofj.a
aurov. We are not told what Herod "heard," but Mark's text
suggests that it was the previously mentioned wonders worked by
the apostles (Mk vi. 13). If they were worked (comp. Jas. v. 14)
"in the name" of their Master, then the meaning would be "For
by reason of the works performed in His name, the name of Jesus
became manifest."
"He" (meaning Jesus) has not been mentioned since Mk vi. 10
"and he said unto them." Hence "for his name had become known "
presents itself very abruptly to the reader. It is likely to have been
altered by Matthew and Luke on that account, apart from other
reasons.
2 Mt. xiv. i rjnovo-fv . . .TTJV a.Kor)v 'Irjvov. R.V. "report," but A.V.
"fame," both here and in Mt. iv. 24 airr^Xdev f) a<o?) avrov els O\TJV T^V
Svpiav. Some word between "report" and "fame" is needed to
express OKO^ in this context.
3 Lk. ix. 7 fj<ovav ra yivopeva tvavra, referring to ib. ix. 6 ... Otpa-
7TVOVTS TTaVTU^OV.
4 Mk vi. 14 (sim. Mt. xiv. 2) /ecu dia TOVTO Vpyov(riv at dvvdp,is eV
aura).
5 Jn iv. i. Comp. iii. 22, which implies that the disciples of
Christ, at that time, when baptizing in Christ's name, or under
Christ's direction, remained in His neighbourhood.
A. L. 193 (Mark vi. 14 16) 13
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
some time before the Baptist's death, the "name" of Jesus
would probably be "manifest" to all those who knew the name
of the Baptist. As to the latter the notion that Christ's
miracles were in some way the result of the Baptist's rising
from the dead the Fourth Gospel puts into the mouth of
"many" of the people words that expose its absurdity: "And
many came unto him [i.e. Jesus] and they said, John indeed
did no sign, but all things whatsoever John spake of this man
were true 1 ."
Luke, in this description of idle sayings about the Baptist
and Jesus, inserts a saying that Jesus was Elijah, and another
that He was an ancient prophet risen again. Herein he
resembles or follows Mark. The Fourth Gospel represents the
Baptist as being expressly questioned whether he was "Elijah,"
and whether he was "the prophet," and as returning to both
questions an express negative 2 . It also indirectly meets the
absurd notion that "power" passed out of the Baptist into
Jesus by teaching, in effect, that the power, or nature, of
Jesus was of a different kind from the Baptist's. The Baptist's
last words (it says) were that Jesus "must increase" while he
himself "must decrease 3 ." But this, the Evangelist implies, did
not mean that Jesus was to receive, in larger measure, similar
power to the Baptist's. The power was to be of a different
kind. The Baptist, though the friend of the Bridegroom, was
"of the earth" whereas Jesus was "from above 4 ." The same
thing is said later on by Jesus Himself in a different metaphor,
describing John as "the lamp that burneth and shineth " whereas
Jesus is "the light of the world 5 ."
1 Jn x. 41.
3 Jn iii. 30.
6 J n v - 35
2 Jn i. 21.
* Jn iii. 31.
(Joh. Gr. 2275 b), viii. 12.
194 (Mark vi. 14 16)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
2. The cause of the Baptist's death 1
The part alleged to have been played by Herodias and her
daughter in bringing about the Baptist's death is not mentioned
1 Mk vi. 17 29
(R.V.)
(17) For Herod
himself had sent
forth and laid hold
upon John, and
bound him in prison
for the sake of
Herodias, his brother
Philip's wife : for he
had married her.
(18) For John
said unto Herod, It
is not lawful for thee
to have thy brother's
wife.
(19) And Hero-
dias set herself
against him, and de-
sired to kill him ; and
she could not ;
(20) For Herod
feared John, know-
ing that he was a
righteous man and a
holy, and kept him
safe. And when he
heard him, he was
much perplexed
(many anc. auth. did
many things) ; and
he heard him gladly.
(21) And when a
convenient day was
come, that Herod on
his birthday made a
supper to his lords,
and the high cap-
tains (lit. chiliarchs),
and the chief men of
Galilee ;
(22) And when
the daughter of Hero-
dias (some anc. auth.
his daughter Hero-
dias) herself came in
and danced, she (or,
Mt. xiv. 3 12
(R.V.)
(3) For Herod had
laid hold on John,
and bound him, and
put him in prison for
the sake of Herodias,
his brother Philip's
wife.
(4) For John said
unto him, It is not
lawful for thee to
have her.
(5) And when he
would have put him
to death, he feared
the multitude, be-
cause they counted
him as a prophet.
(6) But when
Herod's birthday
came,
Lk. iii. 1 8 20
(R.V.)
(18) With many
other exhortations
therefore preached he
good tidings (or, the
gospel) unto the peo-
ple;
(19) But Herod
the tetrarch, being
reproved by him for
Herodias his broth-
er's wife, and for all
the evil things which
Herod had done,
(20) Added yet
this above all, that
he shut up John in
prison.
the daughter of Hero-
dias danced in the
midst, and pleased
Herod.
(7) Whereupon
he promised with
195 (Mark vi. 17 29) 13 2
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
by Josephus. He says merely that Herod Antipas imprison(
and executed the prophet because he was too influential wi1
Mk vi. 17 29
(R.V.) contd.
it) pleased Herod
and them that sat at
meat with him ; and
the king said unto
the damsel, Ask of
me whatsoever thou
wilt, and I will give
it thee.
(23) And he sware
unto her, whatsoever
thou shalt ask of me,
I will give it thee,
unto the half of my
kingdom.
(24) And she
went out, and said
unto her mother,
What shall I ask?
And she said, The
John the
(lit. the
head of
Baptist
Baptizer
(25) '
And she
came in straightway
with haste unto the
king, and asked, say-
ing, I will that thou
forthwith give me in
a charger the head of
John the Baptist (lit.
the Baptizer).
(26) And the king
was exceeding sorry ;
but for the sake of
his oaths, and of
them that sat at
meat, he would not
reject her.
(27) And straight-
way the king sent
forth a soldier of his
guard, and command-
ed to bring his head :
and he went and
beheaded him in the
prison,
(28) And brought
his head in a charger,
Mt. xiv. 3 12
(R.V.) contd.
an oath to give
her whatsoever she
should ask.
(8) And she, be-
ing put forward by
her mother, saith,
Give me here in a
charger the head of
John the Baptist.
Lk. iii. 1 8 20
(R.V.)
(9) And the king
was grieved ; but for
the sake of his oaths,
and of them which
sat at meat with him,
he commanded it to
be given ;
(10) And he sent,
and beheaded John
in the prison.
(n) And his head
was brought in a
charger, and given
to the damsel: and
she brought it to her
mother.
(12) And his dis-
196 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
the people 1 . But we cannot doubt that Mark's story about
Herod's oath possibly a prearranged "oath" represents
what people in Galilee believed to have been (and what probably
was) the historical fact that the life of the last of the Jewish
prophets was openly and publicly sacrificed for a dance 2 . This
belief must have powerfully influenced the multitude in their
feelings and expectations about Jesus. Many patriotic Jews
among His admirers would be alienated from Him when His
tacit refusal to make any effort at a rescue resulted in the
prophet's brutal and ignominious execution. As soon as
Christ's own disciples heard of the news of the murder, the
first impulse of many of them would be to exclaim "Surely
our Master must do something now. Surely He will avenge the
Prophet on this false king, this 'king Herod 3 .' Why do we
not make the Son of David king?"
Mk vi. 17 29 Mt. xiv. 3 12 Lk. iii. 18 20
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.) contd. (R,V.)
and gave it to the ciples came, and took
damsel; and the up the corpse, and
damsel gave it to her buried him ; and
mother. they went and told
(29) And when Jesus,
his disciples heard
[thereof], they came
and took up his
corpse, and laid it in
a tomb.
1 See Son 33386 quoting Josephus Ant. xviii. 5. 2, and adding
"Very likely there was an 'oath,' but a prearranged 'oath.'"
2 It has been urged that the daughter of Herodias could not
have been young enough to be a Kopdo-tov at the time of the dancing.
But see Schiirer I. ii. 28 for the facts that induce him to conclude
" Just the weakest point in the Gospel story is proved on more careful
examination to be not improbable."
3 Why does Mk vi. 14 foil, call Herod Antipas "king" and
that, too, five times? Everyone knew that he was never "king,"
except in a will made by his father (Joseph. Bell. i. 32. 7) and
afterwards (ib. i. 33. 7) cancelled. When Antipas, persuaded by
Herodias, came to Rome with a petition to be made "king" (ib. ii.
9. 6) he was deprived of his tetrarchy and banished to Spain. In his
own palace, he was perhaps called "king" by his courtiers. If so,
197 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
This would accord with the project recorded in the Fourth
Gospel alone as occurring about this time to make Jesus a
"king 1 ." Jesus frustrated it by withdrawing. Soon after-
wards we hear that many of His disciples abandoned Him.
The Gospel says it was because of Christ's "hard saying "-
the doctrine of the giving of His flesh and blood for the
world 2 . But that does not exclude other, and perhaps more
powerful causes. If Jesus had put Himself at the head of a
band of Galilaeans bent on avenging the Baptist, the mass of
His followers would not have been deterred from following
Him by any "hard sayings." They would abandon Jesus (we
may feel sure) not only because He seemed to talk dreams like
Ezekiel the prophet of parables 3 , but also because He did not'do
deeds, such as they expected from the Messianic Son of David.
These Marcan details, though historically true and drama-
tically interesting, tend to divert attention from Jesus to the
Baptist. Mark may most accurately represent the contem-
porary gossip of Galilee laying the blame for the prophet's
death rather on Herodias than on Herod; yet we cannot be
surprised that in subsequent Gospels his early narrative was
condensed or omitted as not being history. Luke, the historian,
wholly omits it. Yet there remains one faint trace of Luke's
recognition of Mark's narrative in one tell-tale similarity of
phrase. It lies in Luke's and Mark's accounts of Herod's
"perplexity," touched on above, but worthy of a little more
notice here, because it may give us insight into the original
form of the narrative.
Mark speaks of frequent interviews between Herod and the
Baptist in language that recalls the interviews between Paul
there may be a tinge of irony in Mark's fivefold mention of the title.
Comp. Paul's speech to a real "king" in Acts xxvi. 2 27 and note
how he repeats "king" six times. Jews in the first century were
keenly alive to the distinction between a "king" and a "tetrarch."
1 Jn vi. 15. z Jn vi. 60.
3 Ezek. xx. 49 "They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?'
198 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
and Felix in the Acts, and also conversations between Rabbis
and Roman Emperors mentioned in the Talmuds 1 . In Paul's
case, though Felix was at first "terrified," the result was that
he kept Paul in prison for two years and left him there, after
repeatedly trying to get money out of him. His conscience
does not appear to have been touched. The Rabbis are often
described as being subjected in interviews to searching questions,
of the nature of a "dilemma," "poser," "puzzle," or "per-
plexity," from which they emerge triumphant.
Now the verb (aporeiri) here used by Mark about Herod is
used, from Aristotle downwards, to mean "raise a difficulty (or,
objection) " in a philosophic discussion 2 . It is used transitively
by Irenaeus to describe how Jesus (according to certain heretics)
"posed" the Pharisees by a question 3 . Clement of Alexandria
says that an Indian Gymnosophist was "posed" by Alexander
with the query "How shall a man best attain love 4 ?" The
Clementine Homilies use the word (along with "shouting down ")
as meaning "bring to a standstill^."
This interpretation of aporein is consistent with Mark's
addition of "many things," which he often uses with verbs of
teaching, exhorting, etc., to imply repeated utterances, and not
to mean "much" in the sense of "deeply 6 ." The difficulty
1 See Acts xxiv. 24 7 and Levy i. 33, and 107 8 (on Hadrian
and Antoninus).
2 See L.S. and the Index to Plutarch which gives diropelv as
"disputare" (as well as "dubitare"). 'ATrop^a means an "ob-
jection" thus raised.
3 Iren. i. 20. 2.
Clem. Alex. 759 aTroprjQfis (Clark "posed with the query"),
comp. ib. 788 ro irpbs TO>V aipfTiK&v drropovpevov "the dilemma put by
heretics."
& Clem. Hom. i. II Karaaic^Trav KCU aTropelv avrbv . . .coy fldpftapov
Tiva $aip.ova)VTa.
* Comp. TroXXa with verbs of speech in Mk i. 45, iv. 2, vi. 34,
xv. 3. Perhaps also we should render Mk ix. 26 TroXXa trirapiigas
"having repeatedly convulsed him." In Mk v. 10, -rrapfKaka, avrbv
TroXXa implies both repetition and urgency.
199 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
presented by the Marcan aporein has probably caused Matthew
to omit it and has certainly caused many authorities to read it
as poiein ("he did many things," i.e. did good deeds at the
Baptist's suggestion) 1 . And the same difficulty has probably
caused Luke to prefix dia to aporein, so as to mean "much-
perplexed," and to transfer it to another context where Herod
is said to have been "much perplexed," not by what the living
prophet said to him, but by what people said about the dead
prophet and his apparent successor, Jesus of Nazareth 2 .
Mark's narrative bears the stamp of consistent truth, not
necessarily historical truth, but popular truth, noised about,
first in Galilee and then in the Church at Rome. In Rome, the
death of the Baptist by the orders of Herod but at the instigation
of Herodias, could not but remind Roman Christians of the
death of Cicero by the orders of Mark Antony but (as people
said) at the instigation of his wife Fulvia 3 . According to Mark
and Mark alone, Herod exclaimed "The John whom I beheaded
is risen 4 ." This was the same John whom he had kept as an
interesting prisoner, "hearing him with pleasure," though
1 So R.V. marg. and inferior Gk MSS with Syr. and Lat. versions.
So Daniel (iv. 27), in effect, suggests to Nebuchadnezzar that he will
be wise to do "many things," especially almsgiving.
2 Lk. ix. 7 8ir)Tr6pi. Comp. Acts v. 24, x. 17 dirj-rropow (-), and
ib. ii. 12 dirjTTopowTo denoting perplexity about marvels apparently
supernatural. AiaTropew (Steph. Thes.) has the same meanings as
dTropfdi but is not so often used as oTropeo) to denote a philosophic
and dispassionate "objection."
3 See Mayor's Notes on Juvenal x. 120 '"It is said that Antony
set Cicero's head before the table at his meal, till he had glutted
himself with the sight.' Fulvia, another Herodias [Hieron. in
Rufin. iii. 42], spat upon the head, took it on her knees, and stabbed
the tongue with her hair pin, D Cass. xlvii. 8 3 4." Cicero had
alluded (2 Philipp. v. n) to Fulvia as the "fate" of her three
husbands, Antony being the third. This makes Fulvia's act prob-
able, though Plutarch omits it.
4 Mk vi. 1 6 rjyepdr). 'EK vcKp>v has to be supplied from vi. 14
eyfyrjyfprai CK venpatv and is inserted in the text by A.V. following
some MSS.
200 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
"raising many objections" to his doctrines. There is an
antecedent probability in such a cry of the conscience as Mark
seems to attribute to Herod: "I took pleasure in arguing
against his doctrine, and against the doctrine of the rising
of the dead, and now God has raised him up to punish me for
his death 1 /'
Among minute indications of the early and popular character
of Mark's whole narrative, there is (as has been noted above)
his repeated use of "king," applied to Herod 2 a title altered
by Matthew and Luke into "tetrarch," though Matthew
subsequently falls (once) into the use of the Marcan title. But
it is to the internal evidence of the narrative as a whole that we
must mainly look for the demonstration of its early date to
its disordered sentences, its digressiveness, and its dispropor-
tionate diffuseness, natural in some Petrine story especially
if Peter had been one of the Baptist's disciples but unsuited
for Luke the historian, and for John the Evangelist of the
Word of God compared with whom the Baptist was but "a
voice."
Luke deals very freely with such Marcan fragments as he
selects. As for Herodias, he merely makes mention of her
marriage in connection with "all the evil things that Herod had
done" and places it before the baptism of Jesus and at the
end of his account of John the Baptist, whom, he says, Herod
"shut up in prison 3 ." As for the Baptist's death, the only
Lucan mention of it is in "John have I beheaded," discussed
above. There is no suggestion that Herod said anything about
a resurrection from the dead. Indeed the notion that he said
this and that his conscience was stricken is inconsistent with
1 In Matthew, Herod says "he is risen from the dead" but not
"whom I beheaded." In Luke, Herod says "John I beheaded"
but not "he is risen from the dead." Mark has both.
2 Mk vi. 14, 22, 25, 26, 27 /3a<riAevy, Mt. xiv. i and Lk. ix. 7
TfTpaapxTjs, Mt. xiv. 9 (3acri\fvs. See above, p. 197, n. 3.
3 Lk. iii. 18 20.
201 (Mark vi. 17 29)
JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DEATH
what follows "But who is this about whom I hear such things?
And he sought to see him." These words prepare the way for
a tradition peculiar to Luke, and inserted by him much later
on, that Herod did actually see Jesus and "mocked him with
his men of war" a story probably resulting from a misunder-
standing 1 , but still affording evidence as to Luke's view, namely,
that Herod Antipas had not been touched by any remorse for
the execution of the Baptist.
The Johannine method resembles the Lucan in the brevity
of its only allusion to the Baptist's imprisonment ("John was
not yet cast into prison 2 "). But it differs in this respect, that
it makes no mention at all of "beheading" or of execution in
any form. If the works of Josephus and the Synoptists had
perished we should never have known from the Fourth Gospel
how or when the Baptist died. We should have known only
that his last recorded words were about Jesus "He must
increase, but I must decrease 3 ."
1 See Clue 55 60, and Son 3183 cd on "Luke's attitude to
Herod Antipas."
* Jn iii. 24.
3 Jn iii. 30 [Jn iii. 31 6 is probably the Evangelist's comment,
and not the words of the Baptist, see Joh. Gr. Pref. p. viii]. In Luke,
the last recorded words of the Baptist are (Lk. vii. 19) "Art thou
he that is to come, or look we for another?"
202 (Mark vi. 17 29)
CHAPTER VIII
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
[Mark vi. 29 44, viii. I 9, viii. 14 21]
[See p. 208, n. i]
i. The complexity of the evidence
THE study of Christ's miracles of feeding is complicated by
Jewish peculiarities not only of thought but also of expression.
For example, the Feeding of the Five Thousand challenges
some kind of comparison (such as we find in the Fourth Gospel)
with the giving of the manna in the wilderness 1 . Now con-
cerning the latter it is said in Exodus "The people shall go out
and gather (lit.) the word of the day in its day 2 ." That is to
say, the amount necessary for the day was to be gathered on
that same day. It was also to be eaten on that same day.
None of it was to be left till next morning 3 .
According to the texts of our English Versions, the Lord's
Prayer, instead of saying "Give us the bread of the day in its
day," says "Give us this day our daily bread," or "Give us day
by day our daily bread*." But these appear to be Christian
1 Jn vi. 31.
2 Exod. xvi. 4. The Heb. for "word" often means "thing" or
"matter." LXX omits it, TO TTJS f)p.6pas els ypepav, Vulg. "quae
sufficiunt per singulos dies." Aq. inserts avTfjs after ripepav.
3 Exod. xvi. 19.
4 Mt. vi. II TOV apTov f)pa>v TOV 7riov(rioit'dbs TJ/JLIV a-rj^pov, Lk. xi. 3
TOV apTov TJ/JLWV TOV fTrioixriov didov rjplv TO K.a.0* f)[Jipav. The pres. imperat.
denotes continuous action. A.V. marg. in Lk. has "for the day"
instead of "day by day." R.V. marg. in both has " Gr. our bread
for the coming day " instead of "our daily bread."
203 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
attempts to render in Greek some Aramaic expression corre-
sponding to the Hebrew of Exodus. For Origen tells us that
the Greek for "daily," epiousios, did not exist till it came into
use in the Lord's Prayer. It is a word of irregular formation
and doubtful meaning of which he gives two interpretations,
(i) "sufficient for our existence," (2) "fit for future [time],"
that is, "fit for the next world 1 ." Matthew makes the prayer
one for a special giving and for a special day, "Give (aorist) us
to-day " ; Luke makes it a prayer for continuous giving for every
day, "Give (pres.) us [continually] day by day 2 ."
The Jews themselves differed in their interpretations of the
passage in Exodus. R. Joshua said that they were to collect
from one day to the next as one does from the sabbath-pre-
paration-day to the sabbath itself; R. Eleazar denied this 3 .
In a prayer of this kind, "the bread of the day" might have
meanings varying with the time of day when it was uttered
and with the time from which one reckoned "the day" as
beginning, whether at sunrise as in nature, or at midnight as
among the moderns, or at sunset as among the Jews. There
are good reasons for concluding that, in the Lord's Prayer, the
Greek word that we render "daily" meant "belonging to the
day that is now coming on," which would be specially appropriate
to a prayer uttered in the early morning. But the conclusion
could not easily be reached without studying the ancient
precept in Exodus 4 .
1 See Origen De Or at. 27.
z Comp. Lk. ix. 23 "take up his cross daily," where the parall.
Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24 omit "daily."
3 See Mechilt. on Exod. xvi. 4.
4 In Exodus (xvi. 13, 14) the manna comes with "the morning"
and "the dew." See Steph. Thes. iii. 1460 for passages shewing
that f) eTTiovo-a, sometimes without fj/jiepa, means the day that is
"coming on" and will arrive in a few hours or minutes, where avptov,
"the morrow," would sound too formal. Also comp. Prov. xxvii. i
(Heb.) "Boast not thyself of (lit.) [the] day [that is] to-morrow
(LXX ra els avptov), for thou knowest not what a day (LXX 17
may bring forth." Here, and here alone, the LXX has
204 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Passing to the Gospels we find that whereas in Mark
(followed by Luke) Jesus is described as sending out the
with Heb. equiv. (in Prov. iii. 28 it is corrupt) and the
meaning is declared by Rashi to be "to-day" ("forsitan hodie accidet
aliquid mali quod aboleat cogitationes de die crastino ") ; Walton
also renders the Targ. KEV as "hodierna dies." R. Eleazar said
(Mechilt. on Exod. xvi. 4) "He that hath what he shall eat to-day,
and saith, 'What shall I eat to-morrow?' is of little faith." From
eTTiovo-a there appears to have been constructed an irregular adj.
e-movo-ios meaning "belonging to the coming day." In fVioCcra, "on-
coming," 7Ti means "on"; but in many compound words it means
"fit," as in eTriTepTrrjs, "fit to please," and eViotjonos- may possibly
have conveyed to those who first used it a duplicated meaning,
"fit (or, sufficient], for the on-coming day."
occurs in LXX elsewhere only in Deut. xxxii. 29 els TOV
, Heb. "their latter-end (DrPTIN)," Aq. els eV^ar^v avrcov,
and i Chr. xx. i eV rw eVaWt eVet, Heb. "at the time of the return of
the year," Vulg. "post anni circulum," Syr. "anno sequenti," A.V.
"after the year was expired."
These variations may be illustrated from Jas. ii. 15 rrjs e<pr)-
pepov rpocpfjs, R.V. "of daily food," on which Field says "More
correctly, 'of the day's supply of food,' as distinguished from T^S K.aG*
fj/jifpav rpo(f)rjs." These two renderings, in effect, correspond to
Matthew's and Luke's renderings of the petition for bread in the
Lord's Prayer. And it is probable that the original Aramaic of that
petition is best represented by Matthew, and is based on the precept
about the manna "the word of the day in its day," that is, "the day's
supply in the same day."
Field (on Jas. ii. 15) quotes from Menander a line contrasting
the life that is e^rjuepos, i.e. "dependent on the day's supply," with the
life that has irfpiovo-ia, i.e. "superabundance." From this it follows
that eViovo-io?, when meaning ecp^epos, might suggest a popular
contrast with Trepiovo-ios, so that, as the latter implied "above
sufficiency," the former might mean "fit for sufficiency."
Some confusion of this kind might be facilitated by the Heb-
raized use of ova-ia to mean (Levy i. 43 b) "property " in various senses.
But minor causes of varying interpretation must not divert us
from the main and almost sufficient cause, namely, that the petition
originally referred to the saying in the Law, "the word of the day
in its day." The same ambiguity that varied the interpretation of
the clause in the Law might also vary its interpretation in the Gospel.
That the "bread" was (at all events primarily) spiritual may be inferred
from the context in the Prayer and from Christ's doctrine as a whole.
205 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Apostles with the precept "take no bread," Matthew omits
the prohibition, and the Didach6 limits it ("no bread except
[to suffice] till a lodging is found for the night") 1 . The only
other Marcan instance of "bread" in words of Christ is in the
saying "It is not fit to take the children's bread and cast it to
the dogs 2 ." Reasons have been given for thinking that these
words may have belonged, in the original tradition, to the
disciples, and that they have been assigned to Jesus by error 3 .
But in any case they are metaphorical and do not clearly shew
what is beneath the metaphor 4 .
We may fairly say that we do not find in Mark a single
instance where Jesus is described as inculcating a doctrine of
Bread. And yet we know, not only from the Lord's Prayer,
but also from other passages in Matthew and Luke, as well as
from copious discourses in John, that such a doctrine must
have existed. Mark seems to hint at some hidden truth or
mystery when he says concerning the disciples, shortly after
the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Walking on the
Sea, "For they understood not in the matter of the loaves,
but their heart had been hardened (or, made callous 5 )." But
he does not tell us what the mystery was.
1 These passages, which have been discussed above (p. 159) under
Mk vi. 8, are mentioned here merely in order to shew the necessity of
discussing verbal detail in Mark.
2 Mk vii. 27. This statement refers only to apros sing. Mk viii. 17
has the pi., and the literal rendering is "ye have not loaves."
3 See Son 3353 (iv) a foil.
4 The woman's desire was that Jesus should heal her daughter.
How this healing could "take the bread of the children" away from
the children is not clear, unless the meaning was that Christ's energy
was limited, and that, if part of it were bestowed on Syrophoenicians.
less would remain for Jews. More probably "take and cast" is
rhetorically used for "cast," i.e. give it to the dogs as well. This
is not the sort of saying that one would assign to Jesus even as a
beneficent trial of the woman's faith.
5 Mk vi. 52 oi yap crvvfJKciv eVt rots aprois 1 , dXX' rjv avr&v f) KCipdia
7Tf7ru>p<i)fjievrj. On Trco'paxm, " callousness," see Proclamation p. 362 foil.
206 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
These considerations should prepare us for a more than
usually patient and laborious investigation of Mark's words
and phrases in connection with Christ's feeding of the multi-
tudes, while we attempt to ascertain what was the nature of
this "callousness of the heart" and what was the nature of the
truth "in the matter of the loaves," which truth, in consequence
of the "callousness," the disciples "understood not 1 ."
There will be the usual temptation to explain everything
from one cause. And the cause to which many facts appear
to point will be found to be poetic metaphor. But there is
also the possibility of error arising from antedating post-
resurrection al acts and words of Christ 2 . And we shall have
to remember that even in pre-Christian days there was already
established the homely but sacred meal connected with the
Kiddush, or Sanctification of the Sabbath 3 . It may be taken
as certain that Jesus, in some form, celebrated the Kiddush
on many occasions with His disciples ; and it is probable that
on some occasions He extended it to the sanctification of
other days, and admitted strangers to the meal. Such cele-
brations, when related in the language of poetic metaphor
and with allusions to such admissions of thousands at a time
into the Church as are described in the Acts of the Apostles
might account for much that could not be explained as the
result of metaphor alone.
1 I dismiss, as unworthy of consideration, the notion that it
meant that the disciples ought to have learned from the multipli-
cation of the loaves that Jesus could do whatever He liked, and
therefore that they were culpably foolish and faithless in being
astonished that He could walk upon water.
2 See " Post-resurrectional " in Indices of Son and Proclamation
and the present volume, and see Proclam. pp. i, 56-7 concerning a
miraculous draught of fishes, placed by Luke before, but by John
after, Christ's resurrection. See also above, pp. 52-3.
3 On the Kiddush, see The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue
(Oesterley and Box) p. 346 foil.
207 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
There are no less than seven accounts of miraculous feeding
in the Gospels : (i) the Feeding of the Five Thousand, related
by four evangelists, (2) that of the Four Thousand, related by
two, (3) that of the seven disciples (after Christ's resurrection)
related by one. Mark (followed by Matthew) besides giving
two of these accounts, adds a comment 1 . He represents
Jesus as referring to two of the miracles thus: "When I brake
the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets
(cophinoi) full of broken pieces took ye up ? .... And when the
seven among the four thousand, how* many full baskel
(sphurides) of broken pieces took ye up 2 ?" Here Jesus is
described as distinguishing, not only the two actions and the
numbers affected by them, but even the two kinds of "baskets"
used on the two occasions.
Philo, in his treatise on the Feast of the Baskets meaning
the baskets of the firstfruits mentioned in Deuteronomy says
that it extended over about half the year, being "at two
seasons 3 ." He appears to mean the "season" of the corn
harvest (including the barley harvest which came first in late
spring) and the "season" of "fruits," strictly so called, which
extended to the autumn. The Hebrew for the "basket"
mentioned in Deuteronomy is different from that used by
1 Mk vi. 29 44, after describing (a) what immediately followed
the death of John the Baptist, describes (b) the Feeding of the
Five Thousand ; Mk viii. i 9 describes (c) the Feeding of the Four
Thousand; Mk viii. 14 21 describes (d) Jesus as reproaching the
disciples for not learning what they ought to have learned from
these two actions. These Marcan passages, with their parallels, will
be found below, (a) p. 216, (b) pp. 269, 283, 297, 315, 336, 348,
(C) pp. 263, 269, 283, 297, 315, 336, 348, (d) pp. 210-11.
z Mk viii. 19 20, Mt. xvi. 9 10, omitted by Luke.
3 See Philo ii. 298 foil. De Fest. Coph. 3 where he says that the
SOng of the baskets (KapraXXcov) is Sung SU<TI Kaipols 6\OK\^p^ pepa.
rj/jiio-fi TOV eviavTov. He is referring to Dent. xxvi. 2 4 <al fnfiaXcls fls
KcipTaX\ov...\T)\lfeTai 6 iepfvs TOV KapraXXov. The LXX omits "all" in
" all the fruits of the land," but Philo seems to assume that its
inclusion is implied.
208 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Jeremiah, speaking of the vintage, "as a grape-gatherer into
the baskets 1 ." This suggests that something more than a mere
literal difference between two kinds of "baskets" may be
intended in the two Marcan narratives of feeding possibly some
allusion to the firstfruits of the cornfields and to those of the
vineyards and orchards, taken metaphorically as applicable to
the ingathering of converts into the Church of Christ.
2. Traces of metaphor underlying the narratives about
the "baskets"
The last-quoted words of Jesus about the two kinds of
"baskets" follow a warning in Mark (and a similar one in
Matthew) addressed by Jesus to the disciples, "And he charged
them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and the leaven of Herod." This the disciples take literally,
saying "We have no loaves/' Jesus rebukes them for their
literalism, reminding them of the cophinoi and the sphurides
and saying "Do ye not yet understand?" In Mark the
connection is obscure. But it is made clearer by Matthew, who
represents Jesus as saying "How is it that ye do not perceive
that I spake not to you concerning loaves? But beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" Afterwards Matthew
adds "Then understood they how that he bade them not
beware of the leaven of loaves, but of the teaching of the Pharisees
and Sadducees."
This, though clear, leads us to think of metaphorical loaves
as well as metaphorical leaven. If the "leaven" is the formal
teaching by which the Pharisees vitiated the Law, then it
would seem that the "loaves," metaphorically regarded, are
the Law itself. In that case, might not the "five loaves" be
the five books of the Law "broken up" and explained to the
multitude, piece by piece?
1 Jer. vi. 9, so R.V. txt, Targ., LXX, Rashi, and Jerome. In
Deut. xxvi. 3, Jer. Targ. has (Etheridge) "baskets, hampers, and
paper cases."
A. L. 209 (Mark vi. 29 44) 14
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
This will be considered later on. Meanwhile we mu<
add that there is a difficulty in the mention of a perplexity about
"leaven" at a time of the year when, according to Synoptic
chronology, no question of leavened or unleavened bread could
arise. The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were
not then at hand. Why should the disciples suppose that their
Master warned them against literal "leaven," at a season when
literal leaven was quite lawful? It is not surprising that Luke
omits all the Mark-Matthew tradition about "loaves." He
retains merely a warning against "leaven" as given below 1 .
1 In the parallel passages printed below, and for the most part
in others printed in footnotes, R.V. text is followed (with a very few
occasional deviations indicated by brackets) as being convenient for
rapid reference enabling the reader to take a broad view of the
subject under consideration. But in the detailed study of the
Greek text, R.V. text is frequently departed from.
Mkviii. 14 2 1 (R.V.)
(14) And they
forgot to take
bread (lit. loaves) ;
and they had not in
the boat with them
more than one loaf.
(15) And he
charged them, say-
ing, Take heed, be-
ware of the leaven of
the Pharisees and the
leaven of Herod.
(16) And they
reasoned one with
another, saying, We
have no bread (lit.
loaves).
(17) And Jesus
perceiving it saith
unto them , Why
reason ye, because
ye have no bread
(lit. loaves) ? do ye
not yet perceive,
neither understand ?
have ye your heart
hardened ?
(18) Having eyes,
Mt. xvi. 512 (R.V.)
(5) And the
disciples came to the
other side and forgot
to take bread (lit.
loaves) .
(6) And Jesus
said unto them, Take
heed and beware of
the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sad-
ducees.
(7) And they
reasoned among
themselves, saying,
We took no bread
(lit. loaves).
(8) And Jesus
perceiving it said, O
ye of little faith, why
reason ye among
yourselves, because
ye have no bread
(lit. loaves) ?
(9) Do ye not
yet perceive, neither
remember the five
loaves of the five
thousand, and how
Lk. xii. i (R.V.)
In the mean-
time, when the many
thousands of the mul-
titude were gathered
together, insomuch
that they trode one
upon another, he
began to say unto
his disciples first of
all, Beware ye of the
leaven of the Phari-
sees, which is hy-
pocrisy.
210 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Besides the Lucan omission of all that part of Mark which
connects "leaven" with the feeding of the two multitudes, it
will be seen below that there is a remarkable lacuna in Matthew.
He omits "they had not in the boat with them more than one
loaf." The omission is not surprising. Though Mark often
deals in picturesque superfluities, few of his details are so
apparently superfluous as this if taken literally. But, if we
can regard it as an ancient symbolical tradition, inserted here
as if it were literally true, then it may become both intelligible
and interesting. Paul speaks of "one loaf, one body" in
connection with "the loaf that we break" in the Christian
Eucharist 1 . John also describes Jesus, after the Resurrection,
as feeding seven disciples on a fish and "a loaf 2 ." It seems a
reasonable supposition that Mark has here preserved, out of
Mkviii.i 4 2i(R.V.)
contd.
see ye not? and
having ears, hear ye
not? and do ye not
remember ?
(19) When I
brake the five loaves
among the five
thousand, how many
baskets f full of
broken pieces took
ye up? They say
unto him, Twelve.
(20) And when
the seven among the
four thousand, how
many basketfulsf of
broken pieces took ye
up? And they say
unto him, Seven.
(21) And he
said unto them, Do
ye not yet under-
stand ?
Mt. xvi. 512 (R.V.)
contd.
many baskets f ye
took up?
(10) Neither the
seven loaves of the
four thousand, and
how many baskets f
ye took up?
(n) How is it
that ye do not per-
ceive that I spake
not to you con-
cerning bread (lit.
loaves) ? But be-
ware of the leaven of
the Pharisees and
Sadducees.
(12) Then under-
stood they how that
he bade them not
beware of the leaven
of bread (lit. loaves),
but of the teaching
of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.
Lk. xii. i (R.V.
f N.B. "Baskets," when first mentioned = cophinoi, when next
mentioned = sphurides.
1 i Cor. x. 16 17.
2 Jn xxi. 9, 13. On the sing, "loaf," see Son 3422 i.
211 (Mark vi. 29 44) 14 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
" ! . .,,..-... . ,.
place, a symbolical tradition of weighty and solemn meanin|
of which he has misunderstood the weight and importanc
This hypothesis is at all events more probable than to supp(
that Mark has preserved, in its place, a literal detail that never
had any importance at all. Matthew's rejection of it may then
be explained because he believed it to be out of its right place,
and so wrongly placed as to give a false impression which he
could not correct. If this hypothesis is accepted, the Marcan
detail of the "one loaf" may fairly be regarded along with its
Johannine counterpart, as an instance of Johannine Inter-
vention, where John has given the right place and the right
interpretation to a tradition misplaced and misunderstood by
Mark.
Now let us return to Luke's omission of the connection of
"leaven" called by him "the leaven of the Pharisees, which
is hypocrisy" with the miraculous feeding. Does John fail
to intervene? It might be assumed that he does fail since he
nowhere mentions either "leaven" or "unleavened." But he
mentions "Passover," that is, in effect, the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. And, what is more, he speaks of "the Passover of the
Jews," and "the Passover, the feast [so called} of the Jews," in
such a way as to suggest that he contrasts "the Passover of
the Jews" with "the Passover of Christians." This he does
repeatedly 1 . He does not indeed expressly contrast the
material "leaven" cast out by the Pharisees with the spiritual
"leaven" that they retained, but he does imply this distinction.
This we shall see if we put ourselves in the position of
Christians of the first century. They would certainly apply
Pauline language to the Lord's last Passover. "He kept it,"
they would say, "on the Cross, or rather He was our Passover
on the Cross, so that we might ' keep the feast not with old leaven
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ' ; but the rulers
1 Jn ii. 13, xi. 55 TO
OpTTJ TQ)V
ra>i> 'louSaiW, VI. 4 (W.H.) r ro
212 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
of the Jews, His murderers, they kept it in what the Apostle
Paul called 'the leaven of malice and wickedness*.'" Now John,
toward the conclusion of his Gospel, expresses the same thought,
not indeed in words, but (as often) in dramatic action. His
Gospel lays ironical stress on the scrupulousness with which
the rulers of the Jews, on the morning of the Crucifixion, at
the very time when they were constraining Pilate to destroy
Jesus by judicial murder, "entered not into the palace." Their
reason was "that they might not be defiled, but might eat the
passover 2 ." They duly "ate" their "passover," but it was
"the passover of the Jews." They cast out their leaven.
But they were "defiled" with the leaven of malice and wicked-
ness.
In the light of these later Johannine utterances let us consider
whether John perhaps desired to express something more than
a mere chronological fact, when he prefixed to his account of
the Feeding of the Five Thousand the words " Now the Passover,
the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Jesus, therefore, lifting up
his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto him,
saith unto Philip, Whence are we to buy bread, that these
may eat 3 ?" This was immediately after the murder of John
the Baptist. Many a Galilaean in those days would regard
John as a shepherd of Israel; and Mark tells us that Jesus
had compassion on the multitude because they were "as sheep
1 i Cor. v. 8.
2 Jn xviii. 28. See also Jn xi. 55 "Now the passover of the Jews
was at hand : and many went up. . .to purify themselves," on which
Origen says (Lomm. ii. 372) "The multitude did not know how to
purify themselves. Wherefore, while fancying that they were
offering 'their own Passover' as a service to God, they were so far
from 'purifying themselves' that they became more accursed than
they were before. ..." Origen says, and quotes passages to shew,
that (ib. 371) "We must not suppose the Passover of the Lord to
be also the Passover of the Jews ; for the Passover according to the
Law [of God] is that of the Lord, but the Passover of those who
break the Law (r<wi> rrapavopoav) is that of the Jews."
3 Jn vi. 4 5; "bread," lit. "loaves."
213 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
without a shepherd 1 ." The Pharisees, as far as we know, had
made no such protest as John the Baptist made against Herod
Antipas, nor had they directly or indirectly supported the
prophet. They were also plotting the death of Jesus, while
professing to be the teachers of the Law, the Word of Life.
Such conduct combined with a severe enforcement of
precepts of purification was called by Jesus in the Synoptic
Gospels "hypocrisy." It was, in effect, "the leaven of malice
and wickedness." The Law, as taught by such teachers, was
a false parody of "bread." In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus,
before the Feeding of the Five Thousand, says, "Whence shall
we buy loaves that these may eat?" and, later on, in terms of
reproach or warning, "Ye ate of the loaves and were satisfied 2 ."
But these are the only Johannine passages where Jesus uses
the plural "loaves." A little later He uses the singular, which
He frequently repeats, "My Father giveth you the true bread
out of heaven 3 ." It is John's custom to dwell on positives
rather than negatives, and on truths rather than falsehoods.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus warns His disciples negatively
against "the leaven of the Pharisees" (Luke adding "which
is hypocrisy"). This is the false leaven, and implies the false
bread. In John, a similar warning to the multitude is included
in His positive doctrine concerning "the true bread." And
the words "Whence shall we buy loaves? " addressed to Philip,
may convey the same warning to the disciples, a warning
against those many kinds of false foods which one buys at the
cost of spiritual health and life, whereas the true bread, the
living bread, is bought "without money and without price 4 ,"
coming as a gift to those who are taught by the Giver of all
Good to give themselves to Him even as He gives Himself to
them.
1 Mk vi. 34. Luke (ix. n foil.) omits this. Matthew (xiv.
14 foil.) omits it here, but places it earlier (ix. 36).
2 Jn vi. 5, 26. 3 Jn vi. 32.
4 Is. Iv. i, see below, p. 272.
214 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
As regards the word "buy," in connection with food or
bread, we may note here that the Synoptists use it nowhere
except in the Feeding of the Five Thousand 1 . There all the
Evangelists have it, but with this important difference, that
while the Three ascribe it in various forms ("are we to buy,"
"that they may buy") to the disciples, the Fourth ascribes it
to Jesus, associating Himself with the disciples "Whence are
we to buy loaves?" Mark, alone of the Synoptists, has
" buy loaves." It is highly probable that this Johannine
repetition of the Marcan "buy loaves" in what seems 2 an
entirely different context is deliberate. The probability is
increased by the fact that, in the same context, John agrees
with Mark, against Matthew and Luke, in mentioning "two
hundred pennyworth of loaves," as uttered by a disciple or
disciples. These two details, even if they stood alone, would
suffice to prove that John had in view Marcan traditions.
But they do not stand alone. They are parts of a web
of traditions, indicating an unusual abundance of complex
evidence, bearing on the Rule of Johannine Intervention, and,
ultimately, on the historical fact at the bottom of all these
narratives.
1 'Ayopao> occurs in Mk vi. 36 with TL (pdywa-iv and ib. 37 with
aprovs, in Mt. xiv. 15, Lk. ix. 13 with /3po>/xara. It occurs also in
Jn iv. 8 with rpofpds and vi. 5 with aprovs.
2 "Seems," because it is conceivable that John does not reject,
but supplements, the Synoptic traditions about buying. Perhaps
he regards Jesus as first overhearing, and then receiving, complaints
from His disciples ("How are we to buy?"). These He repeats in
a kindly "tempting" of Philip : "Yes, truly, how are we to buy? "
215 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
3. The immediate sequel of John the Baptist's death 1
According to Matthew, the Baptist's disciples, after burying
their Master, came and "brought word" of his death to Jesus,
iMkvi.29 34(R.V.)
(29) And when
his disciples heard
[thereof], they came
and took up his
corpse, and laid it in
a tomb. *
(30) And the
apostles gather them-
selves together unto
Jesus ; and they told
him all things, what-
soever they had done,
and whatsoever they
had taught.
(31) Andhesaith
unto them, Come
ye yourselves apart
into a desert place,
and rest a while.
For there were many
coming and going,
and they had no lei-
sure so much as to
eat.
(32) And they
went away in the
boat to a desert
place apart.
(33) And [the
people] saw them
going, and many
knew [them] , and
they ran there to-
gether on foot (or, by
land) from all the
cities, and outwent
them.
(34) And he
came forth and saw
a great multitude,
and he had com-
passion on them,
Mt.xiv. 12 I4(R.V.)
(12) And his
disciples came, and
took up the corpse,
and buried him ; and
they went and told
Jesus.
Lk.ix. lo ii (R.V.)
(10) And the
apostles, when they
were returned, de-
clared unto him
what things they had
done. And he took
them, and withdrew
apart to a city called
Bethsaida.
(11) But the mul-
titudes perceiving it
followed him : and
he welcomed them,
and spake to them
of the kingdom of
God, and them that
had need of healing
he healed.
(13) Now when
Jesus heard [it], he
withdrew irom thence
in a boat, to a desert
place apart : and
when the multi-
tudes heard [thereof],
they followed him
on foot (or, by land)
from the cities.
(14) And he
came forth, and saw
a great multitude,
and he had com-
passion on them, and
healed their sick.
Comp. Mt. ix. 36
But when he saw
the multitudes, he
was moved with com-
passion for them,
because they were dis-
216 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
who, on "hearing [of it]," withdrew into a desert place. But
according to Mark, the Baptist's disciples, "on hearing [of
it]," buried him; and the apostles gathered to Jesus and
"brought word" to Him of all that they had done and taught.
Matthew's use of "bring word" accords better than Mark's
with the usage of N.T. and of Greek in general. The Greek
verb "bring word," literally, " bring-message-from," implies ety-
mologically, and for the most part practically, bringing word
from a certain person or place about what the bringers have
heard (as a message) from that person, or have seen or heard
at that place. It does not often mean simply describe what
the describers have themselves done. In that sense, "declare"
or "relate" would be a better word than "bring word." Luke,
who follows Mark in inserting a coming of "the apostles" to
Jesus, says that they "declared" to Him "all that they had
done 1 ."
The text of Mark is liable to suspicion. We do not know
whether this is the first or the second instance in which he uses
the word "apostles 2 ." If it is the first, it comes here with
Mk vi. 2934 ( R - v -) Mt - xiv - 1214 (R.V.) Lk. ix. 10 n (R.V.)
contd. contd.
because they were as tressed and scattered,
sheep not having a as sheep not having a
shepherd : and he shepherd,
began to teach them
many things.
Jn vi. i 5 a (R.V.). (i) After these things Jesus went away to
the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is [the sea] of Tiberias.
(2) And a great multitude followed him, because they beheld the
signs which he did on them that were sick. (3) And Jesus went up
into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. (4) Now
the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. (5) Jesus therefore
lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto
him, . . .
1 Mk vi. 30 (and Mt. xiv. 12) "brought word (air^yycCkav},"
Lk. ix. 10 "declared (St^y^o-ai/ro)." Luke omits "all that they had
taught."
2 See Proclamation p. 394 on Mk iii. 14 (R.V. marg. "some anc.
auth. add whom also he named apostles").
217 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
extreme abruptness ; and, even if it is the second and refers to
those mentioned by Mark above, "whom also he [i.e. Jesus]
named apostles," we should expect Mark to say, not that "they
gather themselves together" to Jesus, but that "they returned"
which Luke actually says 1 . In his parallel to Mark's expression
" and when his disciples heard thereof," Matthew omits the " hear-
ing 2 ," which Mark may have added (as LXX often adds it) to
imply "consequently 3 ." But Matthew also omits all mention of
the " apostles." This seems best explained from an original and
ambiguous " they." This Matthew may have taken as meaning
the persons last mentioned, namely, the disciples of the Baptist,
but Mark as the persons last mentioned before the digression
concerning the death of the Baptist, namely, the Twelve Apostles.
Luke's omission of the Marcan phrase "whatsoever things they
had taught" can be best explained by supposing it to be a
Marcan amplification for clearness, the original being simply
"they brought word of everything." This, if "they" were the
disciples of the Baptist, would mean "they brought word of
the whole story of the Baptist's death 4 ." But Mark took it
1 Mk vi. 30 (TwdyovTat, Lk. IX. IO vTroo-rpeifsavrfs.
which occurs five times in Mark, is used thrice of multitudes, and
once (Mk vii. i) of Pharisees and scribes, "gathering together" to
Jesus. It is not the word we should expect for the return of so small
a number as twelve persons, unless it was intended to suggest that
they had been sent in different directions (comp. Lk. ix. 6 "every-
where").
2 Mk vi. 29 fai aKOvaavres ol p,a0rjTcu O.VTOV y\6av K.CII ijpav..., Mt.
xiv. 12 /cat Trpo(T\66vTS ol fiadijTOL avTOv Tf pav ____ Matthew applies
"hearing" to Jesus in the next verse, Mt. xiv. 13 aKovaas 8e 6 'iqo-ovs.
See next note.
3 Comp. Josh. ix. n, 2 K. ix. 13, Esth. iv. 4, Job i. 20 (A),
where Heb. has "and [consequently], "-and LXX (or v.r.) inserts
4 SS has "they declared to him all that he did and he taught."
Prof. Burkitt says that this is "probably a mere error" of SS, the
pronunciation for this being the same as that for "they did and
taught." If the scribe of SS attached any meaning to the text it
would seem to be this, "the disciples of John recounted to Jesus
218 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
as referring to the Twelve. The notion that the Apostles at
this critical and busy moment found leisure to bring word to
Jesus about "whatsoever things they had taught," as well as
"whatsoever things they had done," is antecedently improbable
at least in this hyperbolical form and the rejection of it by
Luke increases the improbability.
Since these details refer mainly to the Baptist, we cannot
expect the Fourth Gospel to intervene although Luke deviates
from, or omits, what is in Mark 1 .
4. "And he saith unto them, Come ye. . .and rest a little,"
in Mark 2
Matthew and Luke omit these words. But, whereas Luke
nowhere has any words of Jesus resembling them, Matthew
has an invitation at least so far resembling Mark's that it
contains similar words for "come" and "rest": "Come unto
me . . . and / will give-you-rest ... ye shall find rest for your
souls 3 ." The context in Matthew is a paradox, namely, that
by taking on oneself a new "yoke," one may find "rest" from
a heavy "burden." Ben Sira writes to the same effect about
"discipline" or "instruction," saying "Incline thy shoulder
and carry her, and loathe not her cords . . . , for afterward thou
shalt find her rest 4 '." A different aspect of "rest," namely,
rest from wanderings, is presented by Jeremiah, "Ask for the
all their Master's last actions and utterances/' including those
mentioned in Mk vi. 20.
1 See Beginning pp. 66, 68 71, "Non-intervention in matters
affecting John the Baptist."
2 Mk vi. 31 Aevre vpels airol /car' idiav els prjp.ov TOTTOV KOI dva7raixra(rd
6\iyov. SS has here "Come, let us go to the wilderness. . .," but in vi.
32, " they went to a desert place ." The " desert place " will be discussed
in a later section, p. 223 foil.
3 Mt. xi. 28 9 Aeure Trpos pf 7rdvTfs...Kayo) dvanavcrai vpds...fvpT)(rT
dvdrrava-Lv rals ^v^aiy vp,wv. The words devrf and dvairava are Common
to Mark and Matthew.
4 Sir. vi. 28 (ed. Schechter and Taylor), "rest," dvdiravo-iv,
219 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
old paths. . .and walk therein, and ye shall find rest, i.e. repose,
for your souls 1 ." Again another aspect is presented where
Isaiah says "This is the rest, give ye rest to him that is weary."
There "weary" corresponds to a Hebrew word meaning
faintness caused by hunger, or by thirst, or by wandering, and
the LXX has "this is the rest for him that is hungry 2 ." The
Greek words used by Mark and Matthew for "rest" may also
mean " refresh " in general, and " refresh with food " in particular.
But in the latter sense, "with food" would have to be inserted.
Mark does not insert it, and therefore we have no right to
assume that he means "refresh yourselves a little [with food]."
That interpretation however besides being suggested by Mark's
following words, "for those that were coming and those that
were going were many, and they (i.e. the disciples) had no
leisure so much as to eat" appears to be favoured by Origen,
who, after quoting Mark and Luke (about the "rows" or
"companies" of the Five Thousand), speaks of "those who
were about to refresh-themselves on the nourishment of Jesus 3 ."
If Mark and Matthew took different views of the "rest,"
or "refreshment," to which Jesus invited His disciples, we can
understand why Luke omitted the invitation. Mark places it
immediately after the return of the Apostles from their mission ;
Matthew places it not long after Jesus had "made an end of
Jerem. vi. 16,
LXX
v, Aq.
, Sym.
2 Is. xxviii. 12 TOVTO TO dvaTTcivpa TO> Trfiv&vTi. The word rendered
ireivqv, pjiy = Sn/mo> (5), TTCLVCKO (4), exXuta (3) for which COmp. Mk viii.
3, Mt. xv. 32 in the Feeding of the Four Thousand.
3 Origen Comm. Matth. xi. 3 (Lomm. iii. 73) TOVS dva7ravo-ofji.evovs
7Ti rals *lr)crov rpo(f)als. I have not found such an instance in
Steph. Thes., nor one parall. to Mt. xi. 28 dvanava-co vfMas, but there
"from your burdens" may be supplied from what precedes. In
Aesch. fragm. 178, avairavti, with KapaTov In-rrcov, prob. does not mean
(as L.S.) "refresh," but (as Steph. Thes.) "pausare," "make to
cease."
220 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
commanding his twelve disciples 1 ." Luke in a quasi-parallel
passage mentions the return of the Seventy to Jesus with a
report about their mission ; but he appends no invitation only
a promise, such as the Mark-Appendix places after Christ's
resurrection 2 . Later on, in his Gospel, Luke represents Jesus
as eating in the presence of His disciples, and later still, in the
Acts according to an ancient interpretation of a very difficult
passage as "eating with them" ; but even there, no invitation
on the part of Jesus to the disciples is mentioned in the
context 3 .
1 Mt. xi. i. Mt. xi. 2. 24 contains digressions about John the
Baptist, Chorazin and Bethsaida. Then ib. 25 7 contains an
acknowledgment of the Father's purpose to reveal His mysteries
to "babes." Then follows (xi. 28 30) the promise of "rest" to
the weary.
2 Luke, after the woe pronounced (x. 13 foil.) on Chorazin and
Bethsaida, and the return of the Seventy, represents Jesus as saying
(x. 19) "I have given you authority ... and nothing shall in any
wise hurt you" (comp. Mk [xvi. 18] a promise made after Christ's
resurrection) .
3 Acts i. 4 o-vva\i6p.vos, R.V. and A.V. txt "being assembled
together with them," marg. "eating (A.V. + together) with them."
See Notes 2892 5, to which should be added references to the
"covenant of salt" in Numb, xviii. 19 (comp. Lev. ii. 13) and to
the prominence given by Philo (ii. 477, 483 4) to "salt (a\es)" in
his description of the meals taken by the Essenes in common.
Aquila used the word <rvva\iopMt to mean "take a friendly meal
with" in Ps. cxli. 4 "let me not eat of their dainties." There LXX
has o-vvSoidfa, i.e. "make one out of two," "be in close companion-
ship" (comp. i S. xxvi. 19 "cleave to," Sym. o-w8vdeo-0ai). Aquila's
instance does not conclusively shew whether he regarded <rwa\iop<u
as derived (i) from dXio> "collect [a crowd into a small space]" or
(2) from oXi^ofMai "be salted," i.e. "fed on salt" salt being, both
for Greeks and for Jews, the symbol of close, friendly, and festive
intercourse (Steph. Thes. i. 1580 aXes- "convictus et communio et
sodalitatis necessitudo"). Against (i), there is the fact that dXiu>
appears to be never used with a personal object in the singular, but
always of a crowd, army, etc. This important word will come before
us again when we discuss the Marcan (ix. 49) doctrine of being
"salted with fire" (which Matthew and Luke omit).
221 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
This passage in the Acts brings before us, as a possibility
worth considering, the hypothesis that Mark, among a number
of detached traditions about Eucharistic feeding which he has
included in his narrative of the Five Thousand, may have
antedated a tradition (about Jesus as inviting His disciples to
a sacred meal) which may have been placed after the Resur-
rection by other Evangelists, and, in particular, by John. In
any case, since "Come and rest" is a saying of Jesus mentioned
by Mark and omitted by Luke, we are bound to look for some-
thing like it in John. And something like it much moi
like it than appears at first sight occurs in the Johannine
account of the post-resurrectional feeding of the seven
disciples on the one loaf, where Jesus is represented in our
Revised Version as saying to the disciples, "Come, break your
fast 1 ."
Instead of "break your fast," some such phrase as "take-
your-morning-meal " would have been a better rendering of
the verb aristdn. It is nowhere used in N.T. except (twice) in
this Johannine passage, and in ope passage of Luke, where a
Pharisee invites Jesus to a morning meal 2 . There, the texts
of our English Versions render it "dine." But the Greek
word never means "dine." It is constantly distinguished from
"dine," and contrasted with "dine 3 ."
Returning to John, and rendering the invitation literally,
1 Jn xxi. 12 SfVTf, dpio-nyo-are. On dfVTe, "Come!" never used
by Luke, but used by Mk-Mt. in the "invitation" now under con-
sideration (and elsewhere), see Proclam. pp. 48 9.
2 Lk. xi. 37 0/340-7-17077. R.V. text "dine," marg. "Gr. breakfast."
The context speaks of the washing of hands. Possibly, among the
common people, though not among the Pharisees, the rule was not
so strictly observed before "breakfast" as before the later meal.
8 See Steph. Thes. It can no more mean "dine" than our
"breakfasted" could mean "dined." Luke uses the words "dine"
and "dinner" (Senrvflv, ddirvov) about six or seven times, and the
verb "to breakfast" only here. In one passage (xiv. 12) "a breakfast
or a dinner," he distinguishes the two.
222 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"[Come] hither! Take-y our -morning-meal!" we perceive that
it accords not only with the literal time the dawn that brought
success to the fishermen after the laborious night of failure
but also with the metaphorical or spiritual time, the dawn that
was to bring success to the apostolic fishermen casting the net
of the Gospel. The meal was their "morning-meal" preparing
them to carry forth the Gospel to the world 1 . It appears to
correspond both literally and spiritually to the Marcan tradition
"Come ye. . .and rest," omitted by Luke, of which perhaps a
version is given by Matthew. As in Mark, so in John, the
invitation precedes a meal on bread and fish; but, as in
Matthew, the "rest" or "refreshment" is not of the body but
of the spirit. Matthew expresses it by "Take my yoke upon
you" and "Learn from me"; John expresses it by the words
addressed to Peter, and through Peter to the whole assembly
of Christians, commanding each in his appointed way to carry
the cross, and to serve Christ by serving those for whom Christ
died: "Feed my sheep," and "Follow thou me 2 ."
5. "Come ye, [by] yourselves, apart, into a desert place,"
in Mark 3
The words "into a desert place" appear to imply, not a
desert place meaning a dry and barren waste, but simply
"a lonely, quiet, or retired, place." But they are omitted
(with the rest of the sentence) by Matthew and Luke, perhaps
as being liable to misunderstanding. The words "by your-
selves" and "apart" go some way to make the meaning clear,
but not quite far enough. The meaning seems to be that in
1 In canonical LXX, apia-rav occurs only twice as representing
Hebrew correctly, (a) Gen. xliii. 25 Heb. "eat bread," (b) i K. xiii. 7
Heb. "support [thyself with food]," R.V. and A.V. "refresh thyself,"
Heb. itfD and sim. in Targum. The Clementine Heb. rendering of
Jn xxi. 12 apior^o-are is HUD.
2 Mt. xi. 28 9, Jn xxi. 15 22.
3 Mk vi. 31.
223 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the general excitement and consternation consequent on tl
murder of John the Baptist, Jesus perceived that it would
good for the disciples to be alone with Him for a while. To
alone with Him would not be to be really " alone," or "desolate,"
or "abandoned in a wilderness." Being with the Son, they
would be with the Father. Epictetus has a discourse entitled
"What is desertedness (or, a desert (eremia)) and what kind of
person is deserted (eremos)?" It begins thus: " Deserted[ness~\
is a kind of unbefriended state. For he that is alone is not
necessarily deserted, as also he that is in a crowd is not necessaril]
undeserted 1 ."
That John recognised this truth is shewn later on when he
represents Jesus as saying "Ye shall leave me alone; and [yet]
I am not alone, because the Father is with me 2 ." He could
not indeed represent Jesus as saying to the seven disciples for
whom He has prepared the fish and the loaf "Come ye, by
yourselves, apart, into a quiet place" for they were in a quiet
place already. But he does succeed in giving us the impression
that, before the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus had
invited the disciples to accompany Him away from the multi-
tude into a place of quiet. In the description of the man
seeking the one sheep that has strayed, where Matthew has
"the mountains," Luke has "the desert." So here, John does
not call the place of retirement "a desert place" but "the
mountain" thus: "And a great multitude followed him...
and Jesus went up into the mountain, and there he sat with
his disciples 3 ."
In this way John, in effect, reproduces the Marcan "desert
place," but without the notion of desertedness. By "sat with
1 Epict. iii. 13. i.
2 Jn xvi. 32.
3 Jn vi. 2 3, comp. Mt. xviii. 12 "the mountains," Lk. xv. 4
"the desert." The "loneliness" of "the mountain" comes before
us afterwards (Jn vi. 15) "Jesus withdrew again into the mountain
himself alone."
224 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
his disciples " he implies that Jesus was not only with them but
also was with them in quiet converse. As regards the term
"desert place" or "wilderness" used by all the Synoptists in
their narratives of feeding 1 , it is noteworthy that John does not
use any form of it in the narrative itself. But afterwards, in
the subsequent comment of the Jews, and in Christ's reply, he
twice has "ate the manna in the wilderness," that is, in the
wilderness of Sinai. The Jews seem to say this with unmixed
satisfaction, " our fathers ate." Jesus adds a note of warning,
" your fathers ate... and died 2 "
Before passing from the words of Jesus ("come ye. . .into
a desert place") we must note that the Syriac Versions have,
not "a desert place" but "the wilderness," midbar 3 . This has
quite a different meaning. Midbar might be applied to a
wilderness or open country near any town or district, named in
the context; but where no such place is named it always
means (in the Bible) the wilderness of Sinai, as, for example,
where the Lord bids Moses say to Pharaoh "Let us go. . .three
days' journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the
Lord our God 4 ." Among the reasons why Matthew and Luke
omit these words, one may have been a doubt whether they were
correctly used. In early poetic accounts of Christ's miracles
of feeding, the language of Scripture about the manna in the
Midbar of Sinai might be applied to the Christian "table in
the wilderness" in expressions sometimes not strictly correct
if taken literally. These might naturally be rejected by later
Evangelists.
1 Mk vi. 35, Mt. xiv. 15 (sim. Lk. ix. 12) ep^/ids eVrii/ 6
Mk viii. 4, Mt. xv. 33 ep^/ua.
2 Jn vi. 31, 49.
3 Mk vi. 31 (SS) "let us go into the wilderness (midbar)," but
vi. 32 "they went to a desert place" and vi. 35 "the place is desert."
4 Exod. iii. 18, rep. viii. 27. It is worth noting here that a
mention of " three days " (which will be discussed later on, p. 263 foil.)
occurs at the beginning of the Feeding of the Four Thousand.
A. L. 225 (Mark vi. 29 44) 15
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
6. The concourse of "many," in Mark
Mark four times uses the word "many" here, thrice
connection with the concourse of "many" or "the great [lit.
much] multitude," and once about the "many [things]" that
Jesus began to teach them 1 . There are several variations in
the MSS and Versions. A specimen of these is given below
from the Syro-Sinaitic 2 , which avoids one or two difficult
questions raised by the received text.
It is not difficult perhaps to realise that the disciples might
feel not only overcrowded by people continually coming to
Jesus, but also harassed by people continually going away.
But it is difficult to believe that the multitude, which
(according to Matthew) included women and children, "out-
went" the boat that contained Jesus the multitude going
round the lake, a distance of about ten miles, and the boat
going across the lake, a distance of about four 3 .
1 Mk vi. 31 4 "For those that were coming and those that were
going (vTrdyovTs) were many, ...and many saw (elftav) them (avrovs)
going (vrrdyovras) and recognised (Zyvaxrav, marg. 7T(yva>(rav) [them]
(or, and they [i.e. people] saw them going, and many recognised
[them]) ; and on foot from all the cities they ran-together there and
outwent them (o~vv8p(ip.ov e'/tel KOI irporj\6ov avTovs). And having
come forth [from the boat] he saw a great (noXvv) multitude. . .and
he began to teach them many [things] (TroAXd)."
2 Mk vi. 31 foil. (SS) "Many were going and coming unto him. . .
and many saw them and recognised them and went by land after
him from all the cities. And when they came and he saw a great
multitude. . .and he had begun to teach them." SS alters "those
coming and those going" into "going and coming unto him," thus
emphasizing the arrivals rather than the departures, or perhaps
using " going and " pleonastically (as it is often used in English) ;
it substitutes "went after him" for "ran-together"; it omits
"outwent them"; it substitutes "they came and he saw" for "he
came forth [from the vessel] and saw."
This important version had not been discovered when W.H.
discussed the variations of Mk vi. 33 in W.H. Intr. p. 95 foil.
3 Prof. Swete says ad loc. "Across the Lake from Tell Hum or
Khan Minyeh is scarcely more than four miles ; by land the distance
226 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Luke seems to imply, by omitting all these Marcan details,
that they seemed to him either unimportant, or difficult, or
both, and that the one important fact was that "the multitudes
followed" Jesus how "they followed" being a matter of
detail that might be neglected. Perhaps Luke, in this respect,
is imitating Matthew, who also accepts "the multitudes
followed" as a convenient summary of Mark's diffuse state-
ments 1 . But Luke deviates from Matthew as well as from
Mark by omitting the words "And, having gone forth [from
the boat] he saw a great multitude 2 ." They do not seem very
important, and, even if John had nothing whatever corre-
sponding to them, though we should have to confess that the
law of Johannine Intervention failed here, it would not seem
a very serious failure. But John has in the context something
that appears to correspond to them, only modified by a
suggestion of symbolism, as follows: "After these things Jesus
went away beyond the sea of Galilee [the sea] of Tiberias.
Now a great multitude was following him, because they were
[constantly] seeing the signs that he was doing on the sick.
But Jesus went up to the mountain, and there sat with his
disciples. Now the passover was near the feast of the Jews
to the upper part of Batihah could hardly be above ten (Sanday,
Fourth Gospel, p. 120) unless they went by road and crossed the
Jordan by the bridge." He adds "If there was little wind, it would
be easy to get to the place before a sailing boat." But if there
was so "little wind" that they could not cover "more than four
miles" while a crowd including women and children covered "ten,"
would they not have at once used their oars, which Mark (vi. 48)
and John (vi. 19) describe them as using on their return?
1 Mt. xiv. 13 ai a.Kov(ravTs ol o^Xot rjK.o\ovdr]O'av airo), Lk. ix. II
ol 5e 0^X01 yvovTfS r}Ko\ovdrj(rav aura>. Mark does not US6 aKoXovdeo)
here. His view is that the multitude went round the lake before
Jesus so as to meet Him when He landed which would not naturally
be described as "following."
2 Mk vi. 34, Mt. xiv. 14 (identical in order as well as in words)
eidfv TTO\VV o^\ov.
227 (Mark vi. 29 44) 15 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
[so called]. Jesus therefore, lifting up his eyes and beholding tl
a great multitude was coming to him, saith unto Philip. . .V
It will be noted that here, while first accepting the Matthew
Luke prosaic summarizing word, "followed," John adds a form
of the Mark-Matthew tradition that Jesus "beheld" this "great
multitude" That this is symbolical is indicated by the con-
textual "lifting up of the eyes" an act thrice attributed to
Jesus by John and always as a symbol 2 . It is also attributed
thrice in Scripture to Abraham. The first Abrahamic instance
is where the Patriarch "lifted up his eyes" and beheld the
three divine Persons to whom he ministered and gave bread ;
the second is where he saw the mountain on which he was to
offer up his son ; the third is where he saw the ram that was to
be Isaac's substitute 3 . It is a commonplace in Jewish tradition
that whatever Abraham did in service to God, God has done, or
will do, in return, to Abraham's seed. It would therefore be
appropriate that before the Feeding of the Five Thousand, who
represented the congregation of Israel, the Son of God should
"go up into the mountain" and "lift up his eyes" and "behold
that a great multitude was coming unto him."
1 Jn vi. i 5. This implies that Jesus was on the spot and
receiving the multitude (as Lk. ix. n "he welcomed them"), not
that the multitude was on the spot awaiting Jesus whom they
"outwent" (as Mk vi. 33). In Mk vi. 33 irporfkOov avrovs, "they
outwent them," "they" may mean (i) Jesus and the disciples, or
(2) the multitude (and "them" is similarly ambiguous). The former
meaning of "they" is the more consistent with the circumstances;
taking the short cut across the lake, Jesus and the disciples easily
"outwent" the multitude. Then, some hours afterwards, Jesus
received and welcomed those who persistently followed Him.
Mark's use of 7rpoepxop.ai with accus. is noteworthy (see Steph.
Thes.). In Lk. xxii. 47 it is used of Judas "going before" the
soldiers as their guide.
2 See Joh. Voc. 1608 (quoting Philo) and Joh. Gr. 2616 7 on
Jn vi. 3 5. The other instances are xi. 41 (at the tomb of Lazarus),
xvii. i (before "Father, the hour hath come"). Once Jesus uses the
phrase as a precept, iv. 35 "Lift up your eyes," i.e. to the harvest
in the heavens. 3 Gen. xviii. 2, xxii. 4, 13.
228 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Whatever may have been the historical reality, the Evan-
gelist contemplates it as including a vision. The Son, the
Sacrifice, the Bread of Life, who in old days came to Abraham
and received Abraham's bread, now "beholds" the children
of Abraham coming to Him in need of bread. Visibly, they
are five thousand Jews from northern Palestine; but invisibly
they are the seed of Abraham as a whole, invited to enter the
circle of that large family of nations which was to be blessed
with the blessing pronounced on Abraham. As Abraham gave
bread to the Son, so the Son gives bread to Abraham's children.
And as Abraham offered up Isaac to God, so the Son of God,
in the sign of the bread that followed, signified that He Himself
was purposing to offer Himself up for Abraham's children in
accordance with the will of the Father in heaven.
If this instance stood alone, the hypothesis of Johannine
Intervention here would not be a very probable one ; but when
taken with many other instances of which some few are certain
and many others are highly probable, it acquires considerable
probability. And this is greatly increased by the drift of
Jewish traditions concerning Abraham and his relation to
the Messiah. In a. Gospel that assigns to Jesus the words
"Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was
glad 1 ," it is obvious that we must expect to find thoughts about
Abraham latent under many of the acts and utterances of Him
to whom these words are assigned. We may safely assert that
the actual words are John's, not Christ's, but we shall not be so
safe in making such an assertion about the thoughts.
This proof of intervention is quite irrespective of the
correctness of the Marcan or the Johannine tradition. Even
if Mark is quite wrong, it will still be true that John, believing
Mark to be right in a certain sense, has intervened to shew that
sense. What that "sense" might naturally be will be per-
ceived from such a prophecy as that of Amos, "I will send a
1 Jn viii. 56. See Joh. Gr. 2097, 26889.
229 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water,
but of hearing the words of the Lord; and they shall wander
from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they
shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord 1 ." Jesus
Himself seems to allude to this prophecy in the words "Many
shall come from the east and the west" where Luke adds
" and from the north and the south " " and shall sit down with
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven' 2 ."
Also a prophecy of Daniel, interpreted by Irenaeus as referring
to Christ, says "Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall
be increased 3 ." This, when combined with the prophecy of
Amos, might originate just such traditions as Mark has thrown
together about the concourse of "many" to Christ's teaching,
and to the banquet that He provided for those who suffered
from a "famine" for "hearing the words of the Lord." The
hypothesis of such an origin would give a satisfactory explana-
tion of Mark's diffuse traditions and Luke's omissions. " Mark,"
1 Amos viii. n 12.
2 Mt. viii. n, Lk. xiii. 29. The occasions on which these
parallel sayings were uttered are quite different. Origen, quoting
the Gospels, has (Comm. Rom. ii. 14, Lomm. vi. 148) "ab oriente
et occidente et a quatuor ventis terrae." Does this mean "and
[indeed, not only from east and west, but also, as Luke says]
from the four winds of the world"? The Targum on Amos viii.
12 has "from the sea to the west (Nliyo) and from the north to
the east." Sabbath p. 138 b (ed. Goldschmidt) quotes Amos "From
sea to sea from east (m?DD) and from west (myEDI) " with no
note. On Zech. ix. 10 "from sea to sea," the Targ. says "from the
sea even to the west," but Kimchi "from the South Sea which is
called Red, to the North Sea which is called Ocean." These varia-
tions may have influenced Christian traditions about the concourse
to Jesus. Some might take "from sea to sea" as "from the sea
of Galilee to the Mediterranean," i.e. the parts about Tyre and
Sidon. Luke would not interpret "sea" as referring to the sea of
Galilee since he always calls it "lake."
3 Dan. xii. 4 LXX. eas av aTro/j-avwcriv ol TroXAoi KOL 7r\r)(r6fj rj yij
aStKiay. But Theod. ecos- StSa^^axrii/ TroXXoi KOI 7r\r)0vvdf) f) yv)(ris (njnn)
(see Clue 7, 90 1), and so Iren. iv. 26. i "quoadusque discant multi
et adimpleatur agnitio."
230 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
we may say, "recorded a historical fact (that is, the Concourse)
in the language of poetry based on prophecy not knowing
the nature either of the language or of its basis and left the old
traditions just as they were without making them fit together;
Luke omitted them; John penetrated to the old poetical
purpose underlying Mark and expressed it in a new symbolism."
In a comment on Mark's narrative of the first concourse to
Jesus attention was drawn to the apparent allusiveness of the
Marcan "great number," as pointing to expressions in Genesis
concerning the seed of Abraham 1 . But in that Marcan narrative
we may trace also the influence of Amos (variously interpreted)
in suggesting the regions of the world from which believers
were to draw near to the Messiah 2 . The same influences may
be traced in Mark's narrative of a second concourse. The
Hebrew use of the somewhat rare verb " run-to-and-fro ," applied
to those hungering and thirsting after truth by Amos, and to
"many" by Daniel 3 , may very well explain Mark's perplexing
accumulation of verbs of motion, commented on above
"coming and going," "running together," and "outstripping"
all omitted by Matthew and Luke.
This recognition of Mark's allusiveness, in connection with a
prophecy about "many," will come before us again when we
consider such Marcan words of Jesus as "to give his life a
ransom for many," and, "this is my blood which. . .is shed for
many*" Both of these sayings appear to be based on words of
Isaiah: "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify
1 Proclamation p. 376, quoting Mk iii. 7 8 TTO\V Tr\r)6os...ir\r)dos
TToXv.
2 Amos viii. 12, mentioning the "north," may explain why
Mark (Proclamation p. 375) followed by Matthew, inserts "Galilee,"
as representing the "north" (besides being the "Galilee of the
Gentiles" mentioned by Isaiah). Luke vi. 17 omits "Galilee."
3 Amos viii. 12, Dan. xii. 4 "run-to-and-fro" (Gesen. 1001 2).
4 Mk x. 45, xiv. 24 parall. to Mt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28, omitted in
parall. Lk. xxii. 27 and ib. 20 (see W.H.).
231 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
many. . .he bare the sin of many 1 ." Both are adopted by t]
parallel Matthew but omitted by the parallel Luke.
Are we to infer that in both these passages Mark has been
induced by the influence of prophecy to attribute to Jesus say-
ings that He did not really utter, which Luke has consequently
omitted ? Without anticipating the discussion of these Marcan
traditions in their order, we may note here, as to the first of
them, that the parallel Luke introduces, as words of Jesus,
" he that sitteth at meat" and " he that serveth," and represents
Jesus as saying "I am among you as he that serveth 2 .'
Now John represents Jesus as actually "serving" while
the disciples sit at meat and serving in such a way as
to suggest a picture of the Saviour of the world wiping
off the stains of sinful men upon Himself 3 . This points to
a Johannine intervention between Mark and Luke, as if John
said: "It is true that Mark has added, to the actual words
that Jesus uttered, words that He did not utter. But he added
1 Is. liii. ii 12. Of D*11, freq. = "many [men]," Gesen. 913 a
gives, as the first instance, Exod. xxiii. 2 (bis) "Thou shalt not
follow a multitude (so R.V. and A.V.) to do evil, neither shalt thou
speak in a cause to turn aside after a multitude (A.V. many] to wrest
[judgment]," LX.X ov< ecn; /iera TrXfiovo&v Iv Kaiu'a* ov TT pocrflrj crrj p.fra
7T\1J0OVS KK\lvCU /X6TU 7T X 6 I OVO) V (S(TT e/C/cAeUTai Kpi(TlV. On this, RaShl
says "Sunt hujus textus expositiones sapientum Israelis, sed sermo
Scripturae eis non convenit. ..." But it does not appear to be
disputed that the Heb. "many," in a suitable context, may mean
"the many," or "the majority."
2 Lk. xxii. 27 ris yap peifav, 6 avaKei/jifvos r) 6 8iaKovu>v ;...ey&> de eV
//.e'crcp vp,S)v efyu a>s 6 diaKov&v.
3 Jn xiii. 4 foil. See Notes 2963 4 shewing that Origen (on
Jn xiii. 5) quotes Luke xxii. 27 with a reminiscence of Mk x. 45 "He
who said ' I came not as the guest but as the attendant ' . . . He
Himself puts water in the basin." Origen also (Lomm. ii. 401)
connects the Saviour's "wiping off" on Himself the filth from the
feet of the disciples with Is. liii. 4 (comp. Mt. viii. 17) "He beareth
our infirmities." See Son 3276 a where the belief is expressed that
this representation was not a dramatic fiction, but was based on
tradition.
232 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
them to explain what Jesus meant by 'ministering': Luke,
rejecting those additional words, has left the saying of Jesus
in such a context as to lead his readers into a misunderstanding
of His 'ministering.' It was not waiting at table, handing this
dish or that. It might rather be described as a washing of
the feet before the repast. And indeed the Saviour did this
kind of service for His disciples, wiping off on Himself the defile-
ments that could not but from time to time befall them in the
course of their pilgrimage through the impurities of this present
world 1 ."
7. "They had no leisure so much as to eat," in Mark 2
It is of course possible that this Marcan tradition meant,
from the first, nothing more than this, that the disciples had
literally "no leisure" to eat enough for their simple wants;
that Mark inserted it in this sense; and that Matthew and
Luke omitted it influenced perhaps in part by the fact that
Jesus seemed to have summoned them at an early hour of the
morning 3 , before the time had come for a regular meal because
they thought it hyperbolical. Or Matthew and Luke may
have omitted it as being unimportant from a spiritual point
of view.
1 On Gen. xviii. 4 "let a little water be fetched and wash your
feet," Rashi says that as the water is fetched by Abraham's "servant"
"per aliquem qui mittitur," i.e. Sheliach, or Apostle (Proclamation
pp. 391, 395), so God recompenses Abraham's children by a messenger
("legatum"), namely, Moses. But Gen. r. ad loc. sees a divine
recompense of water proceeding not only from Moses (Numb. xxi. 17)
who gives water to drink, but also from God (Is. iv. 4, Ezek. xvi. 9)
who Himself purifies Israel with water (sim. more fully in Numb, r.,
on Numb. vii. 48, Wu. pp. 348 9).
2 Mk vi. 31 oi>e (payelv evKdipovv, D ou&e (frayeiv evKatpos (i.e.
fvKaipus) fix ov i a " n ec cibum poterant capere," SS (lit.) "and there
was not for them place even bread to eat."
3 Mk vi. 30 35 shews that a great deal took place between the
summons of Jesus and the advent of evening, so that the summons
must have been early.
233 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
' - -
But there are so many instances where Mark's apparentb
unimportant little phrases about certain subjects, and pai
ticularly about the Doctrine of Bread, are much more importai
than they seem, that this phrase invites investigation. Its
insertion in an early Gospel would become intelligible if il
originally described the disciples as being unable to "e;
their bread" at a common meal with such "gladness and
singleness of heart 1 " as characterized the meals taken by them
in company with Jesus. Such meals would partake of the
nature of a religious service. The omission of the phrase by
Matthew and Luke would, by itself, oblige us to discuss it;
and the fact that it refers to bread (not indeed here mentioned
but certainly implied by the word "eat") makes the discussion
all the more necessary.
The Marcan verb "have-leisure," literally "have-good-season,"
occurs nowhere else in the Gospels nor in LXX. Codex D
substitutes a phrase with a corresponding adverb meaning "in-
good-season" This adverb occurs in Ben Sira "Be not thou
hindered from paying a vow in-good-season 2 "; and the corre-
sponding adjective occurs in the Psalms "These wait upon thee
that thou mayest give them their meat in-due-season 3 ." These
passages vaguely suggest that in the beginnings of the Christian
Church forms of the word might be associated by some with
the Eucharist, or with Christ's "breaking of bread" before the
Eucharist was formally instituted. But the verb, though
proscribed by the Grammarians as a barbarous equivalent of
the legitimate phrase "have leisure 4 ," is used by Luke (in the
1 Acts ii. 46 " breaking bread at home they did take their food
with gladness and singleness of heart."
2 Sir. xviii. 22 /xj) finrofticrdfis TOV a.7ro8ovvai fv%r)v evKaipas. It
occurs nowhere else in LXX.
3 Ps. civ. 27 TTJV Tpcxprjv avrols evKaipov (v. r. ety Kcupor, ev evKcupta,
cis rvK.ai.pov}. This is the only instance in canon. LXX, but in 2 and
3 Mace. evKaipos occurs five times.
4 "Have leisure," o-^oX^i/ ayo>, or o^Xa^- See Steph. Thes.
234 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Acts) concerning the Athenians: "Now all the -Athenians and
the strangers sojourning there (lit.) were-wont-to-have-good-season
for nothing else except to say or hear something of more than
usual novelty 1 ." Luke obviously means, by his use of the
imperfect tense in such a context, not that the Athenians really
had no leisure, but that they would habitually make no leisure.
They habitually said "We have no leisure for this or that."
But if they had spoken the truth they would have said "We
are not disposed to do this or that 2 ." Mark, like Luke, uses
the verb in the imperfect tense. Is it not possible, then, that
Luke rejected the word here in his Gospel because it seemed to
him to suggest that the disciples were like the Athenians,
restlessly refusing to "find leisure" for something for which
they ought to have "found leisure"?
This supposition Luke might deem incredible. But the
Fourth Gospel indicates that there was a spirit of restlessness
among the Five Thousand, which extended to the disciples,
including ultimately almost all but the Twelve; and if we
consider these indications along with the recent execution of
John the Baptist by Herod, we shall perceive that there may
be nothing absurd in the supposition that the Twelve them-
selves were restless and unsettled and not disposed to "find
leisure" for "eating bread" in the presence of their Master
with the " gladness and singleness of heart " to which He was
gradually accustoming them 3 .
and (preferably) Wetstein on Mk vi. 31, quoting EtymoL, Moeris,
Thomas, and Phrynichus.
1 Acts xvii. 21 els ovdev eWpov rjiiKaipovv rj Xe'yetv n rj CIKOVCIV n naivo-
repov. It was not only to be "new" but "newer [than usual]."
And their first object was to "say" something of this kind, their
second, to "hear" it.
2 Comp. Acts xxiv. 25, where Felix says in answer to Paul's
"reasoning" about "righteousness" and "the judgment to come"
"When I get a [suitable] season (Kaipbv) I will call thee unto me";
but he means "I am not disposed to listen to reasoning about
'righteousness/ I want money."
3 Acts ii. 46.
235 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
The first intimation of this is in the exclamation of those wl
have fed on the loaves and fishes, "This is of a truth the proph<
that cometh into the world," where it is added that Jesus per-
ceived that they proposed "to take him by force to make him a
king 1 ." Jesus reproaches them thus, "Ye seek me, not because
ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves 2 ." They prefer
"the meat that perisheth" to "the meat that abideth unto
eternal life 3 ." Jesus does not reproach the Twelve thus.
But He implies that one of them (Judas Iscariot) deserved such
a reproach ("one of you is a devil"); and to all of them He
says "Will ye also depart 4 ?" These would-be king-makers
might be called in the language of Matthew and Luke de-
scribing Christ's Temptation instruments of the Tempter,
tempting Jesus to pay Satan homage; and perhaps that
thought underlies the Johannine saying "one of you is a
devil."
If the disciples, amid the political excitement and con-
course consequent on the death of John the Baptist, shewed
some disposition to favour the views of the multitude, who
wished to make their Master a king, that would explain not
only Mark's brief and obscure mention of "want of leisure to
eat," but also John's long and emphatic comment on the
necessity of "eating," and on the impossibility of doing God's
work without the sustenance of God's Bread, the "living"
Bread, God's Word, God's Son.
Summing up the evidence as to the Marcan phrase about
"leisure to eat," we find that the conclusion is doubtful as to
its precise allusion and as to the reasons why Luke omits it.
But there is a fair probability that it contains, or might
be regarded in early times as containing, some allusion
to the Hebrew thought of food as God's "seasonable" gift
and to the expression of this by the LXX in the Psalmist's
1 Jn vi. 14 15.
3 Jn vi. 27.
2 Jn vi. 26.
4 Jn vi. 67 70.
236 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
language about God as giving food to His creatures "in its
season 1 ." Further, there is evidence enough to justify our
accepting, as a working hypothesis, the supposition that under
Mark's original there was latent an obscure Eucharistic meaning.
This, if existent, is wholly lost by Matthew and Luke, who omit
the Marcan phrase, but not by John, who attempts to elicit
and to expound it 2 .
8. "To a desert place apart," in Mark and Matthew
It will be observed below that instead of "to a desert place "
where we should rather expect a "solitary" or "retired"
place Luke has "to a city called Bethsaida*." Mark himself
mentions Bethsaida later on, immediately after the Feeding
of the Five Thousand and before the Walking on the Sea.
There, however, he describes the disciples, not as coming back
from Bethsaida (as we should have expected from Luke's
account) but as coming to Bethsaida, and the parallel Matthew
1 See Ps. civ. 27, cxlv. 15, and the comment (in Gen. r., on
Gen. i. 3, Wii. p. n) on Prov. xv. 23 "a word in its season, how good
it is!" where it is maintained that the "word" is "Light," which
God uttered "in its season" when He said, "Let there be Light I"
and He saw that the Light was "good." The Lord's Prayer, and
the Sermon on the Mount, and the Temptation, all point to the
conclusion that Jesus taught that the Father in heaven is the Giver
of every good thing, and of each in "its season," which is also "His
season." The Eucharist includes this lesson.
2 Comp. I Cor. xi. 2O crvvep^ofjLfvatv ovv vp.S)v eirl TO CO/TO OVK eariv
KvpiaKov Sfi7ri/oi/ (frayflv. The various renderings of these words, and
the interpretations of modern commentators, shew how other early
Eucharistic traditions might be misunderstood.
3 Mk vi. 32 Mt. xiv. 13 Lk. ix. 10
And they went Now when Jesus And he took
away in the boat to heard it he withdrew them and retired
a desert place apart, (dve^prja-fv) from (vrrexaprjo-fv) apart to
thence in a boat to a a city called Beth-
desert place apart. . . . saida.
237 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
omits "Bethsaida," while the parallel Luke omits both "Beth-
saida" and the whole of the narrative that follows 1 .
These facts indicate some early confusion about "Beth-
saida." Instead of this name the Curetonian Syriac in Luke
has "a desert place," while the Sinaitic Syrian has "to the gate
of a city called Bethsaida 2 ." Codex D has "village" instead
of "city." The Latin and other versions mostly omit "city"
and insert "desert place." One way of explaining not only
these variations, but also Luke's inconsistency in "came to
Bethsaida" and "we are here in a desert place," would be to
suppose that Luke has mistaken Beth Saida, a poetic phrase
meaning House of Provisioning, for the "city" of that name.
The same Psalm that represents Israel as exclaiming "Can
God prepare a table in the wilderness 3 ?" says "He rained
Mt. xiv. 22
And straightway
he constrained the
disciples to enter into
the [or, a] boat, and
to go before him unto
the other side. . ,
Lk. ix. 18
And it came to
pass, as he was pray-
ing alone
Mk vi. 45
And straightway
he constrained his
disciples to enter into
the boat, and to go
before [him] unto the
other side to Beth-
saida. . . .
Lk. ix. 1 8, which follows Luke's Feeding of the Five Thousand,
is printed here to shew Luke's divergence at this stage from Mark
and Matthew.
Mk vi. 47, Mt. xiv. 23, and Jn vi. 15 agree with Luke ix. 18 in
representing Jesus as "alone (/zdi/os) " after the Feeding of the Five
Thousand, but they mention it in their preface to the Walking on
the Waters, which Luke omits.
2 In Lk. ix. 10 (Curet.) "and he took ("Qi) them apart-by-them-
selves and went to a place [that was] desert," the verb " took " in the
form "DID (e.g. i S. xix. 14 (Targ. and Syr.) "to take ("O1) David")
might be regarded as meaning (K)"O"1D, midbar, the regular word
for ''wilderness" in Hebrew and Aramaic. Walton's Syr. has "in
locum desertum Bethsaidae," and a, b, e and Brix. all insert "locum
desertum" without "urbs" or "vicus."
3 Ps. Ixxviii. 19 Heb. " in the wilderness," but LXX, here and ib. 15,
quite contrary to rule, has eV eprjpcp, omitting the article. Contrast
Exod. v. i, vii. 16, viii. 20, 28 etc., and perhaps a hundred more
instances, all eV rfj f'p^o). The Heb., when unpointed, might mean
"the" or "a" wilderness. Israelites, when described in poetry as
238 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
down manna upon them to eat, and gave them of the corn of
heaven... , he sent them provision to the full 1 ." Now the
Hebrew for "provision" is there Saida. Poetically therefore
it might be said that God in bringing Israel into the wilderness
where He rained manna on them, brought them to "a house, or
place, of provision," that is, " Bethsaida."
This view is confirmed from Greek sources. The Greek for
" provision" is literally "supplying with corn," episitismos .
This word applies exactly to the supply of manna. For manna
was, as the same Psalm says, "corn from heaven," not "bread,"
but of the nature of " corn" since it had to be ground and seethed
to make it eatable 2 . Episitismos in LXX always corresponds
to the Hebrew "Saida." It is used, in Genesis, of Joseph
supplying "provision" from Egypt to his brethren, and, in
Exodus, of the inability of Israel to supply themselves with
" provision" for their journey into the wilderness 3 . The
instance in Exodus would make the word peculiarly appropriate
in the Psalm which represents God as making for Israel in the
wilderness that "provision" which Israel could not make for
themselves in Egypt. Similarly, we shall presently find Luke,
alone among the Evangelists, representing the disciples as
saying to Jesus, "Send away the multitude. . .that they may
find provision (episitismos)*, because we are here in a desert
being new to the wilderness of Sinai, might speak of it as "a"
wilderness, but afterwards as "the" wilderness.
1 Ps. Ixxviii. 25 "provision," n"P, cTrio-ino-pos (R.V. "meat").
2 Ps. Ixxviii. 24 "corn (pi)." LXX renders this word elsewhere
37 times (Tromm.) by OTTOS-, but apros only here a mistranslation.
On the grinding and seething of the manna see Numb. xi. 8. The
mistranslation (" bread ") is repeated by unbelieving Jews in Jn vi. 31.
Jesus implies in His answer that it was not (ib. 32) "the true bread
out of heaven." It should be noted however that "the bread of the
mighty" is mentioned in Ps. Ixxviii. 25.
3 Gen. xlii. 25, xlv. 21, Exod. xii. 39, eTrio-irtcrftds- here and
elsewhere (n times in Heb. LXX and alw. = rTPV, Saida).
4 Lk. ix. 12 eVio-moTAos- (R.V. "victuals"). It does not occur
elsewhere in N.T.
239 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
place. 1 ' The coincidence is not likely to be accidental, especially
since episitismos does not occur anywhere else in N.T. It
reasonable to believe that there is an allusion to Exodus, and
to the "provision" of manna in the wilderness.
According to this view, Luke is right in retaining this
word episitismos, unique in N.T., but wrong in duplicating it
as "Bethsaida," and in placing "Bethsaida" at the beginning
of the narrative. It should have come at the end. The
disciples say, in effect, as the representatives of Israel, "We
are in the wilderness. We are unable to make provision fc
the people. Send them away that they may make pro-
vision for themselves." Jesus replies by "making provision."
Accordingly, after the gathering of the fragments, the conclusion
of the narrative should have been : "Thus did the Lord lead His
pe'ople that were in the wilderness into a place of provision,
i.e. into Bethsaida." As a fact, Mark places a mention of Beth-
saida in that position, though not in suitable context 1 . Matthew
omits "Bethsaida," and it is very probable that it is an error
of Mark. If so, it is similar, and yet dissimilar, to that of
Luke. Mark, like Luke, has perhaps confused a poetic phrase
with a proper name. But unlike Luke, Mark has placed the
name at the end of the narrative, whereas Luke (less correctly)
has placed it at the beginning.
The Johannine equivalents to "desert place" or "wilder-
ness" in the Feeding of the Five Thousand have been touched
on above. As to Bethsaida John cannot be expected to
intervene. As a rule, he avoids Synoptic names, being the
only Evangelist that does not use the name "Gennesaret,"
and that does use "Tiberias." Bethsaida he mentions only
in connection with Philip, who is "from Bethsaida 2 ."
1 Mk vi. 45 "unto the other side to Bethsaida," Mt. xiv. 22 om.
"to Bethsaida."
2 Jn i. 44, xii. 21. W.H. marg. has Bethsaida in Jn v. 2, but
that is the name of a pool.
240 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
9. "In the boat," in Mark 1
Mark, having previously told us that Jesus ordered that a
boat should be constantly ready 2 , now calls it naturally "the
boat." Matthew, not having made this statement, calls it
"a boat 3 ." Luke does not mention it here, and rather implies
that Jesus quietly withdrew on foot, and that the multitudes
followed Him on foot afterwards, when they became aware of
His departure 4 . John suggests the same thing at the beginning
of his narrative, and afterwards suggests it again, or indirectly
affirms it, with curious detail. First he says that Jesus (R.V.)
"went away to the other side of (A.V. went over) the sea of
Galilee 5 "; then he says that, after the Feeding, when the dis-
ciples came down to the sea for the purpose of going to Caper-
naum, they "entered into a boat" He does not here say "the
boat" which would have clearly meant the boat in which they
had come. And yet afterwards he says that "the multitude
saw . . . that there was no other boat there, save [only there had
been] one, and that Jesus entered not with his disciples into the
boat, but that his disciples had gone away alone howbeit there
came (or, had come) [other] boats from Tiberias... 6 /' These
1 Mk vi. 32.
2 Mk iii. 9. See Proclamation p. 377 suggesting that in the early
Galilaean Church there may have been sometimes a play on the
two words almost identical in Aramaic and Syriac "boat" and
"teaching."
3 Mt. xiv. 13.
4 Lk. ix. IO II vTT^a>pr]crv...ol fie o^Xot yvovres r^noKovBricrav aurco.
One would not infer from these words that Jesus "withdrew" by
sea and the multitudes "followed" by land.
5 Jn VI. I cnrrjXdev irepav. NonnuS adds "in a ship (vrfi 7ro\VK\r)i8i
rajuobi/ avrwTrtov uScop). " If that had been the meaning, it would have
been easy to make it clear by substituting die-rrepaa-ev or 8trj\dfv for
anrjKdcv. Aicurepav is used in Mk v. 21, vi. 53, Mt. ix. i, xiv. 34
about crossing the Lake, and diep^eo-flai in Mk iv. 35, Lk. viii. 22.
The text of Jn suggests that Jesus passed into the translacustrian
region without going across the Lake.
6 Jn vi. 16, 22. R.V. "save one," though literal, is misleading.
A. L. 241 (Mark vi. 29 44) 16
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
statements which can hardly be explained as originating fi
Johannine symbolism or dramatic picturesqueness may per-
haps be explained by supposing that there were very early
differences of tradition about the manner in which Jesus and
the disciples passed to, and returned from, the translacustrian
scene of the Feeding of the Five Thousand 1 . Later on, at the
conclusion of the Feeding of the Four Thousand, we shall find
Mark saying that Jesus crossed to "the parts of Dalmanutha,"
whereas Matthew says that He crossed to "the borders of
Magadan," and there are reasons for thinking that both of
these names are not real place-names but phrases mistaken for
place-names, such as "their haven" or "the parts [of the]
opposite [coast] 2 ." If that is probable it strengthens the prob-
ability that, in the present Lucan passage, "Bethsaida" is not
a place-name, but a phrase mistaken for a place-name, "House
of Provision 3 ."
1 In John, some mention of these details might seem necessary
to explain how it came to pass that many of the Five Thousand,
immediately after the miracle on the eastern side of the Lake, were
addressed by Jesus in Capernaum, on the western side.
2 Mk viii. 10, Mt. xv. 39. As regards "Dalmanutha," see
Corrections 498 g, h, which gives as alternatives (i) the emphatic
form of the Talmudic word for "harbour" a Hebraized form of
Xi/iip preceded by the relative d-, so as to mean "belonging to
the harbour," (2) a transliteration, in Mark, of the preceding word
"parts" (fte'pq, Kni3D). But it should have been added that,
against the second explanation, Prof. Dalman says (and gives
evidence to shew) that (Words p. 66) "TO. p.prj with the meaning of
'district' is a pure Graecism, quite incapable of being literally
reproduced in Aramaic." In Ps. cvii. 30 "the haven of their desire,"
the Syr. has, for "haven," a form of Xt^V (Thes. Syr. 1952, comp.
1941) common in Syriac. This favours the hypothesis called (i)
above. For R.V. "haven," Gesen. 5626 has "city." See below,
p. 243, n. 4.
3 Comp. Macar. p. 85 "For He satisfied five thousand, having
caused them to lie down in the desert as if it were a Megalopolis
(<uv els /ieyaXo7roXu> KaraK\ivas rrjv pr)p.ov)."
242 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
10. Signs of conflation in Mark
Writing of Christ's eastward passage together with the dis-
ciples across the Lake, Mark describes the people as "knowing"
them and as "running together from all the cities." In the
following verse he omits the Matthew-Luke tradition that Jesus
"healed" the people, but inserts what Matthew and Luke
do not contain that He "taught" them 1 . Later on, writing
of Christ's westward return across the Lake, Mark as we shall
presently find says again that people at Gennesaret "knew"
Him, and that they "ran about" or "ran round 2 ." And there
he adds, at great length, that the sick were healed by Jesus in
the " market-places 3 ." Later still, after the Feeding of the Four
Thousand, Mark describes Jesus as coming to " Dalmanutha."
This name non-occurrent elsewhere inside, or outside, the
Bible has been shewn to be explicable as an allusion to the
Psalmist's "haven" in "the haven of their desire 4 ," a Hebrew
word that occurs nowhere else in the Bible but is frequent in
Aramaic, meaning "open place," "street," "market-place."
Something of the nature of a harbour is suggested in the
tradition peculiar to Mark "they moored-to-the-shore 5 ."
1 Mk vi. 33 4.
2 Mk vi. 54 5 Trepte'Spa/ioi', "ran about," occurs nowhere else in
N.T. In LXX it occurs twice and in both cases = Heb. B1K> (the word
quoted above, pp. 230 31, from Amos and Daniel). The second
instance of LXX Trepcrpe'^o) is Jerem. v. i "Run ye to and fro
through the streets of Jerusalem. . .and seek in the broad places
thereof if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly. . .and
I will pardon her."
3 Mk vi. 56 dyopals. Mt. xiv. 35 ("they brought to him all the
sick") omits "market-places."
4 See note above, p. 242, on Ps. cvii. 30 "haven (TITO)."
Levy iii. 70 gives the word as = (i) "city," (2) Machos, the name
of a place, (3) any enclosed place. Levy Ch. ii. 23 gives it as
freq. = "town with market-place," and also "market-place," as in
Lam. ii. 19 (Targ.).
5 Mk vi. 53 "...unto Gennesaret and moored-to-the-shore (KOI
243 (Mark vi. 29 44) 16 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
It is necessary to look forward here to these later Marc;
passages in order to take a collective view of Mark's whole
narrative. For if we find clear signs of reiteration in the
employment of one word of prophetic use, such as "run-to-
and-fro," we ought to be prepared to find them in other
words. And if they are found, then we must recognise
that all this Marcan account of the sequel of the Baptist's
death must be regarded as coming from sources quite
ferent from those of the narrative of the death itself. Ii
that narrative there is diffuseness but little or no room for
prophetic allusion, and there are few or no signs of Marcan
"conflation." But here we seem to be in an altogether
different atmosphere, so that we may expect continuous con-
flations such as might be exemplified in many LXX renderings,
and especially in Daniel 1 . The influence of this consideration
extends beyond the Feeding of the Five Thousand to its
sequel. This, in all the Evangelists but Luke, contains a
description of Christ appearing to the disciples in their boat
while, as Matthew says, it was being "sorely tried (literally, tor-
mented) by the waves"', but Mark, besides saying that the
disciples themselves were being "sorely tried (literally, tor-
mented) " adds that they were "in the act of rowing" ; and John,
too, describes the disciples as "rowing 2 ." Now the regular
Hebrew and Aramaic word for "row" is the same as that which
we have been commenting on above, as meaning e 'run-to-and-fro"
7rpoo-a>pfjii<T0Tjarav)," Mt. xiv. 34 " unto Gennesaret." npoo-oppifa does
not occur in LXX nor again in N.T. Delitzsch renders Mark "and
they drew near to the dry land," the Clementine transl. has "and they
drew near the shore of the sea." D, SS, a, b, and Corb. omit it.
Steph. Thes. vi. 1974 quotes figurative uses of it from Demosth.
p. 795 > * 4 ^po? ovs avros f^axras \tp.vas (misericordiae) . . . irpos TOVTOVS
/J.T] 7rporTopp,iov, and from Philostr. p. 717.
1 See Clue 127 on Dan. iv. 19, also 105 111 on 2 S. xxiv. 19 20
compared with i Chr. xxi. 19 20, and 95 foil, on "Longer Con-
flations."
2 Mk vi. 48, Mt. xiv. 24, Jn vi. 19.
244 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
in Amos and Daniel 1 . And the question will come before us
whether John is here deliberately intervening in favour of
Mark against Matthew, who omits the word "rowing," and
still more against Luke, who omits the whole of the story about
"rowing" and, if so, in what sense, whether symbolical or
otherwise.
ii. "On foot" in Mark and Matthew 2
Why does Luke omit "on foot"'? One reason may be that
in Hebrew, "a multitude following [a leader] at his feet" may
be confused with "a multitude following on their feet 3 ." But
another reason may be that Luke did not perceive a latent
allusion in the Marcan phrase, which he consequently deemed
superfluous.
Mark is describing a miracle akin to that of the Manna,
which speedily followed the departure of Israel from Egypt.
And the description of that departure contains the first mention
of the phrase " on foot" to be found in our English Version of
the Bible: "about six hundred thousand [that were] on foot*."
There the Hebrew adds "the men [of military age], besides
children 5 ." Rabbi Ishmael explains that "children" includes
1 Jon. i. 13 (Heb.) has the exceptional word "inn "dug [into the
sea]," but the Targ. has Bl>, which is used of "rowing" in Heb. of
Is. xxxiii. 21, Ezek. xxvii. 8, 26.
2 Mk vi. 33, Mt. xiv. 13. R.V. marg. "by land." Delitzsch "on
their feet."
3 Clue 75 6 contains an attempt to explain Mk vi. 33, Mt. xiv. 13
thus. See 2 S. xv. 16 18 (bis) l^JPO, Walton "in pedibus suis,"
(semel) fe-Q, Walton "in pede suo," R.V. (ter) "after him," Targ.
(ter) "cum illo," LXX (l) rots- rroo-lv avrfov, (2) Tre^ V. r. irfoi, (3) rols
iroa-lv CLVTUV. Comp. Jer. xii. 5 "thou hast run with the footmen,"
LXX "thy feet run."
4 "On foot," so R.V. here (Exod. xii. 37), but the same Heb. is
rendered "footmen" in Numb. xi. 21 "Six hundred thousand footmen
O^in) [are] the people...." See below, pp. 349 50.
6 Exod. xii. 37 "the men [of military age]" ha-gebdrim, Rashi
"men above 20 years old." The first instance of geber is in
Exod. x. ii "Go now, the men [among you]. . . ," where Moses has
245 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"women," and Rabbi Jonathan adds "the aged 1 " additions
that may illustrate the words added by Matthew alone at the
conclusion of both the Miracles of Feeding, "besides women and
children 2 ."
In the Fourth Gospel there is nothing on the surface to
indicate Johannine intervention in favour of Mark here. On
the contrary John rather seems to favour Matthew-Luke by
himself saying, as they do, that the multitude "followed"
Jesus 3 . He does not add "on their feet" \ although, later on,
he certainly implies that they did not come by boat and leaves
us to infer that they came on foot 4 . The picture he gives us
is of Jesus on a mountain, first looking down and seeing that
the multitude that had been following Him is now approaching,
and then descending to give them food. If therefore "foot"
is to enter at all into the Johannine picture, it would seem
that we are to think of the crowd as down below at the feet
of Jesus, somewhat as the Song of Moses says concerning
Israel at Sinai, "They sat down at thy feet, [everyone] shall
receive (marg. received) of thy words 5 ."
But John goes on to say "Now the passover, the feast of
the Jews, was nigh 6 ." And it is at all events worth noting that
both in New Hebrew and in Aramaic the word "foot" is very
frequently used to denote " a feast," and especially one of the
three great feasts. Possibly therefore John may be following
a tradition that explained " on foot" as "at the feast ," to which
asked (x. 9) that "young" and "old" may go; Rashi explains that
Pharaoh is refusing to let the children go.
1 See Mechilt. on Exod. xii. 37. Jer. Targ. on Exod. xii. 37 adds
"none riding on horses except the children" apparently intended to
explain antithetically the phrase "on foot" applied to the men.
2 This addition is contained in Mt. xv. 38 as well as Mt. xiv. 21.
See below on Mk vi. 44, p. 348 foil.
3 Jn vi. 2, Mt. xiv. 13, Lk. ix. n "followed."
4 See above, p. 241.
5 Deut. xxxiii. 3 LXX VTTO <re, Aq. rots- TTOO-I a-ov.
6 Jn vi. 4.
246 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
John added an explanatory context indicating that it was
"the passover 1 ."
It is not contended that the Johannine "passover" is proved
to represent the Marcan "on foot." The evidence is not
sufficient for that. But, in view of the multitude of positive
proofs of the rule of Johannine Intervention, the evidence is
sufficient here for at least a negative conclusion it is not
proved that the rule fails, and there is nothing unreasonable
in the supposition that the rule holds 2 .
12. "He had compassion," in Mark and Matthew*
The verb here rendered "had compassion" means literally
"had [the] bowels [of his compassion opened]*-." In the Healing
of the Leper Mark alone used this word 5 . Here Matthew
follows Mark in using it, but Luke does not 6 . It is therefore
a case where we should expect Johannine intervention.
If we ask why Luke omitted it here, we shall find that it
cannot well be because the word is unknown in the LXX and
in literary Greek; for Luke uses it elsewhere thrice, and once
1 See Levy iv. 424 5, which shews that this meaning of "foot"
was very common, and that the double meaning of the term was
sometimes played upon. The phrase "in the foot of" also meant
(ib.) "on account of," so that "they followed on account of Jesus [and
His signs] " (comp. Jn vi. 2) might be expressed by "at the feet of
Jesus." "Foot" is also thus used in Aramaic (Levy Ch. ii. 406 a).
Gesen. 290 b renders Jjn (LXX e'opra^a)) not "feast," but "make-
pilgrimage," "keep a pilgrim-feast."
2 It is not contended that John is right. Further reasons will be
given below (pp. 348 51) for thinking that Mark's tradition alluded
to the phrase "on foot," or "footmen," connected with the exodus
of Israel from Egypt. 3 Mk vi. 34, Mt. xiv. 14.
4 Comp. the use of the noun in i Jn iii. 17 A.V. "shut up his
bowels [of compassion]," R.V. "his compassion," TO. a-ir\ayx va avTov.
5 Mk i. 41, o-TrAayx^o/iai, "a new verb in the Greek language,"
see Proclam. pp. 251-2.
6 Mk vi. 34, Mt. xiv. 14 eWXayxWo-dfy, Lk. ix. II a
247 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
about Jesus 1 . But it may be explained by his other contextu;
variations from Mark. Mark states, as the reason for com-
passion, "They were as sheep that had no shepherd," and then
"He began to teach them many things" as though the whole
multitude were spiritually shepherdless and pitiably ignorant
of spiritual things. Later on, Mark says about the disciples,
"They understood not [the truth] about the loaves, but their
heart was callous 2 " as though, even by the disciples, some
latent spiritual truth, underlying the sign of the Feeding, had
been overlooked. All this is omitted by Luke. It would not
suit his comparatively prosaic and passionless representation:
"Having received (or, welcomed) them, He proceeded to speak
to them about the kingdom of God, and to heal those that
needed tendance 3 ." Apparently Luke did not see that the
occasion was one that called for a feeling so strong as to need
the Marcan word to describe it.
Passing to John, we perceive that in accordance with Mark's
brief observation but at much greater length, and not in his
own words but in words attributed to Jesus he lays stress on
the spiritual meaning of the Feeding, which not only the
multitude but also almost all the disciples misunderstood.
But neither here nor elsewhere in his Gospel does he mention
"bowels of compassion." Can we say, then, that he implies
it either here or elsewhere?
It will seem probable that he does, if we bear in mind the
Johannine habit of dramatizing and ask ourselves how John
would dramatically represent Jesus as " having-bowels-of-
compassion." The Johannine Epistle says, about Him, "Here-
by know we love, because he laid down his life for us, and we
1 Lk. vii. 13 (of Jesus at Nain), x. 33, xv. 20 (all peculiar to
Luke).
2 Mk vi. 52, not in the parall. Mt. xiv. 33. Luke omits the
whole narrative (the Walking on the Sea).
8 Lk. ix. II aTroSe^a/ievos" avrovs e'XaXet avrois irfpl TTJS /3aeriAft'as' TOV
6fov KOI TOVS xP f ' iav CXOVTO.? Oepaireias laro.
248 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath
the world's goods, and beholdeth his brother in need and shutteth
up his bowels from him, how doth the love of God abide in
him 1 ?" The "shutting up of the bowels" of compassion, then,
is the Johannine opposite of Christ's sacrifice, or "laying down
life" for others. It follows that the "opening, or free action,
of the bowels of compassion" would be the Johannine equivalent
of Christ's "laying down His life for the brethren." Now though
the word "bowels" is not mentioned in the whole of the Fourth
Gospel, yet the thing that is to say, a yearning compassion for
the hunger and the thirst of the sinful world, and a longing to
lay down life that the world may live is implied, not only in
the words "The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life
of the world," but in the whole of the doctrine of the gift of
His flesh and blood, enunciated "in synagogue, as he taught in
Capernaum 2 ."
If this view is correct, John is expressing dramatically and
symbolically a moral and sacrificial view of the Feeding of
the Five Thousand of which there is no trace in Luke. Mark
and Matthew suggest it twice, first, by saying that Jesus "had
compassion," and later on, in the Feeding of the Four Thousand,
by representing Jesus Himself as saying "/ have compassion."
John seems to attempt to make us feel that in this "sign"
Jesus is (so to speak) "doing compassion," i.e. symbolically
offering up Himself, as a sacrifice for men. In the Epistle to
Philemon Paul calls Onesimus first his "child" and then his
"bowels" and The Testaments of the Patriarchs represents
Joseph as saying to his brethren "Pity the bowels of Jacob our
father," meaning "Pity his beloved son 3 ." Philo also represents
1 i Jn iii. 16 17.
2 Jn vi. 51 9.
3 Philem. 10, 12, Test. XII Patr. Zab. ii. 2. Comp. ib. Neph. iv. 5
"until there shall come the bowels (<nr\dyxvov) of the Lord, a man
doing righteousness."
249 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Jacob as calling Joseph "my bowels 1 ." Thus there was a
connection, for Jews in the first century, not at first perceptible
to us, between "compassion" and "a son," or rather "a dear
son" "a son specially beloved"
If this connection is obscure to us it must have been much
more obscure to Greeks in the first century. For to them the
word "bowels," though conveying often the notion of some
strong inward feeling, more often implied depth of resentment
than depth of love 2 . It was therefore an appropriate task for
the Fourth Evangelist to make this connection clear. He
himself certainly believed that the Sign of the Five Thousand
was a sign of God's love in sending down His Compassion
incarnate in Jesus Christ to give Himself as the living bread
for the life of men. This he found hinted at in the Marcan
tradition about "bowels of compassion," but only hinted at
and so obscurely that Luke passed it over in word and neglected
it in thought. To remedy this defect John may have adopted
"Son" meaning " a Son uniquely beloved, or only -begotten "
as a Hellenic paraphrase for the Hebrew "bowels of com-
passion*" At all events he represents Jesus as teaching in
the synagogue at Capernaum a consistent doctrine such as
might be based on this paraphrase.
In conclusion we may naturally ask what induced Mark to
use if not to invent this unprecedented Greek verb (unprece-
dented at least so far as researches of modern commentators
go) to express Christ's compassion. Might he not have used
1 Philo ii. 45 rhetorically represents Jacob as saying that the
wild beasts, in devouring Joseph, devour T>V fj.a>v o-TrXdyxvw.
2 See Steph. Thes. which alleges, as exceptional uses, (rrr\dyxvov
"de utero," of fatherhood in Soph. Oed. T. 1066, and of motherhood
in Find. OL vi. 43 and Aesch. Sept. 1031.
3 Comp. Test. XII Pair. Lev. iv. 4, where the text has "The
Lord shall visit all the Gentiles in His bowels [of compassion]," but
several versions have, as a Christian modification, "in the bowels [of
compassion] of His Son."
250 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the verb "pitied," frequent in LXX and thrice used by himself 1 ?
It is hardly enough to say Mark wanted to express abundant
or extreme pity, for he could have added adverbs (as he adds
them elsewhere) to express this 2 .
It is reasonable therefore to look back to O.T. for some
Biblical instance of a phrase implying " bowels of compassion."
A notable one almost the only one outside the prophets
occurs in Genesis, where it is said of Joseph that "his bowels
did yearn upon his brother 3 ." The context describes Joseph's
brethren as coming to buy corn from him. Jewish Christians
from a very early date would naturally accept Joseph as a
type of Christ; and Joseph, giving food to his brethren in
Egypt, might represent one aspect (a rudimentary one) of Jesus
giving food to His brethren in the wilderness 4 . Then the com-
passion of Jesus for the multitude, whom He fed as His little
ones, might be likened in early Christian poetry to the "bowels
of compassion" of Joseph who was himself called "the bowels
of Jacob," as we have seen above "yearning" for his beloved
brother Benjamin, "the little one" among the Twelve.
Thoughts of this kind may well have been in the mind of those
who originated early Christian songs and poetic traditions con-
cerning Christ's acts of compassion for the hunger and thirst
of the multitudes.
of which there are about 150 instances in O.T.
2 E.g. (T0oSpa, Xiai/, 7rfpr(7a>f.
3 Gen. xliii. 30 (where the niarg. gives only i K. iii. 26 (apart from
prophecy) ) . I have found no ancient comment on the rather curious
use of "lift up the eyes" in the context (ib. 28 9) "And they [i.e.
Joseph's brethren] ... made obeisance. And he [i.e. Joseph] lifted
up his eyes, and saw Benjamin his brother."
4 See Jerome on Ps. cv. 21 "He made him [Joseph] lord of his
house." Jerome explains "house" as "the Church acquired by
[His] blood."
251 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
13. "They were as sheep not having a shepherd," in Mark
and Matthew 1
The mention of a shepherdless flock comes appropriately
here in Mark, because it follows the account of the execution
of John the Baptist whom many Jews had been regarding
their "shepherd." Matthew places it earlier, between wh
may be called a Circuit of Healing and the Mission of t
Twelve 2 . Luke nowhere inserts it. Textual grounds may
suffice perhaps for a partial explanation of his omitting it
here 3 . But Luke will be found also to omit, much later on,
another Mark-Matthew tradition about "the shepherd" the
quotation, attributed to Jesus, "I will smite the shepherd and
the sheep shall be scattered 4 ." We must therefore not ignore
the possibility that Luke may have been influenced by some
doubt as to the utility of this tradition for his readers. The
conception of a king as a shepherd is both Hebrew and
Homeric. Yet it was liable to philosophic scoffing such as
Epictetus addresses to Homer's Agamemnon: "What then are
you ? A ' shepherd ' in truth. For you weep like the shepherds
when a wolf snatches one of their sheep 5 ."
1 Mk vi. 34, comp. Mt. ix. 36.
2 Mt. ix. 35 "And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages,
teaching ... and preaching ... and healing all. . .sickness." This is
parall. to Mk vi. 6 "And he went about the villages round about,
teaching." Neither Mk vi. 6 nor the parall. Lk. xiii. 22 (which adds
"journeying to Jerusalem") makes any mention of "healing."
Mt. ix. 36 proceeds "When he saw the multitudes, he was moved
with compassion (eo-TrXay^i/ io-Or)) for them because they were. . .as
sheep not having a shepherd." Then follows (Mt. ix. 37, x. i) the
injunction to pray for "labourers" for "the harvest," and the
Mission of the Twelve.
3 See below, p. 256 foil.
4 Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xxvi. 31, om. by Lk. xxii. 39 foil. The
quotation in the Gospels differs from the Heb. of Zech. xiii. 7.
There are special reasons why Luke might omit it. See Son (Index
"Shepherd").
5 Epict. iii. 22. 35 "snatches (dpTrda-r))," comp. Jn x. 12 "the
252 (Mark vi. 29 44)
I
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
The Fourth Gospel, whether consciously alluding to such
jibes or unconsciously using language that meets them, vindi-
cates at all events the character of the ideal shepherd. It
admits that the ideal has not been reached, and that all who
have come forward hitherto, representing themselves as true
shepherds, have been, as compared with the true Shepherd,
"thieves and robbers 1 ." But it claims for the Good Shepherd
a very different part. The thief (it says) comes to "steal"
and to "destroy"; the wolf comes to "snatch"; the hireling
"fleeth" ; but the Good Shepherd comes, not only to give food
to the sheep, but also, by "laying down his life" in conflict
with "the wolf," to save them from being "snatched."
John has in mind the thought of the false king, the king of
Babel, the hunter or "snatcher" of the souls of men, the wolf 2 .
The true king is He who, as Paul says, "being jn the form of
God, counted it not a [prize-/or-]snatching to be on an equality
with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant 3 ."
Yet the Jews in Jerusalem accused Jesus, in effect, of doing
this very thing, "making himself equal with God 4 ," that is to
say, "snatching" at it as a "prize." And what are we to say
to the fact that the only other Johannine mention of " snatching"
comes at the conclusion of the Feeding of the Five Thousand,
in a passage implying the complete failure of the multitude to
understand the spiritual meaning of the sign: "They were
about to come and snatch him [away] to make him king 5 " ?
Is it a mere accident that the sheep of Israel, whom Jesus
wolf snatcheth (apird&i) them." Perhaps one of Luke's reasons for
omitting the tradition of Mk vi. 34 was that he thought it attached
too great importance to the recent death of John the Baptist.
1 Jn x. 8, see Joh. Gr. 23612.
2 Philo ii. 41 42, 90 contrasts "shepherding" which is the fit
training for a king, with "hunting" which is the training for war.
3 Philipp. ii. 6 "a [prize-f or-] snatching (apiraynov)."
4 Jn v. 18.
6 Jn vi. 15. 'ApTra^o) occurs in Jn, elsewhere, only in x. 12, 28, 29
(the Good Shepherd and the comment on it).
253 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
came to save from "the snatcher," are here described as them-
selves desiring to "snatch [away]" their Shepherd that they
may convert Him into a "king" after their own hearts a
veritable wolf? In imputing to John a deliberate choice of a
peculiar phrase to describe a fact we do not impugn the fact
itself. The fact in the present instance the attempt to make
Jesus a king may be accepted as historical because of its
antecedent probability, although no other Evangelist mentions
it; but the choice of the word to express the fact may not
improbably have been suggested by the Johannine sense
irony.
14. "Shepherd" (sing.) nowhere mentioned by Luke
Both Matthew and Luke mention an owner of sheep as
follows :
Mt. xviii. 12 (R.V.)
How think ye? if any man
have a hundred sheep, and one
of them be gone astray, doth he
not leave the ninety and nine,
and go \ and seek that which
goeth astray ?
Lk. xv. 4 (R.V.)
What man of you, having a
hundred sheep, and having lost
one of them, doth not leave the
ninety and nine...., and go after
that which is lost, until he find
it?
The man's conduct seems open to censure especially in
Luke's version, which represents him as "leaving to themselves"
or "abandoning 2 ," the ninety-nine sheep. At all events
opponents of Christianity might object to such a human shep-
herd as the type of the divine Shepherd. Perhaps some might
say he was no true shepherd. Readers of Philo would know
that he distinguishes the "cattle-feeder" from the "shepherd"
as follows, "Now to those who allow their beasts to fill them-
selves with what they desire in a promiscuous mass we must
1 R.V. "leave the ninety and nine and go unto the mountains,"
W.H. "leave the ninety and nine on the mountains and go."
2 Lk. XV. 4 KaraXeiVet, COmp. Mt. xviii. 12 d(f)T](Ti.
254 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
give the name of 'cattle-feeders/ but that of 'shepherds' on the
other hand to those who give them what is needful and only
what is exactly suitable 1 ." The man who "abandoned" his
ninety-nine sheep (it might be urged) did not discharge the
duty of a shepherd and was not worthy of the name.
Jerome gives two explanations of the parable. Some think
(he says) that the Shepherd is the incarnate Son descending
to save the one wandering sheep below, the human race (in
which case the ninety-nine would be, presumably, the angels
in heaven) ; others think that the ninety-nine are those whom
He called "just persons that need no repentance 2 ." In the
latter case, the parable is still open to the jibe of Celsus, who
asked "what evil" these just persons had done to incur the
punishment of being abandoned 3 . It is only a prosaic or
captious spirit that would take literally this "abandonment"
of the safe and unwandering sheep, but still the Fourth Evan-
gelist might naturally feel that there was room for another
exposition of the tasks of the Good Shepherd in which He
might be described as performing one task without neglecting
another 4 .
Luke, in his only mention of "flock," calls it a "little one"
and connects it with "kingdom," "Fear not, little flock] for
it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom 5 " ;
and again, in his parallel to the Marcan passage that speaks of
"teaching" and "sheep without a shepherd," Luke mentions
1 Philo i. 306 "cattle-feeders,"
2 Lk. xv. 7. 3 Orig. Cels. iii. 62.
4 Philo, besides quoting Numb, xxvii. 16 foil, from LXX "sheep
that have no shepherd," with the paraphrase (i. 307) ^oopls eVio-Tarou
KOL f)yfp.6vos, also alludes to it (i. 170) Si'^a eVicrrarov KCU fjycpovos,
without quoting it. Such a condition he calls (ib.} optyaviav (comp.
Jn xiv. 1 8).
6 Lk. xii. 32 TO piKpov Troipviov, on which see Son 3440 b quoting
Clem. Alex. 953, who uses Lk. and Mt. xviii. 10 pucpcov to illustrate
Christ's doctrine of "little ones." This would make good sense,
"flock of the little-ones," i.e. flock of the children of the New Kingdom.
255 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"kingdom 1 ." Somewhat similarly in one of the Psalms, where
the Hebrew has "he shepherded them," and the R.V. "he/e
them," the Targum has "he reigned over them 2 ." Such
variations of rendering are all justifiable. But they imply
preferences of this or that aspect of "shepherding."
Luke seems to like the royal aspect. John, if he does not
dislike, at all events avoids it. He represents Jesus as using
the word "kingdom" on only two occasions, namely, in dialogues
with Nicodemus and Pilate, both of whom misunderstand it 3 .
Also, in John, the flock is not called "little," though it is
divided, at the close of his Gospel, into three classes, one of
which consists of "little-sheep 4 ." In the Parable of the Good
Shepherd we are told that the sheep are of more than one fold,
though they will all be brought together so as to make "one
flock, one shepherd 5 ."
15. "And he began to teach them many things," in Mark
The parallel Matthew-Luke makes no mention of " teaching,"
but Matthew mentions "curing," and Luke has "welcoming"
and "speaking about the kingdom of God" and "healing 6 ."
An explanation of these variations is afforded by the hypothesis
of an original Hebrew verb "to shepherd" Mark has given us
a hint of this in his negative phrase above discussed ("sheep
not having a shepherd"). But we have now to note that the
Hebrew verb "to shepherd" occurs more frequently in the
Bible than might be supposed. The English Version does not
reveal it, because "shepherding" includes various actions such
as feeding and tending, which may be expressed in English
1 Mk vi. 34, Lk. ix. ii. 2 Ps. Ixxviii. 72.
3 See Joh. Voc. 1685 a quoting Jn iii. 3, 5, xviii. 36.
4 Jn xxi. 15 17 (txt doubtful).
5 Jn x. 16.
6 Mk vi. 34 rjp^aro 8i$darKiv avrovs TroXXa, Mt. xiv. 14
TOVS dppa>(TTovs avT&v, Lk. ix. II a7rodet;dp.fvos avrovs eXa'Xei avrols
rfjs /Sao-tXei'as TOV 6eov, KCU TOVS XP ' LCLV *X OVTas Qfpaircias laro.
256 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
by their several verbs "feed," "tend," etc. This is the first
and probably the principal cause of variation. A second cause
is the accidental similarity of the Hebrew verb "shepherd"
to forms of the verb meaning "know" or "cause to know"
(i.e. "teach").
This second cause has been discussed in a previous treatise 1 .
One of the instances there given deserves to be repeated here
because it illustrates both causes at the same time: "The lips
of the righteous [man] shepherd many 2 ." Here "to shepherd"
may mean " to guide," or "tend," as well as "feed," but LXX has
confused it with "know," meaning " [come to] know," i.e. "learn."
Moreover the LXX renders "many" (the Hebrew rab) as
though it meant "great" or "lofty," and renders the whole
sentence "The lips of the righteous [come to] know lofty [things]."
This suggests an explanation of the phrase in our Marcan
context "and many knew [them, or him]," as being an error for
"and he caused-to-know many," i.e. either "he taught many
[persons]," or "he taught [them] many [things]" which is, in
substance, the phrase at the heading of this section.
More important than this verbal cause is the cause placed
first above namely, the Hebrew thought and stream of
tradition about God's "shepherding." Jacob illustrates it
when he begins his career at Bethel, praying that the Lord
would guide him, guard him, and feed him 3 ; and he expressly
mentions the word when he closes his career in Egypt, invoking
1 See Son 3437 c d, which refers to Clue 5, 7, and 90, and deals
with Mk vi. 34 and the parall. Mt.-Lk. from the verbal point of view.
2 Prov. x. 21 (R.V.) "feed (1IT) 1 ')," LXX eViVrarai, "learn,"
or, " [come to] know," leg. lirp. Targ. retains the Heb. in pyi
(Aram.), but in the sense " treat-as-friends " (Walton, "placant"),
Aq. troipaivovo-i " they shepherd," Field " pascunt (i.e. erudiunt)." In
Job xxxii. 7, the causative "make to know" 1JTT, i.e. "teach," is
rendered by LXX "know."
3 Gen. xxviii. 20 " If God will be with me, and will keep me in
this way that I go and will give me bread to eat.. . . "
A. L. 257 (Mark vi. 29 44) 17
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"the God that shepherded me all my life long unto this day 1 ."
Moses implied "shepherding" when he besought the Lord to
appoint a successor to himself "that the congregation of the
Lord be not as sheep that have no shepherd 2 ." And all his
life testified that he too, like Jacob, recognised that the good
shepherd on earth was the type of the Shepherd in heaven,
the God that had guided Israel out of Egypt and guarded and
fed them in the wilderness; to whom the Psalmist appealed
as Shepherd of Israel and of whom the Psalmist said "The
Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want 3 ."
This last sentence is one of the very few quoted from the
Psalms by Philo, who speaks of it ecstatically as a song that
should be sung by every man that loves God, and above all by
the Cosmos, or Universe, which is the "flock" of the living
God who governs all things like a shepherd and a king 4 . Poets,
he says, are wont to give to kings the title of shepherds of the
people ; but the Lawgiver (that is, Moses) gives this title only to
the wise, who are real kings 5 . Elsewhere Philo declares that
however men may laugh at the notion the only way of be-
coming a perfect king is to become an adept in the science of
shepherding 6 .
1 Gen. xlviii. 15 16 "The God that hath shepherded me all my
life long unto this day, the Angel that hath redeemed me from all
evil...." Gen. r. ad loc., assuming that "shepherding" means
nourishing, says that it is a greater work (as in Ps. cxlv. 16) to
"shepherd" than to "redeem," the former being the act of "God,"
the latter of "the angel," and that the "shepherding" is as difficult
as the cleaving of the Red Sea.
2 Numb, xxvii. 17.
3 Ps. Ixxx. i, xxiii. i. Comp. Hos. iv. 16 "The Lord will shepherd
them, i.e. Israel," R.V. "feed," Targ. "deducet," LXX vtpijtrfi,
Is. xl. ii "Like a shepherd his flock shall he shepherd," and sim.
Targ., LXX Troi^iaj/et.
4 Philo i. 308.
5 Philo i. 306.
6 Philo ii. 9 KOI p-ot ftocct. . . povos av yeW<r0ai f3a(ri\vs rcXeios 6 TTJV
7roi.fJieviK.rjv swurr^fUJv dyados.
258 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
In a very different strain, yet to the same effect, the Jewish
comment on "The Lord is my shepherd" declares that the
"shepherd" includes the three characters of Father, Shepherd
(as Guide and Guardian), and Brother, and it adds a very early
tradition that, although the occupation of the shepherd with
his staff and scrip is commonly believed to be one of the
meanest on earth, David "knew better." David argued thus:
"Jacob called the Lord a Shepherd, saying 'The God that
shepherded me all my life long ' ; therefore I, too, will call Him
a Shepherd and will say 'The Lord is my Shepherd?-' '
The longest of the historical Psalms leads up to the shep-
herding of Israel as its climax. It tells us how Israel wandered
in the wilderness, "led" by God's "cloud" and "fire," and
receiving from Him "manna," or "corn of heaven," and "bread"
and "meat to the full," and "flesh." All these gifts which
imply guidance and food such as a shepherd gives were yet
to no purpose for Israel because "their heart was not right
with him 2 ." But the last three verses describe how Israel was
finally "shepherded" by God's chosen representative: "He
chose David also his servant and took him from the sheep-
folds ... to shepherd Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance ;
so he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart
and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands 3 ."
1 See Tehill. on Ps. xxiii. i (Wii. pp. 209 10) giving several
traditions on " my shepherd." The first tradition of all is a comment
on "my" (in "my shepherd"). It begins from Cant. ii. 16 "My
beloved is mine and I am his," and passes to Exod. xx. 2 "I am
Jehovah, thy God," Is. li. 4 "my nation."
2 Ps. Ixxviii. 14 37. In ib. 52 "he led forth his people like
sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock," we are brought
to the thought of the sheep, but not to the word "shepherd."
3 Ps. Ixxviii. 70 72. This is quoted in Exod. r. on Exod. iii. i
"And Moses was shepherding the flock," where it is said that Moses
(as also David afterwards) divided the sheep into three classes
(comp. Jn xxi. 15 foil.) according to age, so that he might feed them
suitably. We are also told that Moses, finding a lamb that had
259 (Mark vi. 29 44) 17 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Returning to the Synoptic tradition under consideration,
we see that Mark's "began to teach them many things," though
cold and inadequate in itself, becomes less inadequate if
regarded in the light of the Marcan context, which depicts
Jesus as compassionating the multitude because they were
"as sheep without a shepherd." Luke's text, which mentions
"welcoming" and "healing" as well as "speaking about the
kingdom of God," is more adequate than the tradition of Mark
("to teach them many things") taken by itself, but misses the
thought of "compassion" and all the deep pathos implied in
Hebrew traditions about the divine Shepherd to whom Israel
says, "My beloved is mine and I am his 1 ."
John may be said to combine the Marcan "teaching" with
the Lucan "welcoming" and "healing" only expressing the
latter in a more vivid and passionate way. As to "teaching,"
he says at the end of Christ's long discourse about the meaning
of the Feeding of the Five Thousand "These things said
Jesus... as he taught in Capernaum 2 ." But in the discourse
itself, he declares in effect that, under this sign, the Shepherd
of Israel was revealing Himself as purposing to give His own
"flesh" and "blood," to be "living bread," food and life for
the flock. This doctrine Jesus sets forth in such a form that
Peter, despairing of finding any other shepherd like Him,
exclaims, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast words of
eternal life 3 ." Thus John places before us two characters,
briefly hinted at in Mark the character of the Teacher and
the character of the Compassionate Shepherd. The latter
which in Luke is limited to the Seeker after one lost sheep
strayed away through thirst, took it on his shoulder to bring it back
to the flock. Whereupon God said "Thou hast shewn compassion
in leading sheep of flesh and blood. By thy life ! thou shalt also
shepherd my sheep, the flock of Israel."
1 Cant. ii. 16.
a Jn vi. 59. AiSao-Ko), in Johannine narrative, occurs elsewhere
only in vii. 14, 28, viii. 20.
3 Jn vi. 68.
260 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
John does not intend to describe or even to mention till later
on 1 . But he suggests it here, in anticipation, to the minds of
those who meditated on the goodness of God towards Israel
in preparing a table for them in the wilderness.
16. "When the day was now far spent,'' in Mark
At this point the Four Gospels diverge 2 . The difference
resembles one already discussed in the narrative of Christ's
first public acts of healing, where Mark says that "it had
become late" and the sun "[had] set," Matthew that "it had
become late," but Luke that the sun was still "setting 3 ."
Here Mark's expression is "an advanced hour," a comparatively
rare phrase 4 . Matthew uses the more ordinary Greek expres-
sion "evening." This however does not seem applicable to a
time before the miracle but to one after it. And such an
application John seems to give it when he says further on
"When evening came his disciples went down to the sea 5 ";
Mark also himself says that "when evening had come," the
disciples were rowing "in the midst of the sea 6 ."
Luke says, "The day began to incline (or, decline)," an ex-
pression that does not recur in N.T. except in his Gospel after
the Resurrection, where he uses the perfect "Abide with us,
for it is toward evening and the day has now inclined" 1 ."
1 Lk. xv. 4 6, Jn x. n foil.
2 Mk vi. 35 KOL fjdrj wpas TTO\\TJS yei'o/zei'T/y (marg. ytvo/jLtvrjs), Mt. xiv.
o^-ias Se yvop.evr)s, Lk. IX. 12 f) 5e fjpepa fjp^aTO K\iveiv.
3 Proclamation p. 213 foil, on Mk i. 32, Mt. viii. 16, Lk. iv. 40.
4 Wetstein on Mk vi. 35 quotes Dion. Hal. Ant. ii. 54 e/Lia
avrovs. Steph. Thes. quotes Polyb. v. 8. 3, and Joseph. Ant. viii.
4. 3. Thucydides uses TTO\\TJ with i>u.
5 Jn vi. l6 a>s 8f 6\f/ia eyevero.
6 Mk vi. 47 KCLI 6-^-ias yvo/j.VT]s r\v TO TrXoToi/ eV /LtfV&) rfjs 6a\d(rcrrjs.
The context implies a time subsequent to that implied by John.
7 Lk. xxiv. 29 irpbs ttnrfpav tariv KCU <fK\i<v fjdr) 77
261 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
The "day," or the sun, is said to "incline" not only in
Greek and Latin but also once in Hebrew 1 , and it may "incline"
toward "afternoon" as well as toward "evening." Luke, by
saying "began to incline'' here and "has inclined" elsewhere,
seems to intend to emphasize "began" here, so as to mean
"incline toward afternoon." In the story of Emmaus there are
reasons for thinking that Luke is imitating the language of
the LXX 2 . But there are no such reasons here. It seems
probable that Luke is here using an expression, frequent in
Greek and Latin, and capable of meaning with slight modi-
fications "afternoon" or "evening," by which he corrects an
error of Mark's in such a way that a Greek reader of the Gospels
might say: "Mark has taken 'when the day was inclining' for
' when the day had inclined ' and has paraphrased it in the latter
sense. Luke has restored the original phrase, leaving his
readers to give it its correct sense."
Some Hebrew original like "between the two evenings "-
used about the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might explain
the Synoptic variations. Such an original has already been
suggested as capable of explaining the Synoptic variations
in the accounts of Christ's first public healing 3 . Still more
appropriately would it explain them here. For in that earlier
narrative there was nothing that pointed to the Passover.
But there is much of that nature here. It is antecedently
probable that the Galilaean Church would use expressions
likening the Feeding of the Five Thousand to the Eucharist or
to a prophetic sign of the Eucharist, a preliminary type of a
Christian Passover.
1 Judg. xix. 8 (R.V.) "tarry ye until the day declineth," (A.V.)
"they tarried until afternoon (marg. till the day declined]." KAiWt
rjnepa (sing.) recurs only ib. xix. 9 n (A) and Jerem. vi. 4. Steph.
Thes. iv. 1651 gives instances from Greek and Latin. The "de-
clining" may be toward "evening" or toward "afternoon."
2 Comp. in Judg. xix. 7 e/3iao-aro, and in Lk. xxiv. 29
as well as the rare xXtvei ^4 pa.
3 See Proclamation p. 213 foil.
262 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
John himself tells us that "the Passover of the Jews" was
"near 1 ." No doubt he means us to take this literally. But
it would be characteristic of him to intend us also to take it
as suggesting something more: "And another 'passover' was
also 'near/ the Passover of the Christians." As the sacred
Lamb of the Jewish Passover was slain for the sins of Israel
"between the two evenings," so the same hour might be
regarded in early Galilaean traditions as appropriate for
Christ's announcement of the sign of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
which He was destined to offer up as the Passover for the
sins of the whole world.
17. "They continue with me now three days," in Mark
and Matthew 2
The Feeding of the Four Thousand, in several of its
expressions, gives to Christ's act a more personal note than
is found in the Feeding of the Five Thousand 3 . It is more like
Isaiah's description of the considerate Shepherd of Israel
gently leading the flock 4 . Moreover Mark's preceding context
1 Jn vi. 4.
2 Mk viii. 2, Mt. xv. 32. It will be convenient to discuss the
Feeding of the Four Thousand here, as a parallel to the Feeding of
the Five Thousand, in order to compare and contrast the two.
3 Mk viii. i3 (R.V.) Mt. xv. 32 (R.V.)
(1) In those days, when And Jesus called unto him
there was again a great multi- his disciples, and said, I have
tude, and they had nothing to compassion on the multitude,
eat, he called unto him his dis- because they continue with me
ciples, and saith unto them, now three days and have nothing
(2) I have compassion on to eat: and I would not send
the multitude, because they con- them away fasting, lest haply
tinue with me now three days, they faint in the way.
and have nothing to eat :
(3) And if I send them
away fasting to their home,
they will faint in the way; and
some of them are come from far.
4 Is. xl. 11. Comp. Mk viii. 2 foil. "I have compassion" as
compared with vi. 34 "he had compassion." And see Mk viii. 3
"If I send them away fasting. . .they will faint in the way; and
263 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
appears to be influenced by the language of Isaiah, describing
the healing and safe guidance of ransomed Israel, returning
to Jerusalem across the wilderness 1 . This should prepare us
to find traces of .prophetic and poetic influence in the narrative
that follows. Accordingly we find Jesus describing the multi-
tude as "fasting," or "hungry," and as likely to "faint in the
way," very much as the Psalmist says of the redeemed of
Israel, "gathered" from the four quarters of the world, "They
wandered in the wilderness in a desert way . . . hungry and
thirsty, their soul fainted in them 2 ." "Gathering" is not so
easily applicable to the Exodus from Egypt 3 as it is to the
gathering of the scattered captives of Israel predicted by
Isaiah, or to the gathering of the spiritual Israel contemplated
in early Christian traditions 4 . To the latter there would
apply the words in Mark (but not in Matthew) "and some of
some of them are come from far." There is nothing like this in
the earlier narrative.
1 Mk vii. 37 "He maketh even the deaf (TOVS KU^OVS) to hear
and dumb [folk] (a\d\ovs) to speak," Mt. xv. 31 "They saw dumb
[folk] (Koxfrovs) speaking ... and blind [folk] (rv<f)\ovs) seeing; and
they glorified the God of Israel." In Mark, the preceding context
describes the healing of (Mk vii. 32) KoxfxW <al ^oyi\d\ov, i.e. "deaf
and stammering." MoytXaXoy, ".stammering," occurs nowhere in the
Greek Bible except here and Is. xxxv. 6rpavr} de eo-rcu yXa><rcra /zoyiXdXwj/,
Heb. "and the tongue of the dumb shall sing." Ibn Ezra reduces
this to prosaic and non-miraculous fact by calling it "a figurative
expression for 'they shall find water everywhere,'" and contrasting
Lam. iv. 4 "the tongue of the suckling cleaveth to the roof of his
mouth for thirst." But Mark apparently takes the prophec}' as
predicting miraculous fact about the healing of a "stammerer"
z Ps. cvii. 2 5.
3 See however Tehill. ad loc. (Wii. ii. 134) "The Holy One said
to the Israelites, ' In Egypt ye were scattered, and I gathered you in
one little hour to Ramses; and now also are ye scattered into all
lands, and as I gathered you in ancient days so will I gather you in
the future,' as it is said. . . (Is. xi. 12) 'He shall gather the dispersed
of Judah from the four corners of the earth/ "
4 Comp. Jn xi. 52 "that he might gather into one (els li>) the
scattered children of God."
264 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
them are come from far," applicable to the old remoteness of
the Gentiles, illustrated by the language of Isaiah 1 .
But we must be on our guard against confining Mark to
one Prophecy or one Psalm as his source. The Psalm above
quoted does not mention "three days." But the account in
Exodus on which the Psalm is based, does contain a mention
of "three days" ("And they went three days in the wilderness
and found no water") previously mentioned as the time
necessary for a journey to be taken for the purpose of offering
a sacrifice to Jehovah 2 . Then, further, if we examine other
Hebrew texts, or Jewish traditions about "three days" or "the
third day," beginning from the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount
Moriah, we shall find that, both in the Bible and in the Midrash
and in Philo, as also in the words of Jesus about Himself, a
mystical meaning is attached to the phrase 3 . In Philo, the
sacrifice of Isaac is connected with that perfect tribute which
will be duly paid by the mind, when "perfected," to the
"perfecting" God: "When therefore does it duly pay? When
it arrives on the third day at the place whereof God spoke to
it 4 ." He goes on to speak of the mind at this stage as passing
1 Eph. ii. 17 "And he came and preached peace to you that were
far off and peace to them that were nigh," comp. Is. Ivii. 19 "Peace,
peace, to him that is far o/jf and to him that is near."
2 Exod. xv. 22, comp. ib. iii. 18, v. 3, viii. 27.
3 Gen. xxii. 3 5 "And Abraham rose up early in the morning
and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him and
Isaac his son . . . .On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and
saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men,
Abide ye here with the ass. ..." The context implies, but does not
mention, "two days," preceding. Josephus mentions it, as follows:
Ant. i. 13. 2 "Now the two servants went along with him two days;
but on the third day, as soon as he saw the mountain, he left those
servants that were with him till then in the plain. ..."
4 Philo i. 457 (playing on rAos- and its compounds) rcXcuudei? 6 vovs
aTToSoxrei TO reXoj rw re\(r(J)6pc0 $ea>...IIoTe ovv d7ro8id<a<riv ; "Oraf (Gen.
xxii. 4) errl TOV ToiTov...Tr] rjfjLfpa rrj rpirr} TT apery evr/rai....
265 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
... - i .. , ....I
by distinctions of time and migrating into "the timeless
nature 1 ."
The very great difference of Philo's language from th(
simple style of the Gospels must not altogether hide the under-
lying resemblance of thought between this and the saying of
Jesus about being "perfected on the third day 2 ." The Midrash
on the story of Abraham takes as its first illustration the words
of Hosea "After two days will he cause us to live [again]; on
the third day he will raise us up and we shall live before him 3 ."
Then, after enumerating other instances of the phrase, it
introduces into the story of Abraham (what Josephus perhaps
also implies in his mention of "two days") a distinction between
the "servants" who do not accompany Abraham "on the third
day" and the son who does. Abraham sees the Shechinah
over the mountain, and asks his son and his two servants
whether they see what he sees. The son says "Yes." The
two servants say "No 4 ," being only (so to speak) in the second-
day stage. To them accordingly it is said "Abide ye here
with the ass." But the son (it is implied) having entered the
third-day stage, is allowed to go on and to be perfected on the
Mount of Sacrifice.
The frequency with which Jesus is recorded in all the
Gospels to have used the phrase "on the third day," or some
similar expression, about His own resurrection, or about the
restoration of the Temple, or about the approach of the
Passover, makes it probable that here, in the Feeding of the
Four Thousand, it is used in some allusive sense. Perhaps it
1 Philo ib. 7rapf\Qatv ray TrXe/ouy ^.oipas rail/ xpoviKcov diaarTTjudrojv KCI\
rjbr) irpos TTJV a%povov yu,era/3au/coi> (pixriv.
2 Lk. xiii. 32 3 "I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and
to-morrow and on the third [day] I am [to be] perfected (r*Aeto/xat).
Howbeit I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow and the next
[day], for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem."
3 Hos. vi. 2.
4 This resembles (I think) something in Wagner's Parsifal.
266 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
alludes to the precept twice enjoined on Israel at the Giving
of the Law, "Be ready against the third day 1 ." Origen speaks
of the Four Thousand as being "testified to," in respect of their
"abiding by the Lord for three days 2 " Clement of Alexandria,
writing of Abraham's "seeing on the third day" says that
' the three days are the mystery of the seal 3 ." In view of the
extracts given above from Scripture, Midrash, Philo, and the
Gospels, it would be unwise to dismiss these Christian com-
ments as baseless Christian allegorizing 4 . They all point back
to a widespread Hebrew conception of "the third day," as being
not only a phrase of time but also a phrase of accomplishment,
what Philo calls "the timeless nature 5 ."
Passing to the Fourth Evangelist we have to consider his
attitude, first, toward the Mark-Matthew tradition about a
supplementary miracle of Eucharistic Feeding, and secondly,
toward this mystical tradition about "three days." As to
the first, while nowhere denying that there were, even before
the Resurrection, other similar miracles such as the Feeding of
the Four Thousand, he turns our attention to something that
1 Exod. xix. n, 15.
2 Origen Comm. Matth. xi. 19 (Lomm. iii. 123).
3 Clem. Alex. 690. Comp. Clem. Alex. Excerpt. Theod. 988 9
where "baptism" is called fj acppayis and TO rfjs dXrjOeias a(ppdyi(riJ.a,
and see Euseb. iii. 23. 8 (quoting from Clem. Alex.) TTJV o-<ppaylda rov
Kvpiov.
4 Jerome, however (on Mt. xv. 32), affords an instructive instance
of the excesses of the Christian transmutation of Jewish tradition,
"Miseretur turbae quia in trium numero, Patri, Filio, Spirituique
Sancto credebant."
5 See p. 266, n. i. Mark (iv. 28) speaks of (i) "the blade," (2) "the
ear," (3) "the full corn." John (xii. 24) speaks of the grain of corn
(i) falling, (2) dying, (3) producing fruit. Revelation (i. 4) speaks
of the IS and the WAS and the COMING. Underlying the whole
of the Fourth Gospel there seems to be the conception of (i) the
Thought, (2) the uttered Thought, or Word, (3) the influencing
Thought, or Spirit. All these are forms of the thought of " the third
day."
267 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
happened after the Resurrection, supplementary, but dis-
similar in important details a quiet and homely little meal,
the relation of which to the Synoptic narratives will be discussed
as we proceed. As to the second point, the doctrine of "three
days," John teaches that it referred to the raising up of what
Jesus and the Jews called "this temple," but that it meant
"the temple of his body 1 ." No doubt, this included (in the
Evangelist's judgment) the manifestation of Christ in the body
to the disciples after death. But it certainly included also the
rising up of Christ's Body in the sense of the Church, the New
Temple. In that connection, we should have to use the
Philonian phrase again and say that the "three days" had
"a timeless nature 2 ."
1 Jn ii. 19 21.
2 On the difficulty of making any confident assertion about the
number of Christ's visits to the Temple, see Introd. pp. 90 6. John
may have desired to impress on his readers, at the very outset of
his Gospel, that Jesus regarded the Temple as being a Congregation
of human beings, that is to say "sons of men," built up on, and
into, one ideal Son of Man, who was also Son of God. As John
expounds the Doctrine of Bread before its chronological place, in
connection with the Feeding of the Five Thousand, so he may have
briefly expressed the Doctrine of the New Temple before its chrono-
logical place, in connection with what he believed to be Christ's
first public visit to the Temple.
268 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
18. "Buying" or "Whence?"
In the texts printed below 1 the following are the most
remarkable agreements and disagreements, (i) The four
narratives of the Five Thousand speak of "buying," though in
varying contexts. (2) The two narratives of the Four Thousand
omit "buying" and ask "whence?" (3) John combines
"buying" with "whence?" (4) Mark repeats "buying" twice
("that they may buy" "are we to buy?"). (5) Matthew has
merely "that they may buy." (6) Luke has merely "unless
we are to buy." (7) In the Synoptists, "buying" (or "whence")
1 Mk vi. 35 7
(R.V.)
(35) And when
the day was now
far spent, his dis-
ciples came unto
him, and said, The
place is desert, and
the day is now far
spent :
(36) Send them
away, that they
may go (air\0ovTes)
into the country
and villages round
about, and buy
themselves some-
what to eat.
(37) But he
answered and said
unto them, Give ye
them to eat. And
they say unto him,
Shall we go (d?reX-
66i>Tes) and buy two
hundred penny-
worth of bread
(lit. loaves), and
give them to eat?
Mt. xiv. 15 1 6
(R.V.)
(15) And when
even was come, the
disciples came to
him, saying, The
place is desert, and
the time is already
past ; send the
multitudes away,
that they may go
(a.Tre\ddvTs) into the
villages, and buy
themselves food.
(16) But Jesus
said unto them,
They have no need
to go away (dTreA-
ddv) ; give ye them
to eat.
Jn vi. 57
Lk. ix. 12 13
(R.V.)
(12) And the
day began to wear
away ; and the
twelve came, and
said unto him,
Send the multi-
tude away, that
they may go (iropeu-
06/res) into the vil- said tempting (or,
lages and country trying) him, for he
round about, and
lodge, and get
(etipwffiv) victuals :
for we are here
in a desert place.
(13) But he
said unto them,
Give ye them to
eat. And they
said, We have no
more than five
loaves and two
fishes ; except we
should go (-rropev-
and buy
(5) Jesus there-
fore lifting up his
eyes . . . saith unto
Philip, Whence are
we to buy bread
(lit. loaves), that
these may eat ?
(6) Now this he
himself knew what
he purposed (or,
was destined) (M-
eXXe) to do.
(7) Philip an-
swered him, Two
hundred penny-
worth of bread (lit.
loaves) is not suffi-
cient for them, that
each may take a
little.
food for all this
people.
Lk. ix. 14 a adds here "For they were about five thousand men,"
which is parall. to Mk vi. 44, Mt. xiv. 21.
Mk viii. 4 (R.V.) Mt. xv. 33 (R.V.)
And his disciples answered And the disciples say unto
him, Whence shall one be able to him, Whence should we have so
fill these men with bread (lit.
loaves) here in a desert place ?
many loaves in a desert place,
as to fill so great a multitude ?
269 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
is uttered by the disciples; in the Fourth Gospel, "whence
and "buy" are uttered by Jesus identifying Himself with the
disciples ("whence are we to buy?").
In these passages, "whence" means "from what possible
source," with an assumption that there is no possible source.
"Whence/' in any sense, is rare in LXX; but in this sense it
does not occur more than thrice 1 . The Pentateuch has but
one instance. That occurs in a remonstrance of Moses, some-
what similar to the remonstrance of the disciples. Moses
pleads that he cannot feed Israel in the wilderness. "Whence
to me flesh," he asks, "to give to all this people 2 ? " " Whence
to me flesh ? " means, of course, "Whence could I get flesh?"
But we might supply other verbs such as "find" or even
"buy."
Moses adds "Shall flocks and herds be slain for them to
suffice them ? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered ... to
suffice them 3 ?" "Suffice" a rare word both in LXX and in
Gospels occurs in the Johannine answer to the question
"Whence?" asked by Jesus. "Two hundred pennyworth of
loaves does not suffice for them," says Philip, "that each
may take a little 4 ." This combination of the rare words
'whence" and "suffice" together with the similarity of cir-
cumstances, leads to the conclusion that John has in view,
not only the Gospel traditions about the Feeding, but also the
remonstrance of Moses. There is also a fair, though slighter,
probability that the same remonstrance underlies the Mark-
Matthew tradition.
1 "Whence?" in "Whence (TTO^J/) comest thou?" eto. occurs in
Gen. xvi. 8, xxix. 4, etc. But, in the sense "from what possible
source? " (implying "there is no possible source") it occurs (in A.V.)
only in Numb. xi. 13, 2. K. vi. 27, Nahum iii. 7.
2 Numb. xi. 13.
3 Numb. xi. 22, see below, p. 271, n. 3.
4 Jn vi. 7. 'ApKe'o> occurs only eight or nine times in canon. LXX
and four times in the Gospels.
270 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
This hypothesis of a brief original like that in Numbers
"Whence [should there accrue] to me flesh?" or, still better,
one in which "to me" was omitted might explain the extra-
ordinary Gospel variations as to "buying." No verb being in
the original, evangelists would have to supply one such as
"get," "find" or "buy." Compare the Mark-Matthew "that
they may buy food," parallel to the Lucan "that they may
find provision (R.V. get victuals)." This may be illustrated
from Proverbs "A scorner seeketh wisdom and [doth] not [find
it]," where "find" is supplied by the LXX and English Ver-
sions 1 .
In the Feeding of the Four Thousand, Mark's parallel to
Matthew's (lit.) " Whence to us so many loaves as to fill so great
a multitude?" is "Whence shall one be (SS art thou) able to fill
with loaves these men 2 ?" This indicates that the original had
no definite personal pronoun. Also the Syro-Sinaitic of Mark
has "find" for "be able." These small links of verbal evidence
connect the Gospel narratives both with one another and with
that in Numbers which represents Moses as twice asking, in
the Hebrew text, "shall it be found for them 3 ?"
From "finding" to "buying" is a transition of thought that
may be illustrated from Job and Isaiah. Job asks "Where
shall wisdom be found?" and proceeds to speak of "the price"
1 Prov. xiv. 6. Comp. i S. xxvi. 18 (A.V.) "What evil [is] in
my hand?" LXX evpedr) tv e/ioi, Job xii. 12 (A.V.) "With the
ancient [is] wisdom," (A) fvpicnccTai, Prov. v. 4 (Heb.) "Her end [is]
bitter," LXX evprjo-eis, i.e. "thou wilt find it bitter."
2 In Mk viii. 4 iroQtv dwrjaerai TIS, SS has literally " Whence dost
thou find [power]?" Thes. Syr. 4147 8 shews that the radical
meaning of the word is "find," and it is easy to see that " I find [how]
to do" may mean "/ am able to do."
3 Numb. xi. 22 (Heb.) "Shall flocks and herds be slain... and
shall it be found (LXX apKecret) for them. . . (rep.) and shall it be found
(LXX dpKe<ri) for them?" i.e. "shall sufficient food be found for
them ? " No persons are indicated as the finders. See Gesen. 593 b
and 594 a indicating that the literal translation is " and so one find
[enough] for them," i.e. shall it be found.
271 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
as being beyond all silver, gold, and jewels 1 . Isaiah sa]
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; an<
he that hath no money, come ye, buy (shdbar) and eat ; yea,
come, buy (shdbar), without money and without price, wine
and milk 2 ." The word shdbar is not often used for "buy." It
means "buy-corn." Rashi, on Isaiah, says that it is used here
as in the words "to buy corn" alluding to the first Biblical
use of the word in the description of "all countries" coming
"into Egypt to Joseph to buy-corn 3 ."
This allusion brings out the prophet's meaning: "Egypt
sells its corn for a price. But God sells you His corn, the corn
of heaven, the Law of Righteousness, without money and
without price 4 ." The Greek word used in the Gospels for
"buying" is used by the LXX about the buying of corn in
Genesis and about the buying of wine and milk in Isaiah.
Consequently, in any Christian narrative that described the
feeding of the multitudes by Christ in a form intended to
symbolize the spiritual food of the Eucharist, it would be
appropriate to use the word "buy" by way of contrast, in such
a way as to make it clear that Christ's bread could not be
"bought" or, at all events, not bought in the ordinary sense
of the word.
But the Synoptic Tradition does not make this clear. It
speaks about the Five Thousand as (possibly) (Mark-Matthew)
1 Job xxviii. 12 19.
2 Is. Iv. i, Targ. "Come, hearken and learn, without price and
without money, doctrine that is better than wine and milk."
3 Gen. xli. 56 7 contains the first Biblical instances of shdbar.
The causative means "sell [corn]" and the active "buy [corn]."
A.V. "sold unto the Egyptians. . .all countries came. . .to buy [corn]."
LXX. eVcoAfi. . . dyopd^etv.
4 Ibn Ezra, on Is. Iv. i, says that wine and milk "serve both for
food and drink." He seems to anticipate the objection that shdbar
ought not to be applied except to that which is eaten. Rashi, on
Genesis, says (if the text is genuine) "You must not say that shdbar
is used only of corn, for it is used also of wine and milk (Is. Iv. i)."
272 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"going away and buying" or (Luke) "going and finding,"
and also about the impossibility that the disciples should
(Mark) "go away and buy" or (Luke) "go and buy 1 "; but it
so distracts us with verbal variations that we are in danger of
learning nothing from the words 2 . "They were uttered by
the disciples," we may say, "not by Jesus, and the disciples
were in the dark, and did not know what they were speaking
about."
John, without denying that the disciples used these
expressions about "buying," and also about the impossibility
of finding "whence" they might procure food in any way,
declares that Jesus Himself used expressions of this nature,
and that He did it in a kindly and gentle (we may almost say
playful) spirit, "tempting (or, trying)" Philip. The Evange-
list's view is that Jesus had reasons for choosing this particular
disciple a little slow perhaps, but sure and straightforward
in order to lead him, and through him the rest of the Apostles,
towards a higher stage of revelation. It was not the highest
but only a higher. "He himself" John says, in a kind of
aside "knew what he would do," but He did not at present
say "what he would do." He merely prepared Philip for
expecting at once, and for receiving later on, some mystical
1 "Going away" = a.7Tf\66vTS. "Going" = nopevOevrfS. R.V.
makes no distinction here, though rendering the infin. cnrtKOclv "go
away" in Mt. xiv. 16.
2 The key to the original is perhaps to be found in the deliberative
subjunctive dyopao-oo/zei/, found in Mk, Lk., and Jn, and meaning
"ought we, or, are we, or, we are, to buy." "Ought" is expressed in
Heb. by (i) the future ("Thou shall, i.e. oughtest to, do"), (2} the
infin. after "it is" ("It is [fit] to do," "it is [fit] for thee to do").
Confusion might arise between "Is it [fit] to go away and buy?"
and "It is [fit] to go away and buy." The former would be taken
as "Is it [fit] for us [i.e. the disciples] ? " the latter, as "It is [fit] for
them [i.e. the five thousand]." See Oxf. Cone. LXX deiv, and
e.g. Ezek. xxxiv. 2 Heb. "Shall [i.e. should] they not feed?" LXX
ov POO-KOVO-IV (interrogative). The ambiguity might be increased by
two datives " [fit] for us to buy for them."
A. L. 273 (Mark vi. 29 44) 18
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
doctrine about the spiritual Bread. "He himself knew what
he would do" means "He knew what He was destined to do
on the Cross, buying the Bread of Life for the world at the
cost of His blood 1 ."
19. "Two hundred pennyworth," in Mark and John 2
Why was this precise sum mentioned by the disciples, or
recorded by Mark to have been mentioned by them? Why
did Matthew and Luke omit Mark's tradition? Why did
John insert it? The question here is, not whether John inter-
venes for Mark, but why he intervenes.
"Two hundred pence (or, denars) " is a sum frequently
specified in Talmudic enactments about fines, damages, marriage
portions, etc. 3 Also, if a man had an income of less than two
hundred denars, he could claim certain exemptions and
allowances. It was legally recognised as being, so to speak,
1 For this mystical meaning of the word "buy," ayopa^co, John
has previously prepared the way by representing the disciples
(Jn iv. 8, 32) as leaving their Master alone and going "to buy" food
in Sychar (which He rejects, telling them that He has food to eat
that they know not of). The third and last instance of ayopafa is
where Judas Iscariot, going forth to betray the Master whom he has
sold, is regarded by some of the disciples (Jn xiii. 29) as being in-
structed by Jesus to "buy" something needed for "the least [of the
Passover]." For Jn vi. 6 "destined (e/zeXXf) to do," see Son 3402 a.
But what are we to say as to the plural "loaves" ("whence are
we to buy loaves?") assigned by John to Jesus here and nowhere
else except in the reproach (Jn vi. 26) "ye ate of the loaves" ? Does
the Evangelist represent Jesus as speaking, as it were, down to the
level of Philip, about the rudimentary food to be provided on this
occasion ? If so, we may illustrate from the plural ( Jn iv. 8) " buy
food(s) (rpocpay)," unique in N.T., where the "foods" are called by
Origen ad loc. "suitable foods (rpo^ay) with the heterodox (napa TO!S
Tfpo86gois)," and Ammonius (ad loc. Cramer p. 216) sees a warning
against "various foods of luxury (e'fo-/iorcoi/)." Tpocpai is used of
"forbidden foods" in 4 Mace. i. 33, iv. 26 (comp. 3 Mace. iii. 7).
2 Mk vi. 37, Jn vi. 7.
3 See Hor. Heb. on Mk vi. 37. Wetstein is silent.
274 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"a poor man's income 1 ." Christ's disciples were poor men.
Hence, when exhorted by Jesus to give bread to the multitude,
one of them might be supposed to reply "Even if we had the
whole of our year's income in our hands, should we go away and
spend it all in a single meal and that, too, insufficient for
this multitude?"
Thus explained, the Marcan tradition becomes intelligible.
But, outside Palestine, who would know the explanation?
Moreover, even with this explanation, it is not clear, because
Mark at this stage has not yet told us the number of the mul-
titude, and does not mention it till the very end of the narrative 2 .
This omission may be contrasted with the orderly insertion
in the O.T. narrative of the meal given by Elisha to the sons
of the prophets. Elisha's servant, receiving "twenty loaves of
barley," says at once, "What! Shall I set this before an
hundred men 3 ?" Similarly Luke, in his parallel to Mark, lets
us know at once the number of the multitude thus "Unless we
are to go and buy food for all this people for they were about
five thousand men 4 ." Without this knowledge, the inadequacy
of two hundred denarii is by no means obvious. For a denarius
was a labourer's daily wage 5 and could presumably suffice for
one simple meal for several labourers. Two hundred denarii
might therefore well provide for a single meal for a consider-
able number, quite large enough to be called a "multitude."
Again, "two hundred denarii" might possibly imply gold
1 /. Pea viii. 8 (Mishna) and Sota 21 b. Hor. Heb. omits this.
So also does Schlatter on Jn vi. 7.
2 Mk vi. 44.
3 Hor. Heb. on Jn vi. 9 refers to 2. K. iv. 42 and Chetub. 105. 2,
1 06. 9, where "the masters enhance the number of men fed by
Elisha to two thousand two hundred" from the Scriptural "one
hundred."
4 Comp. Numb. xi. 13 "Whence should I have flesh to give to
all this people?" ib. 21 2 "The people. . .are six hundred thousand
. . .shall flocks and herds be slain for them to suffice them. . . ?"
5 Mt. xx. 2 13.
275 (Mark vi. 29 44) 18 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
denarii. In that case since a gold denarius was worth
twenty-five silver denarii the sum would amount to five
thousand silver denarii, that is to say, the daily wage for five
thousand men 1 . Then the meaning of the expostulating dis-
ciples would be "Are we [so rich that we are] to go and buy
bread for two hundred [gold] denarii and to give them to eat
[a meal worth a day's wage for each man] ? "
This is an improbable supposition. For "denarii," with-
out the epithet "gold," would be taken by all to mean "silver
denarii." But difficulties like these may explain, not only why
Matthew and Luke omitted Mark's tradition about the denarii,
but also why Matthew modified the context by transferring
"go away" from the disciples to the multitude ("they have
no need to go away"), as indicated above 2 , and why Luke
inserted at this stage the number of the multitude 3 .
John retains Mark's "two hundred pence," but assigns the
expression to Philip instead of to the disciples collectively. He
does not follow Luke in inserting the number of the multitude
1 See Son 3420 g referring to Levy i. 399 b. Wagenseil's Sota
p. 552 has an obscure remark about a dower of 200 denarii "ut
ita ducenti isti denarii efficiant omnino ( ?) xxv denarios argenteos,
quorum cujusque pondus xxvi grana hordacea." If "each" were
written for "altogether (omnino)," this would seem to be a confused
statement about denarii of gold, as being each worth twenty-five
denarii of silver. The mention of a grain of barley as a standard of
weight for denarii is perhaps worth noting, in view of the Johannine
mention of denarii and barley loaves in the same context.
2 See p. 269, comp. p. 273, n. 2.
3 Another possible cause of corruption can be but briefly
indicated. In Greek, the sign of "5000" is ,6 and the sign of "200"
is C', and 6 and C are frequently confused. Schlatter (on Jn vi. 7)
quotes Siphr. Deut. 355 "Oil for (3) a hundred myriads do I need"-
where 1 seems to mean "for the sake of," somewhat like Gen. xviii. 28
(Gesen. 90 b) "on account of five," but it usually means "at the price
of." Perhaps "for 200 denarii," in Greek, when "denarii" was
denoted by a sign, might be confused with "for five thousand
[men]." Or dyopdo-vfj. fyvapiav with C' might be corrupted into
a-yopa(T&>juei> &)) dvftpwv with / G-
276 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
here to shew the inadequacy of the sum. But he represents
Philip as saying that it would be quite inadequate. As to
the "pence," he makes no effort to shew what may have been
in Philip's mind, but he seems to suggest, as being in Christ's
mind, a very different kind of "buying" namely, what might
be called a "ransoming" of the souls of men at a price above
visible "denarii."
The first Biblical mention of "ransoming" the "soul"
occurs in connection with the numbering of the Israelites.
They are to give "every man a ransom for his soul 1 ." The
Law proceeds "This shall they give... half a shekel." The
Jerusalem Targum explains "this" by adding "This valuation
was shewn to Moses in the mountain as with a denarius of
fire 2 ." In one of the many forms in which this tradition is
repeated, it is said that God's words so terrified Moses that he
replied "Who can give a ransom for his soul?" It was then
(said R. Meir) that God shewed Moses a coin of fire and said
" This shalt thou give 3 ."
The three Synoptists agree that on one memorable occasion
Jesus called for a denarius and said to the Pharisees "Whose
is this image and inscription 4 ?" To this they replied
"Caesar's." He then bade them give "to Caesar that which
is Caesar's." Presumably that which was "Caesar's" meant
the denarius. And it was "Caesar's" because it was stamped
1 Exod. xxx. 12. In Exod. xxi. 30 (A.V.) "ransom of his life
(lit. soul)," R.V. has ''redemption" (see context).
2 Similarly Rashi says " God shewed Moses a coin of fire of which
the weight was half a shekel, and said, This (istiusmodi) shall the
Israelites give."
3 See Numb. r. Wii. pp. 275 6, also Pesikt. (Piska II) Wii.
pp. 10 21, and ib. Wii. p. 76. In some forms of the tradition, it
is explained that "this" means "Not what thou didst suppose but
what I shew thee," or that the coin was under the throne of God.
In Pesikt. p. 76, one tradition says that the coin is the sacrificial
lamb of Numb, xxviii. 3.
* Mk xii. 16 foil., Mt. xxii. 18 foil., Lk. xx. 24.
277 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
with Caesar's image and name. But, if so, what is the meaning
of "God's" in the following words, "And to God that which
is " God's " ? Does it imply merely this, " If you give the Roman
denarius to pay tribute to Caesar, you are equally bound to
give the Jewish shekel that is, the temple shekel, the shekel
with its sacred symbols stamped upon it to God " ?
That is, at first sight, an attractive explanation because it
is so simple, and lays down so definite a rule. But, on second
thoughts, does it seem like Jesus to lay down definite rules
(except in hyperbole such as "turning the cheek" and "walking
two miles") without regard to motive? Does not Christ's
phrase, "that which is God's," imply a heavenly denarius,
so to speak, stamped with God's image and name ? And what
is this stamp but the impress of the Spirit of the divine Love?
This love best represents the divine nature in its relation to
men. This love God gives to men that they may pay it back
to Him, thereby ransoming themselves from selfishness and
sin, and making themselves free for a life of sonship toward
the Father in heaven and of brotherhood toward His children
on earth.
The Jews, in many of their comments on the "ransom of
a man's soul," or on other texts that speak of the soul's
"ransom," say, or imply, that the ransom is "almsgiving,"
which they call technically "righteousness 1 ." Sometimes they
are careful to add that such almsgiving must be disinterested,
or at all events not ostentatious; but frequently they use
unguarded hyperbole, such as that " a farthing given to a poor
man bestows on the giver a vision of the Shechinah," and that
"I shall behold thy face in righteousness," in the Psalms,
means " I shall behold thy face" after the Resurrection " because
1 Prov. xiii. 8 "The ransom of a man's soul is his riches" is often
associated with Exod. xxx. 12 13, and is explained by Rashi as
being true "because he distributes alms" from his riches.
278 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
of alms 1 ." Against the identification of "righteousness" with
"alms" which resembles the occasional identification of
" charity" with "alms" in modern English Jesus vehemently
protested. But He did not deny, and indeed He emphasized,
the helpful and purifying influence of singlehearted alms-
giving. Alms rightly given on earth (He taught) reproduced
themselves in heaven, so that the perishable coin from "the
treasure on earth" procured for the giver an eternal "treasure
in heaven 2 ."
It is only the Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke that
speaks thus of this "treasure in heaven." And there the
context contains no mention or implication of the negative
aspect, "ransoming," but only of the positive aspect, reward.
But both aspects are hinted at in the Threefold Tradition about
the rich young ruler to whom Jesus says "Sell whatsoever
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven 3 ." According to Matthew, the man needed to be
ransomed from himself. He was so fettered in self-satisfaction
that he believed he had fulfilled not only the commands of the
Decalogue but also the precept "Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself 4 ." He seems to have been what the Pastoral
1 See Bab. Bathr. 10 a, and Tehill. on Ps. xvii. 15, where Rashi,
however, does not thus limit righteousness. Comp. HOY. Heb. (on
Mt. vi. i) "They called alms by the name of righteousness," and the
passages there alleged to prove this. See also the Heb. of Sir. iii. 30,
and xl. 24. In the latter, the editors give an alternative, "right-
eousness (or, almsgiving] delivereth above them both."
2 Comp. Mt. vi. 20 "treasure up treasures. . .," parall. to Lk. xii.
33 "Make to yourselves purses that wax not old, a treasure in the
heavens that faileth not." To this Luke (but not Matthew) prefixes
"Sell your goods and give alms."
3 Mk x. 21 on which see Beginning p. 263. There it is pointed
out that Mark may have confused "deceived himself," HTTATHCGN
AYTON, with "loved him," HrATTHCeNAYTON, or that Hebrew
confusion may have produced the false impression that Jesus
"loved him."
4 Mt. xix. 19.
279 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Epistles call "a lover of self" as well as "a lover of money 1 ."
If Jesus perceived that he was "in love with himself 2 ," we c;
understand why He imposed on him a condition that He kne
the man would fail to fulfil. Through the failure the m;
would be at least benefited at once to the extent of having
self-love disturbed. Hereafter, he might attain to the vision
of the true love, the denarius of fire, the ransom of the soul.
The "denarius" will come before us again when we discuss
the Anointing at Bethany, where Mark again followed by
John, but not by Matthew mentions "three hundred denarii"
as the price of the ointment 3 . The above-mentioned "denar"
of the Jerusalem Targum is also latent in Matthew's description
of the stater, i.e. "shekel," taken by Peter from a fish's mouth
in order to satisfy the claims of the collectors of the didrachm,
i.e. "half -shekel 4 ." That narrative, whatever may be the
full explanation of its details, adds to the cumulative evidence
that metaphors or allegories based upon the payment of coin
as a "ransom for the soul" would be prominent in the doctrine
of early Evangelists, and that literal statements made about
denarii in Mark would be allegorized by John. Such alle-
gorizing is comparatively rare in the Talmud, but frequent in
the Midrash and poetic Targums, which may often throw light
on the imagery underlying Christ's doctrine. In the present
instance, quite apart from its value as an exemplification of
Johannine Intervention, John's retention of the Marcan
"denarii" taken with the new Johannine context, which
1 2 Tim. iii. 2 (ftiXavrot, (f)t\dpyupoi.
2 I have not found an instance of aycnrqv lavrov though <f>t\flv
is very common. But Mark might use fjydinjcrfv airdi/, "he was
in love with himself," to denote an excess of the habit expressed
by (friXflv.
3 Mk xiv. 5.
4 Mt. xvii. 24 27 A.V. "tribute [money]... a piece of money,"
R.V. "the half - shekel. . .a shekel," W.H. TO. didpaxpa. . . o-rarj/pa. On
this, and on Philo's allegorizing of "the half of the shekel,"
which LXX calls "the half of the didrachm," see Notes 2999 (x).
280 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
allows us to regard it as part of a reply to a mystical utterance
of Christ about "buying" appears to accord with the Johan-
nine doctrine that God is Love. Man, God's coin, restamped by
the redeeming Son of Man with the divine image that has been
wellnigh obliterated by sin, is to present himself wholly, in
the Spirit of Sonship, to the Father. This sacrifice, and not
the partial and formal sacrifice of almsgiving, constitutes the
real and spiritual ransom by which the sinner is redeemed
from his lower self 1 .
If we reject the view that John gave a mystical application
to the Marcan "two hundred denarii," what other view are we
prepared to take of his retention of it? Are we to say that he
retained it simply because it was in Mark, and because he saw
no reason why Matthew and Luke should reject it? In that
case, we must suppose him to have argued to this effect: "It
is desirable to retain as much of Mark's detail as possible.
I do not explain what was Mark's reason for mentioning this
precise sum, but I am able to add that it was not (as Mark
supposes) 'the disciples' that mentioned it. It was only
Philip."
This would suggest that Philip's utterances were not held
in much account by the Evangelist. But is that so? Philip
loves the concrete and substantial, perhaps. When Nathanael
argues, in the abstract, that no one can be the Messiah if he is
from Nazareth, Philip appeals to the concrete and substantial :
"Come" that is, "come to Jesus" and "see 2 ." When
Jesus speaks spiritually about "seeing" the Father, Philip
1 At the same time the Fourth Gospel contains evidence shewing
that its author felt the metaphors of "ransoming" and "buying"
to be inadequate, and desired to supplement them by another
metaphor or (x. 6) "proverb," in which the Good Shepherd is
described as rescuing His sheep from the Wolf at the cost of His
life yet not by ransoming, but by conquering. See Son, Index
"Ransom."
2 Jn i. 46.
281 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
asks for a substantial object of vision, "Shew us the Father 1 .'
Nevertheless it is to Philip that Providence directs the Gn
to come, saying "We would see Jesus 2 ." And it is Philip's
materialistic utterance, "Shew us the Father," that draws
forth from Jesus the words "He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father." The Evangelist seems to suggest that this
particular Apostle, even though he did not "see" things like
a Rabbi or a Philosopher, was more than once made the
instrument of Providence for helping others to "see" things
as they are. For that reason (it would seem) Jesus "tempts"
him not for Philip's harm but for the world's good. He was
worth "tempting." It was destined that through Philip's
reply to Christ's question " Whence are we to buy?" the world
should be led to reflect on the paradoxical nature of that
purchase-money with which the Son of God was to buy for them
the unpurchasable Bread 3 .
1 Jn xiv. 8. Comp. Exod. xxiv. 10 "and they saw the God of
Israel."
2 Jn xii. 21.
3 Some may reply "Philip and Andrew are mere dramatis
personae introduced by the Fourth Evangelist, here as elsewhere,
in order to present his own thoughts about Jesus in a dramatic
setting." But note what Papias says about the pains that he took
to inquire not so much about books as about sayings, and in par-
ticular (Euseb. iii. 39. 4) "what had been said by Andrew or what by
Peter, or what by Philip, or what by Thomas. ..." Is it not very
rash to deny that in the Evangelist's days there were current many
things alleged to have been "said by Andrew, Philip, and Thomas,"
not contained in the Synoptic Gospels, and that he made it part of
his business to find a place for them in his Gospel wherever they
illustrated the Teaching of Christ? No one disputes that Papias
did this. Why should we deny the possibility that the Fourth
Evangelist did the same thing?
282 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
20. "How many loaves have ye? Go [and] see," in Mark 1
These words are in Mark alone. Their omission by Matthew
and Luke may be explained by the difficulty of giving them
1 Mk vi 37 38
(R.V.)
(37) But he
swered and said
unto them, Give ye
them to eat. And
they say unto him,
Shall we go and
buy two hundred
pennyworth of
bread (lit. loaves),
and give them to
eat?
(38) And he
saith unto them,
How many loaves
have ye ? Go [and]
see. And when they
knew (yvovres), they
say, Five, and two
fishes.
Mt. xiv. 1 6 1 8
(R.V.)
(16) But Jesus
said unto them,
They have no need
to go away; give
ye them to eat.
(17) And they
say unto him, We
have here but five
loaves, and two
fishes.
(1 8) And he said,
Bring them hither
to me.
Mk viii. 2 b 5 (R.V.)
they . . . have nothing to eat :
(3) And if I send them away
fasting to their home, they will
faint in the way; and some of
them are come from far.
(4) And his disciples
answered him, Whence shall
one be able to fill these men
with bread (lit. loaves) here in
a desert place ?
(5) And he asked them,
How
Lk. ix. 13 14 a
(R.V.)
(13) But he said
unto them, Give ye
them to eat. And
they said, We have
no more than five
loaves and two
fishes ; except we
should go and buy
food for all this
people.
(i4) For they
were about five
thousand men.
Jn vi. 59
(R.V.)
(5) Jesus there-
fore . . . saith unto
Philip, Whence are
we to buy bread
(lit. loaves), that
these may eat ?
(6) And this he
said to(?) prove him ;
for he himself knew
what he would do.
(7) Philip an-
swered him, Two
hundred penny-
worth of bread
(lit. loaves) is not
sufficient for them,
that every one may
take a little.
(8) One of his
disciples, Andrew,
Simon Peter's
brother, saith unto
him,
(9) There is a
lad here, which hath
five barley loaves,
and two fishes: but
what are these
among so many ?
Mt. xv. 32 634 (R-V.)
they . . . have nothing to eat :
and I would not send them away
fasting, lest haply they faint in
the way.
(33) And the disciples say
unto him, Whence should we
have so many loaves in a desert
place, as to fill so great a multi-
tude?
(34) And Jesus saith unto
them, How many loaves have
ye? And they said, Seven, and
a few small fishes.
many loaves have ye?
And they said, Seven.
For the purpose of clearness, texts partially given above are
repeated here. It will be noted that the six accounts all begin with
some words of Jesus about the giving of food, or the need of food,
283 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
any sense that seems in harmony with the narrative of a
stupendous miracle. They seem to imply that Jesus was at
some distance from the little store of food carried by the
disciples. Finding them ignorant of its amount He sends
them away to ascertain it. "Having ascertained it 1 " for
that is what the Greek means they report "five, and two
fishes." All this is very simple. But is it not too simple?
Why record it? Matthew and Luke possibly because it is
too simple do not record it. They represent the disciples as
replying at once to Christ's "Give ye them to eat" without
any mention or indication of an interval that they have
only "five loaves and two fishes." In the miracle of the Four
Thousand, there is the same absence of interval "How many
loaves have ye? And they said, Seven "
John differs from all the Synoptists in that he does not
represent Jesus as saying to the disciples "Give ye them to
eat." On the contrary, Jesus says to Philip "Whence are we
to buy loaves that these may eat? " It is added "This he said
tempting (or, trying) him, for he himself knew what he would
do." This seems to imply "He knew that, in truth, He did
not purpose to buy loaves; He intended to prepare Philip to
learn a lesson about bread that could not be bought." But on
the other hand it might imply "He knew what Philip would
say about denarii, and He purposed to teach Philip a lesson
about bread that could indeed be bought only for a very different
price, the invisible 'denarius' of Redemption." In either case
we are made to feel that we must look below the surface for
some allusive meaning, indicating the doctrine of sacrifice,
that is, of "buying," or "redeeming." Philip is to be taught
this by being "tried" or "tempted" The Evangelist has
probably some latent meaning in this mention of "tempting."
for the multitude to "eat." But John connects his mention of
"loaves that these may eat" with "buying" as a prospective act
for Jesus and the disciples ("are we to buy?").
1 Mk vi. 38 yvovres, on which see Proclam. p. 268 n.
284 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
He never uses the word again. In N.T. it mostly implies the
malignity of an adversary and especially the Adversary
called Satan who tries us that we may fall. And though
the Synoptists use it abundantly, and often of Jesus being
tempted, they never describe Jesus as tempting others.
These considerations lead us to the story of God's "tempt-
ing" Abraham before the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah
the first Biblical instance of the word "tempt," and the only
one in the whole of Genesis 1 . We have seen above, in the
Johannine description of Jesus as "lifting up his eyes and
beholding a great multitude coming to him," an allusion to
Abraham seeing the vision of the Seed of the Promise. Here
it should be added that "lift up the eyes" is applied to the
Patriarch when he hospitably entertains the Three, who come
to make the Promise 2 . In the Dialogue that follows the
Feeding of the Five Thousand in the Fourth Gospel, Jews speak
of the Giving of the Manna 3 ; and Jewish Christians in the first
century could not but connect the Manna with the Loaves and
Fishes, both in comparison and in contrast. Now it was a
1 Gen. xxii. i circlpafcv. The Heb. is nD3, which also occurs
in Syr. and Palest, of Jn vi. 6, and in Delitzsch's Hebrew. This
must be distinguished from SoKtpdfa, "test," "prove," which
mostly = jfQ in LXX, but never nw. There is perhaps a touch
of irony when Paul tells the Corinthians who "seek a proof
(doKiprjv)" of the Christ that "speaks in" him that they had
better "tempt, or make trial of" themselves (2. Cor. xiii. 5) " Make-
trial-of (-n-fipd^Tf) yourselves whether ye are in the faith, prove
(So/a/iaere) yourselves." nfipa^co, applied to persons in N.T.,
almost always means trial proceeding from adversaries, and Rev. ii. 2
iveipcuras TOVS \cyovras eavrovs dTroarroXovs is hardly an exception.
But John perhaps felt that, if he had used oKt/xaa>, as in i Jn iv. i
"prove (8oKtp.dfTf) the spirits whether they be of God," he would
have misled his readers. Jesus did not wish to "prove" Philip
to see "whether" he would answer this or that; He wished to
"tempt" him, as God "tempted" Abraham, as a preparation for
a blessing that was to follow.
2 Gen. xviii. 2 "He lifted up his eyes, and looked, and lo. . .."
3 Jn vi. 31 foil.
285 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
recognised tradition among the Jews that whatever hospitality
Abraham gave to the Three, God gave to the Israelites in the
wilderness: "R. Jehudah said in the name of Rab: All that
Abraham did for the angels by himself, the Holy One, blessed
be He, did for his children by Himself ; and what Abraham did
for them through a messenger, the Holy One did the same for
his children through a messenger 1 ." What "messenger" is
here meant? And is there anything in any of the Gospel
narratives of Christ's miracles of feeding that includes some-
thing corresponding to Abraham's "messenger"? This will be
considered in the next section, in the hope that it may throw
some light on the Marcan tradition, at present unexplained,
"Go [and] see."
21. "There is a lad here" in John 2
In the five Synoptic accounts of feeding it is stated by the
disciples, or assumed by Jesus, that the loaves belong to the
disciples ("we have no more than," "how many have ye?").
The Fourth Gospel alone, after Christ's question "How shall
we buy bread? " and after Philip's reply about the insufficiency
of two hundred pennyworth, represents Andrew as saying
"There is a lad (paidarion) here that has five barley loaves and
two fishes." About this Chrysostom says, "I think that he
[i.e. Andrew] did not say this in simple ignorance, but because
he had heard the wonders of the prophets and how Elisha
worked the sign over the loaves 3 ." The loaves brought to
Elisha were an offering from a stranger ; and Chrysostom seems
1 B. Metzia 86 b. The context enters into detail, e.g. " Abraham's
" butter " and " milk " are rewarded with " manna." Comp. Numb. r.
on Numb. vii. 48 (Wii. p. 348) sect. 14, repeating the same doctrine
of the reward of Abraham's hospitality.
2 Jn vi. 9.
3 Chrys. on Jn vi. 9, referring to 2 K. iv. 42 "And there came a
man . . . and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty
loaves of barley. ..."
286 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
to assume that the loaves of the "lad" came also from some
stranger, that is to say, they did not belong to the disciples or
to any "lad" in their service. And this is the natural inter-
pretation of the words in John.
It is not unlikely that John was influenced by the miracle
of Elisha and the barley loaves, in conjunction with other
causes. But the first cause might be Hebrew corruption.
The first Biblical mention of "barley" in LXX arises from a
misreading of a word meaning "measure" or "estimation 1 ."
"Loaves estimated at two hundred denarii" might be confused
with "loaves of barley for two hundred denarii." Thus a
tradition might arise about the loaves that they were "loaves
of barley." This might naturally be added to the story, partly
in view of Elisha's miraculous multiplication of barley loaves,
and partly because "barley loaves" might seem to accord with
the time of the year 2 , and also with a symbolic application of
Christ's act. But this hypothesis does not explain John's
introduction of the word "lad," paidarion. For that is not
used in the story of Elisha 3 . Moreover paidarion occurs
nowhere else in N.T. and (with one exception) nowhere in
Christian writers of the first century and a half 4 . We are
therefore led to ask, outside Greek writings, for something
corresponding to the Johannine paidarion in Hebrew Scripture,
or in Jewish traditions about Scripture.
Now, paidarion in LXX regularly corresponds to a Hebrew
word frequently rendered in Genesis "lad 5 ." And the first
Biblical mention of the Hebrew word corresponding to "lad"
1 See Son 3420 / g, quoting Gen. xxvi. 12.
2 Jn vi. 4 "the passover was nigh" (see above, p. 246).
3 2 K. iv. 43 (A.V.) "his servitor" is explained (Gesen. 1058 a)
as Elisha's "chief servant," LXX \eiTovpy6s, superior to Trmddpiov.
4 Goodspeed gives it as occurring only in Polyc. Mart. 6 7,
where it refers to two servants of Polycarp, one of whom, under
torture, betrays his master's hiding place.
5 In A.V., "lad" sing. = "\]ft, naar, 17 times in Genesis (but not
again till Judg. xvi. 26) and 12 times in i Samuel.
287 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
is in the story of Abraham's hospitality to the Three Persoi
"And Abraham ran unto the herd and fetched a calf... and
gave it unto the lad, and he hasted to dress it 1 ." Here A.V.
has "a young man," and R.V. "the servant." But the exact
rendering is "the lad [in attendance}," "the young [servant]"
It might be applied to "the youthful [son of the house]" if
the context suited such an application, and accordingly some
Jewish authorities interpret it here as Ishmael 2 . The LXX
does not here render the word by paidarion, but that is its
regular rendering of the word 3 . The "lad" mentioned in the
story about Abraham's hospitality appears to be the person
contemplated by R. Jehudah in the words above quoted
"What Abraham did [for the Three] through a messenger, the
Holy One did the same for his children through a messenger*."
The title of "messenger" or "apostle" would seem here to
apply to Moses. Through him God gave the manna to Israel ;
and it has been shewn that Moses and Aaron are called God's
"apostles" or " messengers^" It is said about Moses in the
cradle, according to our English versions, that the daughter of
Pharaoh "saw the child and behold the babe wept 6 ." But the
Hebrew text has, for "babe" the word regularly corresponding
to paidarion', and Rashi seems to render it by "lad," expressly
saying "His voice was deep (gravis) like that of a lad (pueri),
not like that of a very little infant (parvuli infantis) "
apparently attaching a mystical or prophetic significance to
1 Gen. xviii. 7 LXX ro> iraidt.
2 So Gen. r. and Rashi (on Gen. xviii. 7), and Aboth R. Nathan
(on Aboth i. 16).
3 Heb. ")VJ = (Tromm.) -n-aiddpiov about 140 times, TratSiW (23), naif
(14), vfavicTKOs (2l), vcd>Tpos (lo), veos (7) etc.
4 See p. 286.
5 See Proclam. p. 392, quoting Jerem. ii. 2 (Targ.) "my two
apostles Moses and Aaron in the wilderness."
6 Exod. ii. 6 (A.V. and R.V.) "child" = i"?\ "babe" =
LXX 6pa traidiov nXalov, merging the two words in one.
288 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the fact that the babe Moses in his cradle (like the babe Herakles
in Greek story) was already more than an infant 1 .
All this, however, though it may explain John's application
of the tradition about the "lad" when it had arisen, does not
explain how it arose. If such a "lad" existed, why was the
fact omitted by the Synoptists? If there was not, how came
John to suppose his existence 2 ? To these questions there is
at present no answer based on definite evidence. But there are
reasonable (though conjectural) answers derived from what
we know about Mark and John in general, and about these
Marcan and Johannine narratives in particular namely, that
John is attempting to explain Mark's "Go, see."
One explanation may be conjecturally given to the following
effect : "The disciples had no food of their own at hand. But,
as Jesus bade them 'go ' and ' see,' they ' went ' and ' saw.' They
found some one with five loaves and two fishes. These they
brought to Jesus saying that they had no more. In reality,
they had not even these. But as the owner was willing to
give them, they brought them as their own. All this is obscurely
suggested in the Marcan 'Go, see,' and is altogether omitted
by Matthew and Luke. But in fact this stranger with the ' five
loaves and two fishes' whom the disciples 'went' and 'saw,'
may have been a person not to be left out. He may have been
1 See Numb. r. (on Numb. iii. 14, Wii. p. 42) quoting Exod. ii. 6
and ib. 23 and saying that the "sighing" of Israel and the "weeping"
of Moses in the cradle were the preparation of the nation for fulfilling
the purpose of God. On Zech. ii. 4 (8) "this young man," Kimcbi,
who assumes the prophet to be meant, says that he is so called,
either as being literally "young" (like Jeremiah) or as being sub-
ordinate to a superior as Joshua was to Moses (Exod. xxxiii. 11
"Joshua the son of Nun a young man"}.
2 To a third question, " If there was not, how came John to
invent it?" my reply would be that repeated investigations in
previous parts of Diatessarica have shewn that John does not
"invent" though he may have received visions that some would
call "inventions." This tradition may have been one of "the
sayings of Andrew" inquired into by Papias (s. above, p. 282, n. 3).
A. L. 289 (Mark vi. 29 44) 19
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
like the stranger in Genesis (' a certain man ') who met Joseph
wandering in the field and said to him ' What seekest thou 1 ? '
That 'man,' they say, was Gabriel. But Gabriel would not
be appropriate here. For in this action the Lord is recom-
pensing to Abraham's children the hospitality that He Himself
received from Abraham, in which Abraham was helped, not
by a ' man ' but by a ' lad.' Let us say, then, that this unknown
stranger was a 'lad.' And as the 'lad' assisted Abraham in
preparing food for the Lord, so let us now see a 'lad' assisting
the Lord in preparing food for Abraham's descendants. The
'lad' then received 'a calf from Abraham and 'prepared' it.
The 'lad' now gives 'five loaves and two fishes' to the Lord
Jesus, and He prepares them by letting them pass through
His hands as He distributes the food to all the people. This
'lad' was Moses, who wrote the five books of the Law, con-
taining also songs and predictions 2 . As the five loaves are
symbolic of the Law, so the fishes might be symbolic of psalms
and prophecies, whether called ' a few,' or, as some might say,
'two fishes/ that is, 'the Psalms and the Prophets' considered
as two books. This was the food that Moses, the servant of
God, offered to the Messiah, the Son of God, who distributed
it to the people. And as Joshua, the first Jesus, is called a
1 Gen. xxxvii. 15, on which see Joh. Gr. 26496.
2 Jerome, on Mt. xiv. 17, says "In another Evangelist we read
(Jn vi. 9) There is a lad here who has five loaves who seems to me to
signify Moses." The text continues: "Duos autem pisces vel
utrumque intelligimus Testamentum, vel quia par numerus refertur
ad legem." But one MS adds " et prophetas," which seems necessary
to the sense (" the even number refers to the Law and the Prophets ") .
Later on he says : " The Law with the Prophets is broken and divided
into fragments (in frusta discerpitur) and its mysteries are brought
forth to view, so that what did not nourish, as long as it was whole
and abiding in its pristine state, might, by being divided into parts,
nourish the multitude of the Gentiles (gentium)."
Origen, on Mt. xiv. 17, says that "perhaps" the five loaves
contained a veiled reference to "the sensible (altrffijTovs) words of
the Scriptures corresponding in number on this account to the five
senses," and the two fishes to the \6yos TrpofopiKos and the
290 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
'lad' when ministering to Moses 1 , so is Moses himself called
a 'lad' when ministering to the second Jesus."
The second explanation, though similar to the first in
detail, would differ in this respect, that it would base itself in
part on apostolic tradition. It would go back to one of those
" sayings of Andrew" about which Papias tells us that he used
to make inquiry, something to this effect: "Andrew, the
Apostle, said (or, used to say) that the Five Loaves and the Two
Fishes did not appertain to the Twelve, but to a Servant [meaning
Moses]. Also Andrew said (or, used to say) speaking of the
Law and the Prophets in themselves and before they were
broken up like bread and expounded by the Lord ' What
could they avail for the multitudes [seeking the Bread of Life] 2 ? "
The second of these explanations seems to me decidedly
more probable than the first ; but if either of them is even
partially correct we find ourselves in an atmosphere of
("which are a relish, so to speak, to the sensible things
contained in the Scriptures") or, perhaps, to the word that had
"already come (<0ao-ai>ra) " to the disciples "about the Father and
the Son" ; but he adds that others may be able to give a fuller and
better interpretation.
Clement of Alexandria 665 6, while implying that the "five
pillars" of Exod xxvi. 37 are less sacred than the "four pillars" of
Exod. xxvi. 32, simply mentions "the five loaves" in connection
with "the things of sense."
Thus, the further back we go, the less proof we find that "five ' '
was regarded by Greek commentators as referring to the five books
of the Law. They may be wrong. They may have failed to catch
the poetic allusions of the Galilaean tradition. But still we have
to keep our minds open to the possibility that "five" may have
originally had some other reference (e.g. meaning " a few"} and that
the explanation of the "five loaves" as the five books of the Law
came later. It certainly is not entirely satisfactory, because it is
difficult to find a corresponding explanation of the "two fishes."
1 Exod. xxxiii. n "His [i.e. Moses's] minister Joshua, the son
of Nun, a lad," R.V. "a young man" Perhaps the Heb. naar is
intended to convey the double notion of youth and service.
2 On the ambiguous "said" or "used to say" ambiguous in
Hebrew as well as in Greek (eXeye), see Joh. Gr. 2470 a.
291 (Mark vi. 29 44) 19 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Jewish symbolism and mystical tradition through which we
must look at the whole of the context. It is easy to realise
this about the "two hundred denarii" discussed above. But
the reader may feel it absurd that he should be asked to
extend this hypothesis to the Marcan phrase "Go, see!" to
which we now return. These words he may declare to be not
only simple in themselves, but also in accord with another
Marcan tradition about the disciples as having "forgotten" to
bring "loaves with them 1 ."
But the literal truth of that other tradition itself is very
doubtful. It is omitted by Luke. And the Marcan context,
saying "Save one loaf, they had not [any loaves] in the boat
with them," is omitted by Matthew and is suggestive of
metaphor literalised. We ought therefore to give a patient
consideration to the suggestion that, in the present passage,
"Go, see!" may be a Marcan misinterpretation of "Come and
see," a phrase used in Jewish tradition to call attention to
weighty sayings, especially about the ways of God as superior
to those of man. John uses a form of it thrice in passages
where it is susceptible of a mystical meaning 2 . Also, in par-
ticular, "See" is applied to numbers when rabbinically inter-
preted. For example, Horae Hebraicae illustrates the "barley
loaves " in John by quoting a fanciful exaggeration about the
feeding of the sons of the prophets with "loaves of barley" by
Elisha, in which "See!" occurs thrice; and the formula is some-
times repeated much more frequently 3 . Somewhat similarly,
1 Mk viii. 14, parall. Mt. xvi. 5, om. Lk. xii. i.
2 See Schlatter, on Jn i. 39 "come and ye shall see," referring
to ib. 46 and xi. 34 and quoting from Mechilt. (on Exod. xii. i, xx. 12)
"Come and see what God replies to him" and "Come and see their
reward." See also Wetstein, Hor. Heb., and Schottgen, on Jn i. 39.
3 Hor. Heb. on Jn vi. 9 quoting Chetub. 105. 2, 106. 9 on 2 K. iv. 42
" Twenty loaves, and the loaf of the firstfruits, see, one and twenty ;
the green ear, see, two and twenty. . .and so, see, there were two
thousand and two hundred fed." I substitute "see" for "behold,"
as Wiinsche habitually does, e.g. on Numb. vii. 66 foil. p. 372 " siehe,
292 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
in an early Galilaean tradition about the Feeding of the
Five Thousand, attention may have been called to the number
of the loaves: "See (or, Go and see] there are five loaves*-."
This was misunderstood by Gentile interpretation (adopted by
Mark) as though the first half of the sentence came from Jesus,
who said "Go and see [how many loaves there are}," and the
second half from the disciples, who said "There are five loaves."
It is perhaps worth noting that the phrase "five loaves"
occurs in the narrative of an incident in the life of David to
which Jesus Himself called attention the eating of the sacred
shewbread by laymen contrary to the Law. All the Gospels
mention this. But they do not quote the exact words of
David, which are -"Give me five loaves of bread in mine hand
or whatsoever is present 2 ." No other passage in the Bible
mentions "five loaves" The meaning appears to be (as the
Vulgate renders it) "even five [if you can give no more]."
" Five " therefore may be regarded as typical of a small number 3 .
In the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Son of David restores
and consecrates the "five loaves" that David might be said,
in some sort, to have taken away and desecrated. It ought
not to be surprising if, apart from other mystical views of the
number "five," this allusion in itself caused a Jewish Christian
Evangelist to call attention to the coincidence by means of
the formula "Come and see." It ought to be less surprising
that the formula was misunderstood by Gentiles.
das sind zwei,...siehe, das sind vier. . . " where it occurs seven
times ; ib. p. 374 it occurs six times.
1 The Heb. N12, which regularly means "come," is frequently
used for "go," e.g. Gen. xxxi. 18 R.V. "go," LXX airc\6clv.
2 i S. xxi. 3 referred to in Mk ii. 26, Mt. xii. 4, Lk. vi. 4.
3 See Lev. xxvi. 8 "Five of you shall chase an hundred," and
Is. xxx. 17 "at the rebuke of five." The attempt to explain it
otherwise (/. Succa vi. 8 (Schwab p. 50)) is unsatisfactory.
293 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
22. "Here," in all the Gospels
The Johannine phrase discussed in the last section, "there
is a lad" is followed by "here." "Here" is also inserted by
Matthew as follows:
Mk vi. 38 Mt. xiv. 17 Lk. ix. 13
They say (D and But they say to But they said (lit.)
SS add "to him"), him, We have not There are not to us
Five... here save five... more than five...
In Corrections it was suggested that "here" might be added
by Matthew for emphasis, or that there might be some confusion
between "here" and "bread" which are very similar in Hebrew 1 .
The latter suggestion is favoured by a passage in the Psalms
where Gesenius accepts an emendation based on this similarity 2 .
But of course both causes might be at work. Matthew repeats
the Greek "here" in the next verse after a verb of motion in
words of Jesus that he alone records, "Bring them here to me 3 .'*
Luke also, in a parallel to Mark-Matthew "the place is desert/'
has "We are here in a desert place 4 ." Lastly, in the Feeding
of the Four Thousand, "here" is inserted by Mark who has
"Whence shall one be able here to satisfy these with loaves in
a wilderness 5 ? " but omitted by the parallel Matthew, "Whence
[can come] to us in a wilderness so many loaves as to satisfy so
great a multitude ? " The recurrences of the same word meaning
"here" or "hither" in the narratives of miraculous feeding
suggest the examination of the Biblical use of the word above
mentioned, meaning "hither" but confusable with "bread."
It occurs for the first time in the words of the fugitive
Hagar whom "the angel of the Lord found by a fountain of
1 See Corrections 403 (i), where it is also pointed out that " to him "
and "not" are often confused in Hebrew (see Gesen. 520 b).
z See Gesen. pp. 240 i on Ps. Ixxiii. 10 adopting on? "bread"
for D^n "hither."
3 Mt. xiv. 1 8 (frcpcTf p.oi J8e avrovs, not in parall. Mk-Lk.
4 Lk. ix. 12. 6 Mk viii. 4.
294 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
water in the wilderness of Shur." Hagar exclaims "Have I
even here looked after him that seeth me 1 ? " Rashi explains
" even here" as meaning " even here in the desert," and that makes
good sense, recognising that God sees everywhere; but the
Jerusalem Targums confused the word with an almost identical
one meaning "dream" or "vision," and the LXX renders it
"face to face 2 ." As a rule, the word means "hither," not
"here," and it will be observed that Matthew repeats it (in
Greek) in the sense of "hither" on the second occasion.
In the sense of "here," it would be appropriate to the
disciples, ignorant of their Master's design and saying "Here
[in this lonely place] we have no bread worth mentioning, or,
we can do nothing for the multitude." But, if "here" has
this meaning, then "in this lonely place" is a desirable addition;
for, without it, "here" might mean simply "on the spot."
Accordingly Mark (in the narrative of the Four Thousand)
and Luke, who both use "here" add "in a desert, or lonely
place 3 ." Matthew, in the narrative of the Four Thousand,
does not follow Mark in inserting "here" along with "in a
desert" ; but, in the narrative of the Five Thousand, he inserts
"here" twice, apparently taking it to mean, not "here in a
lonely place," but "here on the spot"; "We have no bread
worth mentioning here on the spot" to which Jesus replies
"Bring it to me here on the spot" Mark, in the Feeding of
the Five Thousand, omits "here" but apparently implies,
like Matthew, that, if inserted, it would have meant "on the
1 Gen. xvi. 13.
2 In Daniel, D^n repeatedly means (Theod.) Ivvirviov, (LXX)
In Gen. xvi. 13 Onk. has "I have begun to see" (? confusing
D^n with some form of hhri). LXX has Ivvniov (? corr. for evwrrviov).
In Gen. xvi. 14 LXX has evwiriov again for vfo =viventis. Else-
where LXX has evravda (4), code (4), etc. These facts indicate that
ancient interpretation did not (as Gesen. does) limit the word to the
sense of "hither."
3 Mk viii. 4 (the Four Thousand) 7ro'0ei>...co5e...eV eprj^ias; Lk. ix.
12 (the Five Thousand) cJ&e eV epjf/uco roTrco eV/^ev.
295 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
,
spot'' ; although the disciples had no bread "on the spot," they
had some a little way off, as to which Jesus sent to inquire
how much there was.
Coming to John's phrase "There is a lad here" we have to
confess at once that, but for all these variations and apparent
allusions in the Synoptists, we should take it to mean simply
"on the spot" or "at hand." But if the "lad" is to be regarded
as the representative of Moses, and if John had before him
various traditions likening the Five Thousand in the Desert to
Israel in the Wilderness of Sinai, then we shall not reject as
improbable the hypothesis that this saying of Andrew about
"a lad here," besides having its literal meaning, might also
mystically allude to "Moses in the wilderness^-."
23. "By companies 2 " "by ranks 3 ," in Mark
The Greek for "company," symposion, means literally
"drinking-party." The Greek for "rank," prasia, means
perhaps literally "greenery," and in practice a rectangular
"garden-bed 4 ." Neither of these words is adopted by the
1 In examining this hypothesis of allusion to the story of Hagar,
or of confusion arising from Hebrew corruption, we must not ignore
the fact that elsewhere Matthew and Luke appear to insert "hither"
simply for emphasis. (See Corrections 425 on Mk ix. 19, Mt. xvii.
17, Lk. ix. 41.) And the LXX does sometimes insert it for this
reason where it is not in the Hebrew, besides omitting it sometimes
where it is in the Hebrew. (See Corrections 425 (i) a and b.) But the
recurrence of "here" in these narratives of feeding is rather too
frequent to be explained thus.
2 Mk vi. 39 o"Vfj.TTo(na (rv/jLTrocria. 3 Mk VI. 40 Trpacriai Trpaa-iai.
4 Hesych. says that 7rpdara = Ta fipva K. TCI (pVKia, and 7rpa(riai = ai fv
rols KTjTrois TfTpdynvoi \axaviai. The facts suggest that the word
originally denoted "green " and was then applied to any very common
green vegetable, e.g. the leek (comp. in English, "greens"}. L.S.
gives 7rpacrioi/ = "horehound," and 7rpda-ov = (i) leek, (2) a leek-like
sea-weed. Hesych. suggests Tre'po? "boundary" as the origin of the
word : olov rrepacrtot 8ia TO eVi Trepaai reov K^TTCOV. The word irpaaia is
frequent in Homer. Field (on Mk vi. 40) shews that the word was
not (as has been maintained) associated with the thought of " flower-
beds" or "parterres" implying variety of colour.
296 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
parallel Matthew, Luke, or John 1 . The question therefore
arises whether John has, or has not, in his context, some-
thing that expresses the thought underlying Mark's peculiar
expressions. If he has not, this passage will have to be
recognised as an instance of the failure of the Rule of Johannine
Intervention.
Symposion occurs only once in canonical LXX. There it
represents the Hebrew phrase " drinking-party of wine 2 ."
Philo, it is true, repeatedly uses it in describing the sacred
meals of the Therapeutae. But he expressly uses it as a
paradox, "contrasting their symposia with the symposia of other
1 Mk vi. 39 40
(R.V.)
(39) And he
commanded them
that all should sit
down (lit. recline)
by companies upon
the green grass.
(40) And they
sat down in ranks,
by hundreds, and
by fifties.
Mt. xiv. 19 a
(R.v.)
And he com-
manded the mul-
titudes to sit down
(lit. recline) on the
grass.
Lk. ix. 14 15
(R.V.)
(14) For they
were about five
thousand men. And
Jn vi. 10
(R.V.)
Jesus said,
Make the people sit
down. Now there
he said unto his was much grass in
disciples, Make the place. So the
them sit down (lit. men sat down, in
recline) in com- number about five
panies (/cXto-i'as), thousand,
about fifty each.
(15) And they
did so, and made
them all sit down
(lit. recline).
In the Feeding of the Four Thousand the reclining is mentioned
merely as a command thus :
Mk viii. 6 a (R.V.) Mt. xv. 35 (R.V.)
And he commandeth the And he commanded the
multitude to sit down on the multitude to sit down on the
ground. ground.
R.V. in these six columns does not represent several differences
in the Greek. For example, R.V. " command "^eViraWco, KeXeuoo,
and TrapayyeXXo).
2 Esth. vii. 7 o-vfj.Tr6a-iov = " drinking-party (nn^D) of wine (fTl)."
SvfjLTToaiov oiVou = the same Heb. in Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 5, xlix. i. In
Is. i. 22 (Aq.) and Hos. iv. 18 (Sym. and Quint.) O-VHITOO-LOV repre-
sents Heb. KID (Gesen. 685 a] "drink," "liquor," (?) "drunken-
revelling." The parallel Lk. ix. 14 has K\io-ias. KXto-ia, in literary
Greek (Steph. Thes.} means a "booth" (comp. 3 Mace. vi. 31, the
single instance in LXX) . But Luke appears to mean " sitting-place "
as in Joseph. Ant. xii. 2. 12.
297 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
folk,'' for the Therapeutae, he says, drink nothing but "running
water 1 ." In Mark there is no such contrast. Mark's choice
of the word therefore requires explanation. It seems singularly
unsuitable in a narrative about feeding with bread and fish
where there appears no suggestion, and certainly no mention,
of wine, or of anything to drink.
But in fact there is such a suggestion, though a most obscure
one, in the Marcan word prasiai. For this, though literally
meaning only "garden-beds," can be shewn to have practically
meant garden-beds that need irrigation, that is to say, meta-
phorically "drinking." Aquila assumes this in his rendering
of the words "As the hart thirsteth (R.V. panteth) after the
water brooks, so thirsteth (R.V. panteth) my soul after thee,
God 2 ." Here Aquila uses a verb formed from prasia,
"garden-bed," to signify "thirsting [like a garden-bed that
thirsts for water from heaven]." Ben Sira, too, after repre-
senting Wisdom as saying "They that eat me shall yet be
hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty," i.e. athirst
for heavenly knowledge, uses the word prasia as follows : "I will
water my best garden, and will water abundantly my garden-
bed 3 ." The thought is of the irrigating trenches of a garden
or vineyard, opening their mouths like panting animals, and
crying to heaven for water to feed the rows of vegetation.
The word occurs in a papyrus of the first century in such a
1 Philo ii. 477 dvTirdgas TO. TO>V (i\\a)v a-vp-Trocria (the word is
mentioned about a dozen times in the context). The Therapeutae
drink (ib. 477) u8o>p va^anaiov.
2 Ps. xlii. i, see Gesen. 788, :ny, "long for," njny "garden
terrace or bed." Rashi gives various explanations, and says that
"Menachem" illustrates from Cant. v. 12 (R.V. 13) where Aq. has
rrpao-iai. Aq. also has Trpao-iovo-Oai in Joel i. 20 " the beasts of the field
pant (A.V. cry) unto thee," where Jerome says "like a garden-bed
thirsting for rain. For this is what Aquila means, in one word,
saying fTrpao-ta>6r)."
3 Sir. xxiv. 21, 31 TTOTIO) ftov TOV K^TTOV, *at p,0v<ra> p.ov rrjv irpacridv,
where /if#v<ro>, "I will satisfy as if with wine," harmonizes with a
hypothesis connecting jrpaa-iai with arvprroa-ia.
298 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
context as to shew that it would be naturally connected with
irrigation 1 .
The Targum on a passage in Ezekiel mentioning what
Aquila calls "garden-beds" has a slightly different form of the
word, meaning "trenches," and especially trenches for the
irrigation of vines 2 . And the metaphorical name "the vine-
yard in Jabneh" (some indeed call it no metaphor but a name
based on fact) was applied to "the university in that place,"
the reason being that "the scholars sat rows [and] rows like a
vineyard that is planted rows [and] rows*."
These facts, taken together, explain Mark's two peculiar
traditions. The original appeared to him to describe the mul-
titude as placed "[in] rows [and] rows," meaning either "like
vines," or "like vineyard trenches," waiting for water, the
living water of the Word 4 . This was at first expressed by
prasiai. But as this did not convey clearly to Greeks the
notion of thirst, Mark prefaced it by symposia 5 . Matthew
and Luke omitted both these terms: symposia, "drinking-
parties," because it might convey the notion of carousing, and
prasiai, "garden-beds," because it did not convey to them the
1 Berlin Urkunde 530. 27 "The water scarcely gives drink enough
for one row" poXis yap p.iai> Trpacreai/ (sic) 7rortei TO v8a>p. Comp.
I Cor. xii. 13 fv irvfvp.0. fTTOTLO-drjfjLfv and iii. 2 yd\a vpas eVorio-a, also
iii. 6 'ATroXXo)? e-n-oTia-fv, "watered" (after "I planted").
2 Ezek. xvii. 7, 10 Heb. mny, A.V. "furrows," R.V. "beds,"
Aq. TTpao-iai, Targ. JVJIJJ* which = " trenches," see Levy iii. 625 b and
Levy Ch. ii. 205 b.
3 Hor. Heb. on Mk vi. 40 quoting Jevamoth cap. 8. For a similar
explanation see Jer. Berach. iv. i fol. 7 d, and elsewhere (Levy ii.
408 b). The word for "rows" is rare in O.T. (Gesen. 10046, quite
diff. from the one meaning "garden-bed") but freq. in later Heb.
(Levy iv. 525 6).
4 This is the aspect of "rows" that commended itself to Mark.
But there is also the military aspect in which the "rows " would be
regarded as "files," see below, p. 309, n. 3, and pp. 309 14.
5 See Clue 31 shewing that " the correct rendering in a conflation
mostly follows the incorrect one."
299 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
suggestion of spiritual thirst, and they did not see any reason
for such an out-of-the-way metaphor.
What course does John adopt? In the narrative of the
actual miracle, it must be admitted, he says nothing that in
the remotest degree implies a symposium. But in Christ's
comment we are taught that the "loaves" with which the
Five Thousand have been "filled" are but types of a "bread
from heaven"; then we learn that this "bread" is Christ
Himself; then we are told that He not the bread but Christ
Himself satisfies "thirst" at the same time as hunger: "He
that cometh unto me shall never hunger, and he that believeth
on me shall never thirst*." Subsequently the epithet "living "-
familiar to the Jews as an epithet of running water is applied
to this "bread" as being a source of spiritual life 2 . And thus
we are finally led to a new and astonishing revelation of the
nature of this new "food" that is to be "bought" by Jesus
namely that it is to be His own "flesh." The literalising Jews
ask "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus, in
His answer, increases (for literalisers) the impossibility. He
abruptly implies that the "flesh" will not be separated from
"blood." Thus at last we are brought to the actual mention
of the word "drink" for which we have been gradually prepared :
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,
ye have no life in yourselves 3 ." This, once mentioned, is
reiterated: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,"
"My blood is drink indeed," "He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him 4 ." Such is the
Johannine expansion of the Marcan symposia.
It has not been maintained above that symposia was a
part of Mark's original, or that Matthew and Luke were wrong
in omitting it. The question for us has been, not as to Mark's
1 Jn vi. 35. This is in response to the prayer "Lord, evermore
give us this bread."
2 Jn vi. 51. 3 Jn vi. 523. 4 Jn vi. 54 6.
300 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
correctness, but as to whether John intervenes in order to bring
out some spiritual doctrine latent under Mark's text, even when
Mark is incorrect or (as in this case) inappropriate in expression.
The result has been to reveal, apparently, not a failure but an
instance, of Johannine Intervention. And it is a peculiarly
interesting one. For here Mark's error appears to have been
a Greek husk, so to speak, containing a kernel of Jewish
doctrine. This kernel John has extracted, amplifying the
exposition of its doctrine so that it illuminates the whole of
his conception of Christ's character and action.
As regards prasiai, or "garden-beds," it cannot be con-
clusively shewn that John has similarly intervened. If he
regarded the prasiai as the Jewish equivalent of the Gentile
symposia, he may have decided that he had done enough when
he had expounded the doctrine implied for Greeks in the
Greek word symposia' 1 .
1 The thought of irpao-tai as "rows of vines," thirsting for water,
would be very distinct from John's conception of the one Vine.
The latter (not "vine-rows" but "vine") may have been in his mind
when he writes, as words of Jesus, (vi. 56) "He that. . .drinketh
my blood abide th in me and I in him."
If we drink His blood, it follows that, in some sense, He is in us ;
but how does it follow that we "abide" in Him? An explanation
is not given in the doctrine that follows the Feeding, but one is
suggested later on, when it is said (Jn xv. 4) that we abide in Christ
as branches in the Vine. This means that we are in the Christ-
Nature or Vine-Nature, in the Nature that produces the sap and
the fruit and that juice of the Vine which is called in Scripture
(Gen. xlix, n) "the blood of grapes." It is in us, but we are also
in it because it is in us. This metaphor of the single Vine is more
accordant with the ancient Hebrew imagery than is the later Jewish
tradition about "vine-rows [and] vine-rows" describing the array of
disciples in "the vineyard" of "the university of Jabneh."
If there is any Johannine equivalent cf the Marcan prasiai
regarded as "rows of vines," thirsting for rain it is to be looked
for in passages describing the "living water," which John alone
mentions.
301 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
24. "On the green grass 1 ," in Mark
Barely stated, the facts bearing on this Marcan phrase
might be summed up as a case of Johannine Intervention thus :
"Mark has 'on the green grass,' Matthew 'on the grass,' Luke
no mention of 'grass' at all, John 'There was much grass
in the place'; John obviously intervenes. The Greek chortos,
'grass,' mostly means 'hay' in literary Greek, and may have
that meaning here. But that does not affect either the fact
that Luke omits and John inserts the Marcan chortos, or the
inference that it is a case of Johannine Intervention."
All this is true. But if we passed on, content with this, we
should pass over a great deal that will be found interesting and
illuminative for those who are prepared to recognise truth
under metaphor, and to accept guidance toward some parts of
the truth from ancient Christian commentaries that must be
admitted to be, as to other parts, fanciful and extravagant.
Such a comment is that of Jerome (on Matthew) : "They are
commanded to ' lie down on grass (or, hay) (foenum) ' and,
according to another (alium) Evangelist, 'on the earth 2 ,' in
fifties or hundreds, in order that, after they have trampled
(calcaverint) 3 on their 'flesh' and all its 'flowers,' and placed
1 Mk vi. 39 4 fir/ro^W avrols dvaK\iSr)vai ndvTas. . . eVi roi
), KOI dv7T(rav. . ., Mt. xiv. 19 KfXeixras TOVS o^Xovs dvaK\i0f)i>ai eVi
TOV ^opTou, Lk. ix. 14 15 KaraK\ivaT avrovs K\iarias. . ., KCU <aTK\Lvav
airavras, Jn vi. IO Iloir)(raT rovs dvdpdnrovs dvairecrflv. r\v Se ^oproy
rroXvs cv TO) TOTTO). dvfirevav ovv ol avdpes. . . .
2 "On the earth" is not said by any Evangelist here. Did
Jerome suppose it to be implied by Luke ("make them lie down") ?
Luke omits "on the grass." On the Feeding of the Four Thousand
Jerome (on Matthew) remarks "Ibi super foenum discumbunt, hie
super terram." If Jerome is referring to that we must read here
"another [place of the] Evangelist (Mt. xv. 35)."
3 "Trampled," comp. the expostulation in Ezekiel (xxxiv. 18) to
the "rams" and "he-goats," which not only eat up the pasture of
the weaker cattle but also "tread down" the "residue." What they
do in a bad sense, Jerome here supposes to be done in a good sense.
302 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
under [their feet] the pleasures of the world as being merely
drying grass (or, hay) (arens foenum) 1 , they may then ascend
through the penitence denoted by 'fifty' to the perfect height
denoted by 'a hundred 2 .'"
In his interpretation of "grass," Jerome is here following
Origen, who says "I think He bade the multitude lie down in
the grass by reason of that which is said in Isaiah 'All flesh
is grass ' that is to say, place beneath [their feet] ' the flesh '
and subjugate the disposition of 'the fiesh 3 .'"
This passage of Isaiah is quoted also in the Petrine Epistle
as contrasting "fiesh," which is "as grass," with the utterance
of the everlasting God; and it is alluded to in the Epistle of
James 4 . Jesus Himself did not command His disciples to
"trample" on "the flowers"; but He bade them "consider
the lilies" and ask themselves whether they might not trust
their heavenly Father to clothe them, since He "so clothed the
grass (chortos) of the field 5 ."
It is important to recognise that this word chortos, when
connected with a mention of men and not cattle or agriculture,
is likely to have a depreciative meaning. Paul uses it to
describe a false and flimsy structure (of "hay'') built by some
1 Comp. Is. xl. 6 8 "All flesh is grass (xopros), and all the
goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field .... Surely the people
is grass. The grass withereth (fgrjpdvGr] = arens), the flower fadeth :
but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
2 " Fifty" is mentioned by Mark and Luke, but not by Matthew ;
"a hundred" is mentioned by Mark alone.
3 Origen (on Mt. xiv. 19) TOVS o^Xous rje&cwcy avaK.\idrjvai eV (sic)
TO) ^opro) . . . rovrecrni' VTroKarco TroiT/crai TTJV (rdpica KOI vrrora^ai TO <pp6vr)p.a
Trjs o-apKOS.
4 i Pet. i. 24, Jas. i. 10, u.
5 Mt. vi. 30 fl 8e TOV %6pTov TOV dypov . . . Note the difference in
Lk. xii. 28 ei 8e fv aypo> TOV -%6pTov . . . Luke rejects the phrase "grass
of the field " used by Matthew and frequent in LXX. He substitutes :
" But if [while it is still] in the field [or, in afield] the grass living (lit.
existing) to-day and [to be] thrown into the oven to-morrow is so
clothed by God." His object is to shew Greek readers that xP TOS >
in this passage, does not have its ordinary meaning "hay."
303 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Christians who profess to accept Christ as their "foundation 1 ."
Also in literary Greek the noun chortos is regularly used to mean
food for beasts, as distinct from corn or wheat that is food for
men; and hence the verb chortazein is used to mean, not only
when applied to cattle "fill with hay (or, with fodder)/' but
also when applied to men, "cram, or stuff, oneself with food,"
after the manner of swine 2 .
In LXX, chortos is represented mainly by two Hebrew
words. Both of these signify "herbage," but one signifies
more definitely "green grass" and is once rendered by LXX
"green 3 ." It seldom has any such opprobrious sense as in
literary Greek 4 . In O.T., where A.V. has "hay" R.V. has
"grass" in text or margin 5 ; and it is said that people in
Palestine do not dry grass as we do for winter fodder, and that
there is no evidence that the Hebrews had such a custom 6 .
1 i Cor. iii. 12.
2 See Steph. Thes. xP T s> an d add Epictet. ii. 14. 24 "most men
value nothing more than fodder for wealth is foddqr" (comp.
ib. 29). Epictetus uses xo/>ra< similarly (ii. 16. 43) and once in a
passage that resembles a bitter version of a saying of Christ's
(i. 9. 19) "You are [as good as] dead. When you are crammed
(xopraa-dfJTc) for the day, you sit weeping about the [fodder of
the], morrow." Ast's two instances in Plato are Pol. n. 372 D,
ix. 586 A in which men are likened to "swine," or to creatures
"stooping down to dinner- tables," fls rpa-jr^as [Kf<v(poTfs] #o<ncoi/rai
XOpTa6/jivoi KOL oxfvovres.
3 See Gesen. 348 Tn "green grass, herbage," 793 3^y "herb,
herbage." Xopros = the former about 12 times, the latter about
25 times (besides other Heb. words much more rarely). In
Prov. xxvii. 25, TVH = LXX "green [things]" x^>P<<> v > R.V. "the hay
(marg. grass} is carried and the tender grass sheweth itself."
4 The Hebrew "grass" denotes transience but not degradation
except in special contexts such as Ps. cvi. 20 "the similitude of an
ox that eateth grass," on which see Tehill. and Rashi ad loc., also
Mechilt. (on Exod. xiv. 29, Wii. p. 108) and Dan. iv. 25 33 (of
Nebuchadnezzar) .
5 Prov. xxvii. 25, Is. xv. 6, the only instances of "hay" in
A.V. (O.T.).
6 See Hastings' Diet. " Hay," which says " The winter is the season
304 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Mark has previously used chortos in a sense unprecedented (so
far as is known at present) to mean the shooting blade of
corn (perhaps taking it to mean the early green shoot of corn
which the eye cannot distinguish from grass) 1 . Here Mark
goes further and inserts "green." Perhaps he wishes to make
it clear to his readers that he means, not "hay/' but "grass 2 ."
Are we then to infer that in the present passage Mark is
simply stating a literal fact in the language of the LXX without
any allusion to Hebrew Scripture or Jewish tradition? It
would be safer to say that he stated what he believed to be a
literal fact and to leave it an open question whether his original
had an allusive character. For we are dealing with a Gospel
narrative about a miraculous giving of "bread/' or literally
"loaves"; and it is certainly a coincidence to be noted that,
in the LXX, the first mention of "bread" (or "loaf," artos)
"In the sweat of thy face wilt thou eat bread" immediately
follows the words, pronounced as a curse, "Thou shalt eat the
grass (chortos) of the field 3 ."
The question was asked by ancient Jewish teachers "Was
there really a change in the doom pronounced by God on
Adam ? If so, how explain it ? " The Jerusalem Targums say
it was changed because of Adam's piteous expostulation, and
Talmudic tradition supports them: "Lord of the world," cried
Adam, "shall I and my ass eat out of one crib 4 ?" These
of green grass here." The ignorance of this fact might lead to early
misunderstandings.
1 Mk iv. 28.
2 Wetstein, on Mt. vi. 30, says that xP TOS is "hay (foenum)/'
but that here and elsewhere in the Gospels it is used of grass still
green, and he quotes Plutarch Q. N. p. 25 c -^dpros vopevos, KOTTTCTCII
yap ov r]pos dXXa ^Xcopdy.
3 Gen. iii. 18 19.
4 Pesach. 118 a, and sim. Aboth R. Nathan on Aboth i. i "Said
the Holy One, Blessed be He : ' As thou hast trembled, therefore in
the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread' " (where Rodkinson
italicises "bread"). See Son 3422 a, which quotes the fuller dialogue
A. L. 305 (Mark vi. 29 44) 20
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
traditions are not of the first century. But even in the first
century we find Philo making a distinction between the
symbolism of "grass" and "green [grass] 1 ." This, though
perhaps derived from Greek influences, indicates that dis-
cussions about "grass," and "fodder," and also about the
relation of these to that "bread" which is "the word of God,"
were likely to be current in the first century, among Jews as
well as among Christians 2 . On the whole we may say that
there is nothing so absurd as there appears to be at first sight
in the hypothesis that "on the green grass" in the Marcan
narrative had, from the first, a poetic and allusive as well as
a literal meaning.
Before passing to the Johannine equivalent (in the phrase
"now there was much grass in the place") we must note, as a
part of John's consistent treatment of the whole subject, his
way of dealing with the verb chortazein derived from chortos
"grass," and meaning "to fill with grass." It is applied by
all the Synoptists to the multitudes, meaning "they were
filled" in the sense of "satisfied 3 ." For this, they have some
authority in the LXX, but hardly any except in the Psalms 4 .
in the Targums, where God is regarded not as altering, but as
interpreting, "the herb," 3B>y. This = X opros seven times in Genesis,
beginning with i. n (BoTavrjv (NH) x^P TOV (^t^y).
1 Philo i. 48 (on Gen. ii. 4 foil.). "Grass "=xopros, "green
[grass] "= x \o>p6v.
2 Xoproy occurs in early Christian writers (s. Goodspeed) only
in Justin's Dialogue 20 passim (apart from quotations in ib. 34
and 50). There Justin, after saying that God (Gen. ix. 3) gave
Noah the right to eat of every animal, represents the Jew as on
the point of interrupting him : "And as he was ready to say 'as the
herbs of green-vegetation (\dxava xpv) ' I anticipated him." This
shews that chortos was a recognised topic of discussion.
3 Mk vi. 42, Mt. xiv. 20, Lk. ix. 17. Comp. Mk viii. 4 8, Mt.
xv. 33 7 (about the Four Thousand).
4 The Heb. yap meaning "satisfy" or "sate" = (Tromm.)
/i7rAj70o> or e/zTrijiTrAj/fu 50 times, and Tr\T)6a) 19 times, but xopa>
only 13 times (Tromm., by error, 12), and, of these 13 instances,
9 are in the Psalms.
306 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
It must be admitted that Paul once uses it about himself.
And his language might be rendered (somewhat tamely) " I have
been initiated into the secret both of having-my-fill (chortazeiri)
and hungering 1 ." But it is better to regard it as Pauline
hyperbole (almost equivalent to "stuffing and starving").
And to most Greeks, unacquainted with the LXX, the Synoptic
statement would certainly sound like a reproach as if it meant
that the Five Thousand were "filled like swine" without thanks
to the giver and without sense of the nature of the gift 2 . By
John the word is thus reproachfully used, not in his own words
but (which is more weighty) in the words of Jesus to condemn
their unintelligent greediness: "Ye seek me, not because ye
saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves and were filled [like
cattle with fodder]*." The words that follow enjoin "labour"
and labour like that of the husbandman, which distinguishes
1 Philipp. iv. 12 fifp.vr)fj,at KOL xoprafo-$ai KOI irfivav. On this,
Lightfoot, while admitting that it was originally not applied to men
except in a depreciatory sense, adds that " in the later language it
has lost this sense. . .being applied commonly to men and directly
opposed to ireivdv, e.g. Matth. v. 6. On ^opra^eiv see Sturz de Dial.
Mac. p. 200."
But Sturz does not give a single instance where a serious writer
of literary Greek, uninfluenced by the Gospels, applies it to men
without depreciation. The Synoptic Gospels prove nothing except
that they were influenced by the usage of the Psalms. Epictetus
always uses it of men in a bad sense and so does Plutarch (ii. 616 A)
in the single instance given in the Index. The first eleven volumes
of the Oxyrhynchan Papyri and the first four volumes of the Berlin
Urkunde do not contain the word in any sense.
2 Goodspeed shews that the only Christian instance of xopra'<>
up to A.D. 150 is Clem. Rom. 59 rovs 7r\avo>iJ.cvovs rot) XaoC vov eVt-
o-Tpc^ov, xoprcuroi/ TOVS -rrfivwvras. But this (like Polyc. Phil. 6)
alludes to Ezek. xxxiv. 16 7TTr\avr]iJ.Vov eVto-rpe'^oo.../^! POO-K T/crco,
which follows ib. 15 "I myself will feed my sheep." This indicates
that Clement uses the word metaphorically in a prayer to God
to "satisfy" His hungering "sheep."
3 Jn vi. 26. This is Jn's only instance of ^opra^o).
307 (Mark vi. 29 44) 20 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
man from cattle: "Labour not for the food that perisheth, but
for the food that abideth unto eternal life 1 ."
In conclusion, the apparent attitude of the other Evangelists
to Mark's peculiar tradition "on the green grass," may be
roughly described as follows. Matthew omits "green," possibly
regarding it as a mere picturesque epithet. Luke omits the
whole phrase, perhaps as being of doubtful meaning, and
perhaps because, looking at Mark's picture from a western
point of view as an expanse of long grass not yet cut, he thought
that five thousand men, lying down on it, would do mischief
such as Jesus would not have sanctioned. John, omitting
"green," suggests that it may have been "hay," not "grass."
Also he suggests the same thing by slightly altering the context.
For he does not speak of "the grass" as a natural element in the
scene (like ' ' the trees/ ' "the forest, " etc . ) . He suggests that there
happened to be a great quantity of hay lying about in swaths in that
district*. If that was, or was supposed to be, the case, it would be
an occasion on which Jesus might naturally be supposed to say to
the multitude, somewhat as in the Sermon on the Mount, "consider
the grass of the field how God provideth it with clothing." This,
in Hebrew or Aramaic, might be expressed by "set [your minds]
on the grass of the field." But this is liable to be confused with
"set yourselves on, i.e. lie down on, the grass of the field 3 ."
1 Jn vi. 27, on which (and on cpyd&vdt, meaning agricultural
labour) see Son 3017, 3421 /. The words accord with the above-
mentioned prayer of Adam to God that he might be allowed to work
for bread instead of browsing on grass.
2 If the Passover was (Jn vi. 4) "at hand," some might suppose
hay-making to be going on (but see p. 304, n. 6). Nonnus seems to
imply "happened to be" by n$ in his paraphrase of Jn vi. 10 jji/
Sc TIS avTudi xopros dtreipiTos. The multitude (he says) took their meal
"on the top of the hay," tyoQi ^oprov. "Each man was leaning as it
were against a party-wall all of them reclining in rows," ZKCKTTOS
epfidcTo ycirovi TOI'^O) KK\ip.evoi CTTOI^^OV. That is, they leaned against
the "swaths" covering a widely extended space.
8 See Gesen. p. 963 on Judg. xix. 30 where the Heb. has " Set ye for
yourselves (D3^) upon i/" = R.V. "consider of it," LXX (Swete)
308 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
This would give, as the original, a tradition somewhat resembling
the spiritual interpretation of Origen and Jerome, but with
an important difference. It would be, not "Set yourselves
above, or against, the grass of the field, as if it were an enemy
to be conquered," but "Set yourselves [to think] over it in order
to learn the lesson that it teaches 1 ."
25. "By hundreds and by fifties," in Mark 2
Mark is the only one of the Evangelists that mentions
"hundreds" in this connection. What he has in view is five
thousand men in a hundred parallel rows, each row containing
fifty men 3 . If he had previously mentioned five thousand as
vp.lv avrol eV avrrjv..., Targ. "set your hearts upon it." The Gk
varies greatly. Field reads avrols. And BevOe v^lv avrols eV avrrjv
might be supposed to be an error for QivQe v^as avrovs eVi avrrjv,
1 Comp. 4 Esdr. ix. 24 27 " ' Ibis in campum florum, ubi domus non
est aedificata, et manduces (sic) solummodo de floribus campi . . . . '
Et sedi ibi in floribus et de herbis agri manducavi ... in saturitatem . . .
et ego discumbebam supra foenum." The meaning is obscure, but it
is probable that "reclining on the hay" has a metaphorical meaning.
The thought in the context (ix. 29 37) does not appear to be
Christian. It speaks of the "sowing" of "the Law" in "the wilder-
ness." A receptacle (it says) remains as a rule when its contents
perish. But Israel, the receptacle of the Law, perishes while the
Law abides. This is (in word at all events) opposed to Jn xii. 24
"except a grain of wheat... die, it abideth by itself alone."
z Mk vi. 40 Mt. om. Lk. ix. 15 Jn vi. 10
Kal avtireaav irpa- Kal tirolyaav ourws a,vire<rav o5v ol
<rial TrpacnaL, Kara Kal Kar^K\Lva,v airav- avdpes (or, dveireffav
fxarbv /ecu /caret irev- ras. ofiv, &v5pe$) TOV apid-
rrjKOVTa. IAOV u>s Trei'Tct/ao'XiXioi.
In the preceding verse, Luke (ix. 14), after stating the total
number himself, has represented Jesus as dictating to His disciples
the number in each group, KaraicXtVare avrovs K\io-ias axre! ava Trevrrj-
Koi/ra. The total number is not specified by Mark and Matthew till
the conclusion of the narrative (Mk vi. 44, Mt. xiv. 21).
3 "Rows." This is the word suggested by Mark's "garden-
borders." But the reader must be prepared to substitute "files"
for "rows," if it appears later on that the original contemplated a
military arrangement in which each "row" or "file" was composed
309 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the total (as Luke has done) he need not have mentioned
"hundreds," for "five thousand [arranged] by fifties'' (which,
in effect, is what Luke says) implies "fifty hundreds." But
Mark has not yet mentioned "five thousand." Moreover he
desires his readers to see the multitude in regular array-
geometrically, so to speak in oblong "garden-borders," as
has been pointed out above. Hence his peculiar tradition
in effect, "a hundred by fifty."
It is not surprising that Matthew omits the Marcan phrase,
for it would interfere with Matthew's addition of "women
and children 1 ." But it is, if not surprising, at least worth
considering, that Luke, desiring perhaps to condense Mark,
chooses to omit "hundred" rather than "fifty." Is there any
indication that he may have been influenced by Jewish traditions
about companies of "fifty ," in connection with Israel either
Israel in the wilderness receiving the Law of God, or Israel as
God's army marshalled for war?
For poetic or prophetic Jewish traditions about companies
of fifty we naturally turn to comments on the words of Isaiah
about "the judge and the prophet. . .the captain of fifty 2 .'"
Jerome dilates on the mystical significance of "fifty," in
connection with "repentance," "Pentecost," etc. He does
this (he says) because the "captain (princeps) " of repentance
is Christ, and he quotes the words of the Jews to Jesus "thou
of 50 men. See L. S. on o-rol^oy, "esp. of persons standing one
behind another," and "of soldiers, a file."
1 Also it might mean "a hundred at a time and fifty at a time."
Comp. i K. xviii. 4 "a hundred ... and hid them fifty [at a time]
(xara TrfVTiJKovTa) ," or "fifty in one place and fifty in another." See
Sanhedr. 39 b. Rashi says that there were "two caves." Origen
(Comm. Matth. xi. 3) says that the ranks were hundreds and fifties
"since there are different ranks (ray/xara) of those who need the
nourishment [that comes] from Jesus, because not all are nourished
by equal logoi (rols to-ois Aoyoty) " an explanation of which the
chief value is that it proves that he considered some explanation
of Mark's twofold numbering to be necessary.
2 Is. iii. 2 3.
310 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
art not y r et fifty years old," as indicating their refusal to accept
Him as their "captain of fifty 1 ." Whence did Jerome receive
this explanation of "captain of fifty "1 Rashi and Ibn Ezra
say nothing about it. One of the most poetic treatises of the
Talmud says "Do not read 'captain of fifty ,' but 'captain of
fifths 2 .' This is he who knows how to handle matters in the
five sections of the Law." But it adds another explanation
"An interpreter is not appointed over the congregation who
is less than fifty years old 3 ." This accords with Jerome's above-
quoted application of "captain of fifty."
Another Jewish tradition, also highly poetic and mystical,
after quoting Zechariah and Jeremiah on "The Branch" and
adding "This is the Messiah," represents God as saying "I will
set up a 'captain over fifty,' " implying that this "captain,"
too, is the Messiah. Then it numbers the books of the Bible,
and the divisions of some of the books, and makes out the total
to be "fifty-" Thus "captain of fifty," without any change
of "fifty" to "fifths" is made to mean the same thing as
"captain of fifths" above, that is, "Master of Scripture 4 ."
These Jewish variations of interpretation are partly caused
by the fact that, in Hebrew, "fifty" is the plural of "five"
and easily confused with "five," and partly by the fact that
the word, when used as the plural participle of a verb, means
"arranged in battle array 5 ." A notorious instance of such
1 In some of these remarks Jerome resembles Origen (on
Numb. iv. 3, 47, Lomm. x. 35, 41), but Origen does not there quote
Is. iii. 3 (nor Jn viii. 57, perhaps, anywhere).
2 " Fifths " (Levy ii. 78 b) a name given to the five books of the
Pentateuch, and the five books of the Psalms.
3 Chag. 14 a.
4 Numb. r. on Numb. xvi. 35 (Wii. p. 451).
5 See Gesen. 332 b. An explanation suggests itself from "quin-
cunx," e.g. Caes. Bell. Gall. vii. 73 "obliquis ordinibus in quin-
cuncem dispositis." Gesen., however, does not offer this explanation,
but suggests doubtfully (i) "Ar. army," and (2) "army as composed
of five parts" (not explaining what the "five parts" are). The
311 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
confusion occurs in the description of the going forth of Israel
from Egypt, "And the children of Israel went up arranged-in-
battle-array out of the land of Egypt 1 ." Here R.V. has " armed" ;
A.V. "harnessed" (i.e. "in armour") in text, but "by five in a
rank" in margin; LXX "in the fifth generation"', Aquila "in
armour"} Symmachus "hoplites" i.e. " heavy-armed soldiers" \
Theodotion "on the fifth day 2 ." Besides these variations, there
are others in Jewish tradition. Onkelos adopts "armed" and
the second Jerusalem Targum "armed with good works" But
the first Targum has "every one with five children" Rashi,
who accepts "armed" adds "Others say ' the fifth part,' because
four-fifths died in the darkness of Egypt." There are other
interpretations of all kinds, some of which take the word as
meaning "fifty" or even "five hundred*."
quincunx is so called from its resemblance to the arrangement of
* *
the five spots on dice * * * . The Heb. occurs only in Exod. xiii.
18, Josh. i. 14, iv. 12, Judg. vii. n (but perhaps it should be read
also in Numb, xxxii. 17).
1 Exod. xiii. 18.
2 Exod. xiii. 18, Field agmine instructo, LXX TT^TTTI/ ytveq, Aq.
6Va)7rXi(r/Liei/oi, Sym. oTrXIrat, Theod. 7re/i7rrai'oi/rey which Field
illustrates from the medical use of Tpircuaifa and reraprai*<o, to suffer
from a "tertian" or a "quartan" fever. Does Theod. regard the
Israelites as being delivered from disease (comp. Deut. xxviii. 60
"the diseases of Egypt") ?
Jerome, quoted by Field, defends Aquila's rendering, but says
" Licet pro eo quod nos armati diximus . . . instructi, sive muniti,
propter supellectilem qua ^Egyptios spoliaverunt, possit intelligi."
He seems to see the difficulty of supposing that the Israelites had
" armour" before they took it from the Egyptians who were drowned
in the Red Sea (as Josephus says Ant. ii. 16. 6).
3 /. Sabb. vi. 4 has "with five kinds of arms," Mechilt. ad loc.
also has this, but adds (2) ''ready" or "alert," (3) "one out of five,"
(4) "one out of fifty ," (5) "one out of five hundred." Pesikt. (Piska x.
Wii. p. no) gives, as the last of five explanations, "R. Jose said
that they went forth ' to five generations (zu funf Geschlechtern] ' '
apparently including great-great-grandparents with the babes
descended from them (not, as LXX, "in the fifth generation [from
the Coming of Israel into Egypt]").
312 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
It is reasonable to suppose that poetic Jewish Christian
traditions describing one of Christ's Eucharists, or Common
Meals of Thanksgiving, accompanying the Giving of the Word
of God, might lay stress (as Philo repeatedly does in describing
the meals of the Therapeutae) on the order and harmonious
regularity pervading the assembly 1 , and that this might be
expressed in language that alluded to the Going Forth of
Israel from Egypt to receive the Bread of the Law, as well
as to narratives about the actual giving of bread by Elisha,
or about the giving of manna. The language of Paul like
the language of Exodus often takes a military aspect. Mostly
he connects it with the single Christian warrior. But he appears
to be thinking of Christians "in the ranks," when he tells the
Colossians that, though he is absent from them, he rejoices to
call to view the "[soldier-like] order and solid-formation"
that characterize them as believers in Christ 2 .
If at one or more of what we may call Christ's camp-
meetings He commanded the people to be arranged in groups
for the purpose of order, it would be natural that the group
should be "fifty" (rather than the Latin military unit of a
hundred). This would of course not imply military intention
or anything except Jewish custom. But when the story
afterwards came to be told in Christian traditions, Greeks
would not be able to see any reason for grouping "according
to fifty." It might be explained to them that it meant "in
military order" for example, "according to the pattern of the
quincunx" and that, as there were five thousand men, and
fifty centuries, the division might be indifferently described
as into a hundred fifties or fifty centuries. Mark thus inserts
both numbers. But to some it might occur that vines also
1 See Philo ii. 481 "before the lying down (KarafcXiWos), standing
consecutively, [row by row], in order (erjy Kara O-TOIXOV eV Koo-p-cp),"
ib. 483 ev als e8ij\OKTa raecrt . . . eV /cotr/Acp, ib. 484 Kara raeis eV /coo^a).
2 Coloss. ii. 5 ratz/ KO.I orepe'aj/ia, COmp. Philo on rageis above
quoted.
313 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
were habitually planted "according to the quincunx," and that
groups of that kind (prasiai or symposia) were better suited to
the scene of a Christian love-feast than companies of soldiers.
Hence might spring the other details in Mark's version. To
Matthew all these detailed illustrations, especially those based
on the military meaning of "fifty," would naturally seem
doubtful in view of the presence of "women and children"
whom he (alone of the Evangelists) adds to the five thousand 1 .
Luke follows Mark as to the traditional "fifty," but appears to
regard all the rest of Mark's context as superfluous.
Since Luke does not reject the Marcan "fifty" and can
hardly be said to reject the Marcan "hundred" because he
virtually implies it by his context there is no ground for
expecting, as to these numerical details, any Johannine Inter-
vention. But it has been pointed out above that John does
appear to intervene as to the Marcan symposia, so as to
emphasize an interpretation of these "companies" alien from
military thought. Consistently with this non-military aspect,
John also rejects the Mark-Luke numbers of the "companies."
We cannot say that he does it for Matthew's reason because
"women and children" are to be added. For John does not
mention them. Perhaps he does it because this division of the
five thousand into small companies of men as a Roman army
might be divided into centuries under centurions, or a Jewish
army into fifties under "captains of fifty" introduces a kind
of intermediate agency between each of the five thousand and
the One Lord. This intermediation John ignores. In his
Gospel, Jesus alone distributes the bread to each as we shall
see later on not through the instrumentality of His disciples,
but with His own hands.
1 Mt. xiv. 21, also xv. 38.
314 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
26. ''Taking," "blessing," and "looking up to heaven*-"
(i) "Taking" occurs in all the six narratives, with the same
Greek verb, and mostly as a participle 2 . Its meaning will
depend on the place or person whence the loaves are "taken."
If they are on the spot, "taking" would appear to mean a
solemn and emblematic taking up in the hands, such as might
denote a "taking up," or "offering," to God, or an appro-
priation of the food to God, as though the breaker of bread said
to God in the name of the company "We bless thee for this,
which we lift up 3 ."
Mk vi. 4 i
(R.V.)
And he took
) the five
loaves and the two
fishes, and looking
up to heaven, he
blessed, and brake
the loaves; and he
gave to the dis-
ciples to set before
them ; and the two
fishes divided he
among them all.
Mt. xiv. 19
(R.V.)
. . . And he took
(\a,fiuv) the five
loaves, and the two
fishes, and looking
up to heaven, he
blessed, and brake
and gave the loaves
to the disciples, and
the disciples to the
multitudes.
Lk. ix. 1 6
(R.V.)
And he took
(Xafiuv) the five
loaves and the two
fishes, and looking
up to heaven, he
blessed them, and
brake ; and gave to
the disciples to set
before the multi-
tude.
Jn vi. ii
(R.V.)
Jesus therefore
took the loaves ;
and having given
thanks, he distri-
buted to them that
were set down ;
likewise also of the
fishes as much as
they would.
"Brake" in Mk vi. 41, Lk. ix. 16 is KaTCK\a<rcv, see p. 321 foil.
In the Four Thousand, as in the Johannine Five Thousand,
"give thanks (evxapio-rclv) " is substituted for "bless
Mk viii. 67 (R.V.) Mt. xv. 36 (R.V.)
(6) ... And he took (Xaftwv) And he took the seven loaves
the seven loaves, and having given and the fishes; and he gave
thanks, he brake, and gave to his thanks and brake, and gave to
disciples, to set before them ; and the disciples, and the disciples to
they set them before the multi- the multitudes.
tude.
(7) And they had a few
small fishes : and having blessed
them, he commanded to set these
also before them.
2 John in the Five Thousand, and Matthew in the Four Thousand,
have e'Xa/3fi/, not Xa/3a>i>.
3 Schottgen on Mt. xiv. 19 says " Sumptio ista, quae hie et
alibi memoratur, actus est peculiaris patris familias," and quotes
Sabb. 117 b Dp: (Goldschmidt "hielt"). But Schlatter on Jn vi. n
315 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
The first Biblical instance of "take," in connection with
sacrifice, is where God says to Abraham " Take for me a heifer,"
and other creatures, and it is added that Abraham "took for
him all these... 1 ." Philo comments on the pregnancy of
"Take for me," which implies, he says, first, that we have
nothing good of our own except that which we "take" from
God; secondly, that we are to "take" it for Him, as being the
loan or deposit that He has placed with us, for which we must
give account 2 . He also comments on the paradox implied in
human "giving," since, "strictly speaking, we merely take (or,
receive) but are only popularly said to give 3 ."
In doctrine of this kind there is sometimes difficulty in
passing from a Greek translation back to a Hebrew original
because the same Hebrew word, as a rule, represents both
"take" and "receive 4 ." But we find Paul, as well as Philo,
quotes Siphri 7D3 on Numb. vii. 6 "Mose nimmt sie
Hor. Heb. (on Mt. xxvi. 26) quotes, from the Passover Service, "He
takes up the unleavened bread in his hand, and saith, ' We eat this
unleavened bread. ..'. . .then. . .taking two loaves, he breaks one,"
and (p. 352, from Berach. 51 a) "he takes up (l^DIJ) the cup in both
hands, but puts it into his right hand ; he lifts it from the table a
hand's breadth and. . .fixes his eyes upon it, etc."
Aa^&)i/, or eAa/3ei>, also occurs in the Synoptic and Pauline
accounts of the Lord's Supper. Lk. xxii. 17 8fgdp.fvos Trorijpiov ev^a-
pia-rrja-as eltrfv is exceptional. Aa/i/Saim occurs in Jn xxi. 13 "Jesus
cometh and taketh the loaf and giveth to them. ..."
1 Gen. xv. 9 10. Aa/3e /ioi (A.V. and R.V. " take me ").... ZXafiev
Se at (A.V. "took unto him," R.V. "took him"). Onkelos has
"offer coram me," Jer. Targ. "accipe mihi oblationes et offer coram
me."
2 Philo i. 4^7 Aa/3f, fj,r] aeavTw, davelov 8e 77 TrapaKaTadiJKrjv vop.ia~as TO
806.
3 Philo i. 490 Kvpicos fiev Aa/i/3ai>o/iei>, Kara^pT/ortKoir 8e 8i86vm Aeyo-
p.c0a. In Quaest. ad Genes, it is said, ad loc. "Pro illo Ferto mihi,
optime dictum est Accipe mihi."
4 Heb. rip*? = Xa/i/3az><a more than 800 times, 5^o/iat 26 times.
The total number of instances of Se'^o/uu in Oxf. Cone, correctly
representing a Heb. original is only 42. The LXX throws too
great a burden on \ap.^dv<a and too little on Se'^o/iot. Luke alone
316 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
inculcating that we have nothing that we did not "take," that
is, "receive," and, in the Acts, reminding the Ephesians of
"the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said that it was more
blessed to give than to take' 1 " The testimony of these two
early writers, when combined with the use of the Greek
"take" in the Pentateuch and in the Synoptic and Pauline
accounts of the Eucharist, makes it probable that "take" has
a ritual meaning also in the Gospel miracles of feeding, and
that the Evangelists regarded its meaning there as akin to its
meaning later on in the Last Supper.
Passing to the Fourth Gospel we find that the "taking" is
the one point out of the three mentioned at the beginning of
this section in which it verbally agrees with the Synoptists.
But, by introducing "a lad" on the spot as "having" the loaves
and fishes, it introduces a possible difference as to the nature of
the "taking" leaving us in doubt whether Jesus receives them
as an offering from the "lad," or takes them from the "lad"
as the property of the disciples. There is an indefiniteness
here like that in the Feeding of the Seven Disciples who "when
they got out upon the land, see a fire of coals there and a fish
laid thereon and a loaf 2 ." The "loaf" that they "see" reminds
us of what Elijah "looked" at when he "looked, and behold,
there was at his head a cake baken on the coals." Elijah is
bidden by "an angel" to "arise and eat 3 ." In the Feeding of
the Seven, no "angel" is mentioned, but a supernatural origin
of the food is clearly indicated; and then the "taking" of it
in Eucharistic narrative (xxii. 17) Sea'/zei>os
(Mk-Mt. Aa/3a>i>). Delitzsch renders it by the same word (npi>) as
he uses to represent the Eucharistic Xa/ujSai/co.
1 i Cor. iv. 7, Acts xx. 35.
2 Jn xxi. 9.
3 i K. xix. 5 (Heb.) "Behold an angel (LXX 'some one (ns] ')
touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat." This Hebrew
word "coals" occurs only in i K. xix. 6 and Is. vi. 6 of Isaiah's
preparation for the work of prophecy (Gesen. 954 a).
317 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
by Jesus is described thus: "Jesus cometh and taketh the loaf
and giveth to them and the fish likewise 1 ."
It has been shewn (p. 290) that the "lad" might well corre-
spond to Moses. Now the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel,
after saying that the Word, or Only Begotten, was full of grace
and truth, and that "from his fulness we all received," explains
the reception thus: "For the Law was given through Moses;
the grace and the truth" [of God, whether latent and included
in the Law of Israel, or latent and included in the laws of
conscience and human nature] "came into being through Jesus
Christ 2 ." If the Law, illustrated by the Psalms and the
Prophets, corresponds to the five loaves and the fishes, and
"Moses" to "the lad," then the "fulness" that brings forth
"the grace and the truth" is expressed by that multiplying
power of the Saviour which results in food for five thousand souls
with a superabundance of "the fulnesses of twelve baskets."
(2) "Blessing" is not used by John, who substitutes
"giving thanks," expressed by the Greek eucharistein, familiar
to us in "Eucharist." One reason for this is indicated by the
variations in the versions of Mark and Luke where "blessed
them" is altered to "blesses over them 3 ." Jews regarded food
as God's gift, over which, or for which, men were bound to bless
the Giver; but they did not bless the food 4 . On the other
1 Jn xxi. 13 epxerai 'I^crouy KOL \ap.^dvi TOV aprov KGU 8i8(o(Tiv avTols.
The impression left on the reader is that Jesus "comes" to each
disciple separately, and "takes" and "gives" the loaf to each
separately, and that there is no "breaking." The whole loaf is
perhaps regarded as given to each, being miraculously reproduced.
Acts of John 8 uses "distributed" or "divided" of a single loaf,
thus, TOV dt avTov [aprov] euXoycoi/ Stf/ie'ptei> fj/juv.
2 Jn i. 14 17, on which see Joh. Gr. Index.
3 In Mk viii. 7 v\oyr/o~as avra eiTrev KOI TO.VTO. Trapandevai, Delitzsch
omits "them," SS has "and upon them also having blessed," D has
ev xapicrTi] aus L7rfv Koi avTovs fKf\vo~fv TTdpaTeidcvai (sic). In Lk. ix. 1 6
cv\6yr)o-ev avrovs, Delitzsch, D, a, and b have "blessed upon them,"
and SS has "blessed upon them (or, upon it)."
4 Gesen. 139 gives only i S. ix. 13 as instance of a priest " blessing "
318 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
hand, when God Himself is said for the first time in Scripture
to "bless," He blesses the fishes and the birds and bids them
" multiply." Also when He blesses "bread," or "fruit," or
other articles of food, it signifies that He gives increase as well
as wholesomeness 1 . Hence in Christ's Feeding of the Multi-
tudes, where loaves and fishes were assumed to be multiplied,
it is readily intelligible that some Evangelists would regard the
word "blessing" as being used in a special and divine sense,
so that it implied multiplying, while others would regard it
as meaning the usual "blessing" before a meal in the ordinary
way.
One way of avoiding ambiguity would be to substitute
"give thanks" for "bless." In the Feeding of the Four
Thousand Matthew does this, while Mark has, first, "gave
thanks and brake" about the loaves, and secondly, "blessed
them [i.e. the fishes}." It is not surprising that John almost
entirely avoids the word "bless," as being a technical Jewish
term 2 . Origen says that "when men 'bless' God it stands for
'praising' or 'thanking' God 3 ." In Leviticus and elsewhere,
where LXX has "praise," Aquila has eucharistia, or "thanks-
giving^." The latter includes a sense of gratefulness and
a sacrificial meal, and here Rashi says that the Targum has "over
the food." But Breithaupt points out that in the extant text of
the Targum, "over" is omitted. See Levy Ch. ii. 293, taking D"12
as "spread out [the hands]," but Breithaupt takes it as "break."
1 Gen. i. 22, Exod. xxiii. 25, Deut. vii. 13.
2 John uses no form of evXoyeco except in xii. 13 ei/Xoyr/^eVos the
cry of the multitude, perhaps regarded as the fickle multitude.
Philo (i. 453), quoting Gen. xii. 2 (on which see Rashi), says that
fv\oyrjfjivos " is reckoned along with (Trapapifyietrat) the [vain] opinions
and reports of the multitude (rats T<OV rroXXwv 86gais re /cai <j>rj pais] ,"
but that evXoyrjros is reckoned "along with that which is in truth
praiseworthy (ro> Trpot aXrjOeLav fv\oyr)T(0) ."
3 Origen (Lat.) Comm. Rom. ix. 14 (on Rom. xii. 14).
4 Lev. vii. 12 "If he offer it for (^y) a thanksgiving (mm),"
Trepl aiVe'crecos, Aq. eVi ev^a/worms. Ei^apicrria recurs several times in
Aquila, especially in the Psalms. But neither Aquila nor canon.
LXX. uses ev^apicrTfa).
319 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
spontaneousness, not so manifest in "praise"; and the latter,
eucharistein, is the term adopted by John in the Feeding of
the Five Thousand as a substitute for the Synoptic "bless 1 ."
(3) "Looking up to heaven" is expressed in the Synoptists
by a word that often means "recovering sight 2 ." John sub-
stitutes "lifting up his eyes 3 "; but places it, not where the
Synoptists do, before the breaking and distribution, but at
the outset of the narrative, where Jesus "seeth that a great
multitude is coming to him," that is, sees the vision of the
coming of the spiritual seed of Abraham which was to con-
stitute the Church. The action, both here and in the two
other Johannine instances of it, seems to imply a looking up
to heaven, not so much to bring down a blessing as rather to
behold, and to exult in, and to fulfil, the glory of God. At the
grave of Lazarus, when Jesus "lifted his eyes above," He
utters, not prayer but thanks, "Father, I give thanks to thee
1 "Bless" might be substituted for "give thanks" in translating
from Hebrew. The Heb. nT, "acknowledge [God's greatness, glory,
kindness, etc.] " is rendered euXoye'co in Isaiah xii. i (LXX) cv\oyw erf,
Kvpie, xxxviii. 19 01 a>j/Tes- (vXoyijo-ovaiv o-e (and in effect a third instance
occurs in Is. xxv. 3 (vXoyijo-ovo-iv ere (XT mistaken for HT)). The Heb.
m > is given by Delitzsch in Mt. xi. 25, Lk. x. 21 eo/ioXoyot>/iai a-oi, trdrfp^
R.V. "I thank (marg. or, praise] thee, O Father," where John would
probably have written, as in the words uttered at the grave of
Lazarus, (xi. 41) et^a/no-reo troi. In wrestling with death for the sake
of Lazarus there was an act of sacrifice which some would have
called the subject of prayer rather than of a thankoffering. But
Jesus "thanks" God for the power to perform it. In the Johannine
Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus is regarded not merely as
breaking bread and blessing God over it as at a meal, but also as
offering up a thankoffering to the Father for giving power to the
Son to offer Himself to, and for, the multitude. They do not accept
Him ; nevertheless Jesus, looking into the future, might see cause for
eucharistia as in Mt.-Lk. referred to above, " I thank thee, O Father . . .
that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding
and didst reveal them unto babes."
2 'Ara/3Xe'7ro), used in no other sense by John (ix. u, 15, 18,
comp. Mk viii. 24, x. 51, etc.).
3 Jn VI. 5 endpas ouv rovs oCpdaXp-ovs ....
320 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
that thou hast heard me 1 ." Before the Last Discourse, though
there is prayer, there is also a vision of "the hour" of glory:
"Lifting up his eyes to heaven he said, Father, the hour is
come. Glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee 2 ."
27. "Breaking in pieces" or "breaking"
We now approach a subject of unusual difficulty and
complexity complicated partly by verbal ambiguities, partly
by early Christian custom arising out of Jewish custom, and
partly by Christian doctrinal considerations and applications
of Hebrew prophecy the "breaking" of bread in the miracles
of Feeding.
In the Feeding of the Five Thousand (but not in that
of the Four Thousand) Mark emphasizes this act by using
a compound verb that means literally "break down," "snap
off," or (metaphorically) "break down in spirit 3 ." But it is
apparently used by him to mean "break in pieces." It occurs
but once in LXX and is non-existent in Christian writers of
the first century and a half. Yet Luke follows Mark in using
it here, though it occurs nowhere else in N.T., and though the
uncompounded verb is quite frequent (as also is the noun)
to denote Christian "breaking of bread." Mark may have
desired to shew that this was not an ordinary "breaking of
bread," but that Jesus broke a loaf into minute parts each
one of which was magnified. Luke may have followed Mark
for the same reason.
At all events Luke does follow Mark, and this is one of
1 Jn xi. 41. 2 Jn xvii. i.
3 Mk vi. 41, Lk. ix. 16 K.aTen\a<Tfv . The word is not in Goodspeed' s
Concordances. In LXX, it occurs only in Ezek. xix. 12 (Heb.)
"she was plucked up in fury," KaTfK\dcr6r) eV Bvpw. It occurs also
in Job v. 4 (Symm.) Heb. "they are crushed in the gate." Steph.
Thes. does not give any instance where the word must necessarily
be interpreted "break in pieces," but a great number where it has
a different meaning.
A. L. 321 (Mark vi. 29 44) 21
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
several cases where, when Luke agrees with Mark, John
appears to disagree, or at all events tacitly dissents. For
John omits all mention of any kind of "breaking." By this
course he avoids such a question as "Were the fishes broken
as well as the loaves?" Mark implies that they were not.
For he (and he alone) specially inserts "the loaves" after the
mention of "breaking," and then he (alone) adds "he divided
the two fishes to all," apparently implying that, although they
were " divided " in the sense of " distributed," the fishes were
not "broken 1 ."
It may be suggested that John had also another reason,
based on the axiom that the Bread, or the Fish, is to be
regarded as One and as diffusing unity among those who
partake of it. In accordance with this thought, he (and he
alone of the Evangelists) quotes, as a prophecy about the
Crucifixion, the precept concerning the Paschal Lamb, "A
bone of him shall not be broken 2 ." Later on, in the
presence of the Seven Disciples, Jesus "cometh, and taketh
the loaf and giveth to them, and the fish likewise"; but
no mention is made of "breaking*." The hypothesis that
John was influenced by a mystical view of the unity of the
Eucharistic food is confirmed by what Philo says concerning
the dividing, and the reuniting, of the parts of the whole
burnt offering which "from one, becomes many, and from many
becomes one 4 ." It is also favoured by the fact that John
1 See the next section, where it will appear that Matthew obscures
this difference, and Luke omits it altogether. The distinction is
also clear in Mk viii. 6 7 KCU Xa$o>i/ rovs eirra ciprovs vxapi<TTr/o'as
f<Xa(Tv...<ai i%av i%6v8ia oXt'ya *cat ev\oytj(ras avra (without any
mention of breaking in the case of the fishes) ....
2 Jn xix. 36, quoting Exod. xii. 46, Numb. ix. 12 (<rvvTpipa>).
9 Jn xxi. 13. Contrast with this Lk. xxiv. 30 35 "Having
taken the loaf he blessed [God] (evXoyrja-ev) and having broken [it]
he offered [freely] (eVeSi'Sou) to them. . .how he was known by them
in the breaking (TTJ xXao-ei) of the loaf."
4 Philo ii. 241. This is preceded (ib. 240), and followed, by
322 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
(alone) tells us that in the parting of Christ's garments by the
soldiers, His " coat " a type of the Church escaped " rending,"
and that in the miraculous draught of fishes, the " net " another
type of the Church "was not rent 1 ."
That John would have been influenced by motives of this
kind is very probable. But it is not probable (according to our
experience of his Gospel hitherto) that he would have omitted
this ancient tradition of "breaking" if he had not believed it
to be either erroneous or, at all events, likely to give a wrong
spiritual impression. There are reasons for thinking that
confusion arose in early times from various interpretations of
Isaiah's precept rendered by our Versions "Deal (Heb. paras)
thy bread to the hungry 2 ." Paras is nowhere rendered "deal"
except in this passage. It means "break in half," and here,
"break in half thy loaf for the hungry 3 ." Ibn Ezra takes it
thus. But the Talmud records a tradition that the word ought
to be written as pdras(h)*. Then it might mean "separate"
mentions of tvxapioria, e.g. ib. 243 OTO.V (3ov\r]di]s cry diavoia
$60) TTfpL yV(Tf(t)S KOCTflOV TT)V CV^apiCTTLaV ....
1 Jn xix. 24, xxi. n using o-^ifw in both cases. Luke in his
narrative of the Draught of Fishes says (v. 6) "the nets began to
be torn asunder (SiepT/Wero)."
2 Is. Iviii. 7 DID (but Targ. D3"l " sustentabis pane tuo"). Ibn
Ezra says " it means here to break a loaf of bread " (and he compares
Lam. iv. 4 "no man breaketh (fena not D"lS) to them"). Jerome
ad loc. says "frange. . .non plures panes sed unum panem." "Deal"
means "distribute" but does not give the full Hebrew sense.
Modern emendations and modern suggestions as to what the
text of Isaiah originally was, however interesting and valuable they
may be, do not concern us when we are endeavouring to approximate
to Jewish interpretations of the passage in the first century.
3 Gesen. 828 a "break in two," "divide" (of the divided hoof)
(Lev. xi. 3 etc.). On Jerem. xvi. 7 "neither shall men break [bread]
for them (D!"6)," Gesen. suggests Dl"6 "bread," instead of Dr6.
4 Baba Bathra g a, Goldschmidt renders this "forsche nach und
dann gib ihm." He adds in a note that many MSS have HQ, but
that the Masora on Numb. iv. 7 expressly says that D~lS is the right
reading. Gesen. 831 gives fcna = "spread out, spread," but
323 (Mark vi. 29 44) 21 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
or "spread out." In this form it might be applied to the
"spreading out" of the hands in blessing, or to the "separa-
tion" of Scripture into sections, or to its "explanation" in
plain words, or to any technical "separation" in Jewish ritual 1 .
The Hebrew paras (used by Delitzsch in Christ's Miracles
of Feeding) is particularly appropriate to meals given willingly
"make distinct, declare, New Heb. separate oneself, separal
explain."
1 The authorities, and even the texts, so differ as to the terms
DID, BHB, and Ens that it is impossible here to do more than refer
to what is said about them by Levy, Levy Ch. sub voc., by Hor.
Heb. on K\d<ras in the Gospels, and by Schottgen (in the Gospels
and on 2 Tim. ii. 15). Wetstein says practically nothing. The
Targumists avoid DIB in Is. Iviii. 7, and bnB in Lam. iv. 4, but they
retain DID in Jerem. xvi. 7 "Neither shall men break [bread] for
them in mourning," A.V. "tear [themselves] for them in mourning."
On this last passage Rashi has a note obscure, but most in-
structive, indicating the possibility of confusing DID in Heb.
"breaking a loaf in half" with some technical use of DIB in Aramaic,
perhaps "spreading out the hands," referring to a benediction.
He says that paras, in Jeremiah, "significat fractionem" as in
Dan. v. 25, 28 "u-pharsin," i.e. "and divided" (pharsin being a
form of paras] . Then he adds " For with food did they refresh the
mourners in the street, and they did spread out for them that Bene-
diction [which is called] ' He that bringeth forth ' (eisque explicabant
benedictionem illam, X^IIDn)." This refers to the words of the
Benediction pronounced by the father of the family, or the principal
Rabbi, over the breaking of bread at a meal: "Blessed art thou,
O Lord our God, Lord of the world, ' Thou that bringest forth [jood
from the earth].'"
Rashi proceeds, " Jonathan istud : ' nam ipse "pT, ' id est,
'benedicet convivio,' Chaldaice vertit 'nam ipse DHD,' id est, 'frangit
cibum/ ' This mention of "Jonathan" refers to the Targum of
"Jonathan" on i S. ix. 13 "he [i.e. Samuel] doth bless (ftr) the
sacrifice," where the Targum has (lit.) "doth break (D % "1B) the food,"
which Rashi renders freely "benedicit super cibum, id est, bene-
dictionem facit super cibo." "Bless [God] over (or break [? bread]
over) the sacrifice," would be more regular; but Breithaupt rejects
the insertion of "over" as erroneous. These passages establish the
conclusion that the Hebrew "bless," in connection with food, might
be expressed in Aramaic by a word that in Hebrew means "break."
324 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
out of a small store to the hungry. There is another word
mostly used in New Hebrew for the literal breaking of bread;
but that, in the Bible, has a bad sense 1 . The Talmud uses
paras to remind a master of a house that, at a meal in his
house, he must not "pronounce the benediction" (lit. "divide
the dividing") for "travellers," his guests, unless he eats with
them, but he may do it for his family in order to accustom
them to the fulfilment of the precept 2 . Another passage
but one of doubtful meaning uses the word paras concerning
a distribution of fishes to the citizens of Jerusalem 3 .
There is no clear indication in the Gospels that the "breaking
(paras) " of bread by Jesus was connected with the thought of
the "explanation (pdrash)" of the Law 4 . It is true that the
Lucan narrative of the manifestation of Jesus "in the breaking
of the bread," at Emmaus, at all events prepares the way for
that manifestation by a mention of His "interpretation" of
the sayings in the Scriptures concerning the Messiah, which is
1 See Levy i. 251 b on yvi which, as a Heb. verb, means (Gesen.
130) "cut off, break off, gain by violence," and, as a noun, "gain
made by violence." That is the word used by Delitzsch about
breaking bread in the narratives of the Eucharist, though he uses
D"1B in the miracles of feeding. See p. 327, n. i.
2 See Levy Ch. ii. 294 a quoting R. haschana 296, and adding,
as a common phrase, "the time needed to eat a DID, i.e. half [of
a loaf]."
3 Sanhedr. 49 a, on i Chr. xi. 8, Joab "merely tasted" them
and then "distributed (D'HS) to them." This suggests that, in the
Feeding of the Five Thousand, "breaking," which John omits, might
have been regarded by him as an error for "distributing," which
he inserts. The food is called by Goldschmidt "Fischtunke (sic)
O^JID) und kleine Fische (Nnjn)." But the latter (Gesen. 850 a,
and Levy Ch. ii. 320 a) would seem to mean stinking fish. Hence
the interpretation is doubtful. "Joab" is the distributer, and there
may be irony in the description of him as attempting to feed
Jerusalem with "fishes" not only "stinking," but also broken in
pieces.
4 Onkelos uses t^lD in Deut. i. 5 (R.V.) "Moses began to declare
this law," where Heb. 1K2 (Gesen. 91) = "make plain," "explain."
325 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
subsequently called His "opening of the Scriptures," and the
result is that "their eyes were opened and they knew him 1 ."
But such a scriptural "opening" is connected with a word
that means the opening of a door, rather than the opening or
spreading out of the hand. It is frequently called "opening
[with] an opening," and in that form occurs repeatedly in the
Talmud where a Rabbi "opens" his discussion of some passage
of Scripture by quoting another 2 . Nevertheless Luke helps us
to perceive a very real sense in which it may be maintained
that beneath the narratives of miraculous feeding, and of
Christ's meals with disciples before and after the Resurrection,
there was originally and historically (whether we easily per-
ceive it or not) a connection between the "breaking" of the
bread of the Law, and the "opening," or "spreading out," of
1 Lk. xxiv. 27 diepnr]vfv(rv, COmp. ib. 32 dtrjvoiycv fjfjuv TCIS
In LXX, fena = avoLyti) in Is. xxxvii. 14, describing a
literal "spreading out" of a letter before the Lord, and = 8tavoiya>
in Prov. xxxi. 20 "she spreadeth out (A.V. stretcheth out) her hand
(lit. palm) to the poor." The contextual repetition of diavmya in
Lk. xxiv. 31 dir)voLx0r)(rav ol o</>0aA/W suggests a kind of play on
the thought of "opening." It is repeated again, after Jesus has
partaken of the broiled fish, in Lk. xxiv. 45 "then he opened (117-
voi^fv] their mind." Aiavoiyoi occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in
Mk vii. 34 "Be thou opened," Lk. ii. 23 (quoting Exod. xiii. 2
"that openeth the womb"), Acts vii. 56 "the heavens opened,"
xvi. 14 "whose heart the Lord opened," xvii. 3 "reasoned with
them from the scriptures, opening and alleging that it behoved the
Christ to suffer."
* Comp. Megill. lob "R. Jonathan opened the opening (rh nnD
N'nna) for this section (tfriBna, from {jha, separate] from the fol-
lowing [text]" a phrase repeated about a dozen times in 10 b n.
Delitzsch uses nns in Lk. xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3 "Paul. . .reasoned
with them from the scriptures, opening and alleging that it behoved
the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead . . . . " HOY. Heb.,
Wetstein, and Schottgen are silent as to any Hebrew authority for
this use of "opening," and no satisfactory Greek authority is alleged.
It might mean "opening" the discussion of, for example, the
"section" in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant by quoting such
passages as Hos. vi. 2 "After two days he will revive us."
326 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the meaning of the Law, and the "opening" of the minds of
the disciples to that meaning, and, at the same time, the
" opening " of their hearts to the divine character of their
Master and Saviour, the Bread of Life. We may illustrate
this connection from a Talmudic passage that speaks of the
material "breaking" of bread (bdtsa as distinguished from
Isaiah's paras) and defines its spiritual object: "The Master
of the House breaks [the bread] that he may break it with a
good eye 1 ."
Now it was one of Christ's fundamental doctrines that the
"eye" of His disciples must not be "evil," but must be "single,"
i.e. straightforwardly and lovingly fixed on God, and on Man
regarded as in God, being made in God's image. It was to
be an "eye" of kindness and goodness, recognising as the two
great commandments of the Law, the love of God and the love
of the neighbour. These two precepts, taken up and expressed
in the Psalms and the Prophets, might be regarded as the
relish, or flavour, of the Law, which, without them, was what
we should call "dry bread." In the Sermon on the Mount
Jesus might be described as taking and breaking the dry bread
of the five loaves of the Law, and flavouring it, so to speak,
with the opson of these two fishes, and distributing it to the
multitudes 2 .
It would be a fanciful but brief and not inaccurate
summary of many of the charges brought by Jesus against
the formalists who in His days constituted the majority of
1 Berach. 46 a, a tradition of R. Jochanan in the name of Simeon
ben Jochai.
2 Some "breaking," or "spreading out," or "interpretation," of
the Law in this sense would be included in Mark's (vi. 34) statement
that Jesus "taught" the Five Thousand "many things" before
feeding them with the five loaves and the two fishes. Not much
importance can be attached to the traditions in Sabb. n6a and
Gen. r. (on Gen. xxvi. 17, Wii. p. 307) where it is said by Samuel Bar
Nachman and by Ben Kaphra that there are seven books of the
Law (see contexts).
327 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the Pharisees, to take as our text Isaiah's ancient word, in its
ancient Hebrew meaning, and to say that they modernised it
by their Jewish traditions. They thought of it as inculcating
the religious duty of "spreading out" the hands in prayer to
God in heaven; but Jesus thought of it as inculcating the
duty moral and spiritual rather than religious of "breaking
one's loaf in half," even our single loaf, in order to give it to
the spiritually, as well as the materially, "hungry."
Returning to the Fourth Gospel we may say that a great
deal of evidence converges to the conclusion that John's
omission of the "breaking" was due in part to various and
perplexing inferences as to the nature and results of the act,
though in part also to a Johannine motive, namely, the desire
to avoid everything that could give rise to the notion that
Christ was so "divided" as not to be always One 1 .
28. " And the two fishes he divided among [them] all,"
in Mark 2
Mark, in both his narratives, makes a distinction, not
made by Matthew or Luke, between the loaves and the fishes.
1 Comp. i Cor. i. 13 "Is Christ divided (/ie/Ae'/no-rai) ? "
2 In the accounts of the Distribution, Mark (four times) and Luke
use irapa.Tidr)fj.i of the food "set before" the multitude. Matthew
never uses it except previously about (xiii. 24, 31) "parables"
which Jesus "set before" the disciples. John here uses tydpiov
instead of IxQvs for "fish."
The R.V. does not express all the shades of difference which will
be found in the Greek text printed below :
(The Five Thousand)
Mk vi. 41 Mt. xiv. 19 Lk. ix. 16 Jn vi. n
Kal Xa/Sui' robs /cat . . . \aj3uv rot>$ Xa/Swi/ 5e roi)s e'Xa/Sev otiv roi
TreVre aprovs /cat rous TreVre aprovs Kal rous TreVre aprovs Kal TOUS aprovs 6 'I?/o"oOs KC
\(/as et's rbv ovpavbv
evXb-ftjffev Kal Kart-
K\affev robs aprovs
Kal 48i8ov rots f^ad-rj-
Tats iVa TrapaTiBwfftv
aurots, Kal rods 5i/o
fflV.
5vo
\f/as et's rov ovpavov
ev\6yrjffv Kal /cXdtras
ZdwKcv rots /JLadTfTals
roi)s aprovs ol 5e
fj.adrjTal rots ox\ots.
dvo
\j/as et's rov ovpavbv
evXbyricrev aurous Kal
Kar^K\affev /cat f dldov
rots /JLaOrjTals irapa-
Beivai
K(V TOIS
6/xotws Kal
328 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
In the Five Thousand, he says that Jesus (not the disciples)
"divided" the fishes. In the Four Thousand, he seems to
introduce the fishes as a kind of after-thought or addition
("that they were to set these, too, before [the multitude]").
Moreover Mark distinguishes between " setting-bef ore " and
" dividing." " Set-before " he uses four times, and always of the
action of the disciples. Jesus Himself is described by Mark
as (i) "giving" to the disciples, and as (2) ordering the disciples
to "set before" the people. These clauses contain no difficulty.
But there is difficulty in "he divided the two fishes to all."
Perhaps we may explain it from the precedent of David, who
(The Four Thousand)
Mk viii. 6 7 Mt. xv. 36
KCU Xa/3o)i/ TOVS CTTTO. apTovs eu^a- e'Xa/3ei/ rovs eTrra aprovs KOI rovs
picrrrjcras K\acrv Kal eSt'Sou rols p.adr)- l^dvas Koi fv^apLarrrfO'as K\ao~ev KOL
Tals ai>Tov tva iraparidaxriv KOI edidov rols fJLa&TjTais ol 8e p.adr)Tal rols
oXiya* KOI v\oyi]cras avra eiVei/ nal
ravra naparidevai.
In Mk vi. 41, SS and Walton Syr. have "they divided" (for "he
divided"), and in Mk viii. 7, codex N has prima manu irapetirjKfv,
corrected into ci-rrev KOI TO.VTO. iraparidevai. These variations do not
appear in Swete (ed. 1898).
The Diatessaron, in the Four Thousand, omits the whole of Mk
viii. 7 " and they had a few little fishes ; and having blessed them he
said [to them] that they should set these also before [the multitude] "
except " a few little fishes," which it places earlier (as Matthew does).
Thus it omits one of the Marcan mentions of irapariffrifu. On the
other hand, in the Five Thousand, it mentions Traparidi^fjn twice (where
Mark has it only once) thus: "Then Jesus said unto them, 'Bring
hither those five loaves and the two fishes.' And when they brought
him that, Jesus took the bread and the fish, and looked to heaven,
and blessed and divided" substituting "dividing" for "breaking-
in-pieces" (Kare'icXao-ei/) or "breaking" (K\dcras) "and gave to the
disciples to set before them ; and the disciples set for the multitudes
the bread and the fish." This last clause ("set. . .fish") appears
to come from Mk viii. 6 b "and they set [them] before the multitude,"
and to be a substitute for Mk vi. 41 b "and the two fishes he divided
unto all."
329 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"divided to every man of Israel" food specified in the context 3
It is not meant that David himself "set the food before
Israel, but that he specified the portion to be "divided" t(
each and caused it to be set before each. In Mark, the meaning
may be that, whereas the loaves were broken and set before
the people, "the two fishes" were not "broken," but "divided to
all," that is, "distributed to all, the two fishes being given to each
person." This miraculous reproduction of the two fishes for
each person Mark may intend to describe as a separate act of
Jesus.
In the Four Thousand, the fishes are called "little" and
"few" terms that might easily be interchanged 2 . Also the
number "two" is dropped, so that any suggestion of "two for
each person" is avoided, and we may suppose them to have
been multiplied not in pairs but indefinitely by Jesus who
commanded that the disciples should set an indefinite number
of them before the people. This hypothesis would help us to
see why Mark here calls them "little-fishes" a word not
elsewhere used in N.T. or LXX. It might also explain John's
peculiar addition "and of the fishes as much as they desired" -
that is, they were not restricted to "the two 3 ."
But there is another way of explaining this Greek diminutive,
as well as the use of " two." We find corresponding peculiarities
In the LXX where the widow in Zarephath says to Elijah
"I have... but an handful of meal... and, behold, I am
gathering two sticks . . . that I may . . . dress it and die 4 ." " Two "
1 2 S. VI. 19 KOI 8ip.fpi(Tv Travrl TO) Xaw els iracrav rrjv dvvap.iv rov
y l(rpar)\. . ., I Chr. XVI. 3 Ka ' bttfipur*9 iravri dv8pl 'l(rpar)\. . ..
2 In Mt. xv. 34, SS and Curet. have different words for "few"
(Burk. "a few fishes," Walton "aliquot pisces minutos"), and in
Mk viii. 7, Burk. and Walton have "a few fishes."
3 Some reasons for John's preference of tydpiov to IxOvs here are
given in Proclam. p. 86. Also, if John had used l\6vs t he would
have seemed to prefer it to I x 6vbiov. As it is, he puts both the
Synoptic terms aside, introducing one of his own.
4 i K. xvii. 12 "two (DW) sticks (D'tfy)," 8vo gv\dpia. This is
330 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
is here uniquely used in O.T. for "a very few 1 ." The Greek
translators, feeling in a confused way that scantiness not
small number is implied by "two," and yet not liking to
suppress the literal meaning, compromise by rendering the
Hebrew "sticks" into a Greek diminutive ("two little-sticks")
nowhere else found in LXX.
Mark seems to have done something of the same kind but
not so accurately as the LXX. In the Five Thousand he takes
"two" literally, and explains it as the literal answer to a
question of Jesus "How many loaves have ye? " They answer
"five, and two fishes/' though nothing was asked about the
fishes 2 . In the Four Thousand, writing in his own person,
Mark does not venture to say "They had two fishes." This
would have been as inappropriate as it would have been for
the narrator of the story of the Widow to write in his own person
that "she was gathering two sticks." Such hyperbole, allowable
in a complainant, is not allowable in a historian. So Mark
paraphrases "two" by "a few." Yet he might well feel that
this was unsatisfactory. "A few fish" might naturally mean
more, not less, than "two fish," and thus the wonder of the
miracle would be impaired. So Mark compromises by
changing "fishes" into "little fishes."
John shews us dramatically how the "two" and the "five"
might have originated in the expostulation of a single dis-
ciple like Andrew, who exclaims "There is a lad here with five
the only instance of gv\dpiov in LXX, but ^y = uAoi/ nearly 250
times. The translators felt that "two," like "handful," implied
some kind of minuteness, and this they expressed by the diminutive
gvXapia while retaining "two."
1 Gesen. 1041 a gives no other instance but this where "two"
is thus used (without the juxtaposition of "three" (or "one") as in
"two or three").
2 Matthew and Luke go back more closely to the original by
representing the "five" and the "two" to be part of a remonstrance
on the part of the disciples, somewhat like that of the widow of
Zarephath.
331 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
barley loaves and two opsaria ; but what are these among so
many?" It should be noted that John never mentions the
fishes as " two " when writing in his own person, as the Synoptists
do. He mentions "the five barley loaves" thus 1 , but not "the
two fishes."
As to the Synoptic distinction expressed in various ways
between the giving by Christ to the disciples, and the giving
by the disciples to the multitudes, John puts this aside. He
represents Jesus as Himself "distributing" like David, who in
an instance above mentioned 2 , is said to have "distributed" to
all Israel 3 . John rejects the Synoptic word "set-before [the
people}" although it is associated in LXX with the thought
of Abraham "setting before" the Three his hospitable food 4 ,
a hospitality for which (according to Jewish tradition) requital
was made by God, in every detail, to Abraham's descendants.
Lastly when describing Jesus as "distributing" John
does not use Mark's word "divide." Perhaps he felt that, for
Greeks, it might suggest the thought of "divided in dissension,"
as when Paul says to the Corinthians " Is Christ divided 5 ? " At
1 Jn vi. 13. 2 See above, pp. 329 30.
3 Mk vi. 41, Lk. ix. 16 e'St'Sou (Mt. xiv. 19 edaKfv) rols
followed by Mk ib. cpcpurev -rraa-iv, compared with Jn vi. n
8ie8ti>Kv rols dvaKip.evois, may be illustrated by Gen. xlix. 27 p^rv
(Field) "dividet, LXX SiSoxri (potior scrfptura Siodcoo-fi), Aq. pepta-d."
This exhibits the same three variations that we find in N.T.
(i) "give (d/a>/ii) , " (2) "give separately (SiaSt'Scop)," (3) "divide
(ptpifa)."
* Gen. xviii. 8 irapt6r)K.fv. There it = Heb. "gave before their
faces." In Exod. XIX. 7 TrapfdijKcv avrols Trdvras TOVS \6yovs (and ib.
xxi. i), it=Heb. " set before their faces." See Gesen. 817 b which says
that both "give" and "set" are thus used of food, but that "give
before the face " usually means "propound," and is applied to laws.
Matthew (see above, p. 328, n. 2) uses irapari6r^p.i. only about parables.
Comp. 2 K. iv. 43 "Am I to set this before an hundred men? "-
which is the exclamation of Elisha's servant and ib. 44 "so he set it
before them." John passes over this intermediate act of service.
6 i Cor. i. 13 p.ffi PKTTO.I 6 Xpiaros ; Me/H<J"o> denotes "divided by
conflict" in Mk iii. 24 etc.
332 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
all events he chooses an ambiguous word that may mean either
(i) "give in turn what one has received" or (2) "give to
separate persons 1 ." The word is hardly used in LXX, but
may very well represent the Hebrew "apportion," while at the
same time the Greek reader receives from it the suggestion that
the Son is here giving in turn to men something that He has
Himself received from the Father. This is confirmed by
Christ's subsequent words "My Father giveth you the true
bread out of heaven" and "/ am the bread of life" when taken
with a previous utterance "As the Father hath life in himself,
even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself 2 ." The
Son, giving Himself utterly to the Giver of eternal life, the
Father in heaven, receives from Him power to become the
Bread of Life for the Father's children on earth.
In connection with the multiplication of the fishes, the
following facts indicate that it might have a Messianic allusive-
ness in the Galilaean Church. The New Hebrew and Aramaic
for "fish," nun, though non-existent in the Bible as a noun,
occurs once as a verb (yinnon or jinnon), meaning literally
"shall abound with offspring" thus, "His name shall-abound-
with-offspring (Field sobolescet, Walton filiabitur) before the
sun 3 ." On the Hebrew "shall abound" Jinnon, Schottgen
says "It means 'shall be multiplied like fishes.' But the
= Heb. word) occurs only in Gen. xlix. 20, 27
(A), and Josh. xiii. 6 (LXX). In Genesis it = jn3 and p^n, and
B has (bis) &'da>/u. For dta&da/u = "give in succession" see Steph.
Thes. ii. 1139. Goodspeed gives dtadi&o/u only in Hernias Sim. v.
2. 9 where the faithful servant, having received edeoymra from his
Master, "distributes" some of them to his fellow-servants.
2 Jn vi. 32, 35, v. 26.
3 Ps. Ixxii. 17 R.V. txt "shall be continued," marg. ''shall have
issue." The Biblical Heb. for "fish" is :i (Aram. fin). The
verb run occurs but once (Gesen. 185 6), Gen. xlviii. 16 R.V.
"grow-into-a-multitude," where A.V. marg. says "(Heb.) as fishes do
increase" and Onkelos has "increase like the fishes (aij) of the sea."
333 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Jews took it as a proper name 1 ." This, though over-stated,
is confirmed by several passages in Midrash and Talmud,
which indicate that in poetic traditions the Jews regarded
Jinnon, in this Psalm, as one of the names of the Messiah
existent before the Creation 2 . Now the preceding verse says
" There shall be abundance (marg. an handful) of corn in the
earth on the top of the mountains 3 "; and on the word
rendered "abundance" Rashi says "Our rabbis expound it as
meaning cakes in the days of the Messiah, and the whole of this
Psalm they explain as being about the King Messiah*."
The Jewish Commentary on the Psalms quotes a tradition
of this kind as going back to R. Jochanan: "The land of
Israel will bring forth little round cakes 5 ." The commentary
does not quote any corresponding tradition about "Jinnon,"
that the waters of Israel "will bring forth a multitude of little
fishes," or that the Messiah "will multiply fishes." But it is
not difficult to see that such a tradition would be likely to find
favour in the first century among the Jews and especially
among the fishermen and others who dwelt round the sea
of Galilee. The commentary on Numbers called Siphri says
"There went with Israel in the wilderness a well, and supplied
fat fishes more than their need required 6 ." The "well" was
believed to flow from a "rock" that "followed" Israel; and
1 Schottgen ii. 20. This is not universally true, for the Targum
has "was prepared before the sun," perhaps (like the LXX) having
a different reading; and Rashi takes it as meaning "kingdom" and
"empire." Gesen. 630 b suggests that the original may have been
pD* "be established," "endure," LXX has Sta/ici/ei.
2 See Levy ii. 246 a quoting three passages, and Schottg. ii. 240
quoting others.
3 Ps. Ixxii. 16, see Gesen. 821 a.
4 Rashi himself explains the word as meaning either " additionem
et multitudinem " or "beneplacitum."
5 Tehill. ad loc. mentions R. Chija bar Asi as uttering it "in the
name of R. Jochanan" (who lived in the time of Vespasian).
6 Siphri on Numb. xi. 22.
334 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
according to Paul, "the rock was Christ 1 ." In proportion as
Christianity advanced, such traditions about "fishes," or
" loaves," or "round cakes" of the Messiah, would fall into
disrepute among the Jews, as having a Christian sound. I have
not found Jochanan's tradition quoted elsewhere, although
many passages in Midrash and Talmud refer to the verse in
the Psalms. But, if it was avoided because of its resemblance
to Christian traditions, the same motive may explain the
silence of Jewish tradition about multiplication of fishes in
Messianic times 2 .
1 i Cor. x. 4.
2 In view of the very early use of the Greek ichthus, "fish," to
denote by means of the letters i, ch, th, u, s, "Jesus Christ, Son of
God, Saviour (or, Crucified) " see Orac. Sibyll. viii. 217 foil. it may
be of interest to note the very different use made by the Jews of n,
the initial letter of "nun," "fish." They called attention to the fact
that n and the two next letters of the alphabet (:, D, y) were initial
letters of (i) fO "fish," (2) KED "remedy," (3) fi; "eye," thus
indicating that "fish" was a "remedy" for the "eye" (as it is in
Tobit xi. 4 n).
Also the Jewish dependence on fish for a sumptuous meal in
which they were to "honour" the [Friday] evening preceding the
Great Sabbath is illustrated by a story (Levy iii. 360, Gen. r., Wii.
p. 47) about a Jewish tailor, who ventured to outbid the servant of
"a ruler" in Rome by buying a fish, the only one in the shop, for
twelve denarii. The ruler called the tailor before him to explain
his conduct. "My lord," said the tailor, "it is a day on which all
our sins, which we have committed during the whole year, are to
be forgiven. When such a day comes ought we not to honour it?"
It is worth noting that in the Double Tradition of Matthew
(vii. 9 n) and Luke (xi. n 13) where Jesus wishes to describe
the willingness of the Father in heaven to give (Mt.) "good [things] "
or (Lk.) "the Holy Spirit," to those that ask Him, the one metaphor
in which Matthew and Luke agree (according to the text of W. H.)
is that in which the good gift is represented by "a fish" (as the
opposite of "a serpent"). For the rest (Mt. "bread. . .stone," Lk.
" egg. . .scorpion ") they disagree.
335 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
29. "Twelve basketfuls" (R.V.), in Mark 1
Of the differences between the parallel columns printed
below, one has been discussed incidentally above, namely,
the Synoptic use of the verb "satisfied" (literally "foddered")
where John has "filled 2 ." Mark's phrase "and of [Gk from]
the fishes" may either be taken with "broken pieces" so as
to mean "and [broken pieces] of the fishes," or with "some,"
understood, so as to mean "and [some] of the fishes 3 ." The
frequent use of the Hebrew "from" to mean "some oj"
decidedly favours the latter interpretation here; and so does
the Johannine use of "from" in the saying of Jesus to the
1 Mk vi. 42 3
(R.V.)
(42) And they
did all eat, and
were filled (ex / 3 '
(43) And they
took up broken
pieces, twelve
basketfuls (KO<J>IVUV
ir\7jpti}fj.aTa), and also
of the fishes.
Mt. xiv. 20
(R.v.)
(20) And they
did all eat, and
were filled (f%op-
Td<r6r)<Ta.v) : and
they took up that
which remained
over of the broken
pieces, twelve bas-
kets full (Kofavovs
Lk. ix. 17
(R.V.)
(17) And they
did eat, and were
all filled (e?xo/o-
rdcrOrja-av) : and
there was taken up
that which re-
mained over to
them of broken
pieces, twelve
baskets
Jn vi. 12 13
(R.V.)
(12) And when
they were filled
(^vfirXrjffB-rjffai'), he
saith unto his dis-
ciples, Gather up
the broken pieces
which remain over,
that nothing be
lost.
(13) So they
gathered them up,
and filled twelve
baskets (Koyivovs)
with broken pieces
from the five barley
loaves, which re-
mained over unto
them that h
eaten.
Mk viii. 8 (R.V.) Mt. xv. 37 (R.V.)
And they did eat, and were And they did all eat, and were
filled (f^opTa(T0r)o-av) ', and they filled (e^opTdo-Orjaav) '. and they
took up, of broken pieces that took up that which remained
remained over, seven baskets over of the broken pieces, seven
(crffrvpiSas). baskets full ((r<pvp!.&as 7r\r)p(is).
2 See above, p. 306 foil.
3 Gesen. 580 b, inter alia, quotes Exod. xvi. 27 "there went out
[some] from the people" (where LXX inserts rives), Lev. xxv. 49
"[some one] from the kinsfolk may redeem it," LXX tj ano TWV
oiKfiw . . .\vTpa>(TTai, which would naturally be rendered "redeem
from the kinsfolk."
336 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
seven fishermen after Christ's resurrection "Bring [some] of
(lit. from) the fish that ye have now caught 1 ."
A more important point is the ambiguity of the Marcan
" they took up," referring to the broken pieces. Grammatically,
"they" would mean the previously mentioned "all," that is
to say, the multitude. Luke in accordance with Mark's
vague use of "they" in such phrases as "they say" to mean a
passive ("it is said") substitutes a passive "there was taken
up." John defines the agents with remarkable distinctness,
not only assigning the act to the disciples but adding that
Jesus gave express commandment to them to perform it :
"Gather ye the broken-pieces that have super abounded that
nothing may be lost 2 ."
Here, if "crumbs" falling from the food had been meant, the
Greek word for "crumbs" used in Christ's Dialogue with the
Syrophoenician woman might have been employed 3 . Nor would
any form of the word " superabundant " (in Greek, perissos)
have been needed 4 . On the other hand, to suppose that the
meaning is "portions deliberately broken off," and that Jesus
broke them off, raises the question, "Is it likely that John
would represent Jesus as breaking off ' superabundant ' pieces, so
as to cause waste? " The difficulty might lead us to conclude
1 Jn xxi. IO '~EvyKaT O.7TO To>v o^apidDv a>v fTudfrcLTf vvv. Chrys.
retains "from," KeXeuei l< TWV 6. eveyKflv, but Nonnus (a^arf...vfiro-
dd)v...ayprjv) drops it. The context does not shew why "the fishes"
might not have been mentioned instead of "some of the fishes," nor
why the latter is expressed in an idiom unusual except in Hebraic
Greek. After Christ's command, Peter "went on board and drew
the net to land full of great fishes." It may be implied, but it is
not stated, that he "brought [some] of them" to Jesus as specimens
and proofs of success.
2 Jn vi. 12 Svvaydyere rd TTfpKro-fixravTa /cXacr/iara.
3 Mk vii. 28, Mt. xv. 27 r^ia, on which see Levy iv. 140 a and
Pes. 10 b describing a "child" as "crumbling his bread."
4 Some form of 7rfptcro-evi> is used by Mt. ; Lk., and Jn in the
Five Thousand, and by Mt. in the Four Thousand, but
by Mk in the Four Thousand.
A. L. 337 (Mark vi. 29 44) 22
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
especially as John has not described Jesus as "breaking
the bread that the multitude are to be regarded as wastefully
breaking off from their portions large "pieces" too big to be
called "crumbs," and that John meant such "pieces" as these.
This would accord with Origen's view that it is the unworthiness
of the multitude that prevents them from consuming all the
nourishment provided for them 1 .
But these arguments may be misleading unless supple-
mented by the probability (we may almost say the certainty)
that John is influenced by the words of Elisha over the barley
loaves, "Thus saith the Lord, They shall eat and they shall
cause to super abound or leave thereof," that is to say, "They
shall be satisfied and shall have a superfluity 2 ." This saying
about the barley loaves of Elisha, if applied to the Johannine
barley loaves of Jesus, might meet the objection "The Lord
could not have broken more pieces than were needed." The
mystical answer might be, in John's words, "He knew what
he would do," that is to say, "He knew that what was
apparent waste would not be waste, because it would come
back as in a future 'gathering together,' so that 'nothing
should be lost 3 .' ' In this sense, the pieces that were broken
were not "more than were needed," if the lesson of the sign
was to be fully taught. It was intended that some of the food
should be "left," or that there should be a "superabundance."
These remarks may explain why Mark (alone of the Evan-
gelists) omits, in his Feeding of the Five Thousand, all mention
1 Origen Comm. Matt. xi. 19 (Lomm. iii. 125). The four thousand
are superior to the five thousand, and "more receptive (^wpr/ri/ccarepot) "
(comp. Jn viii. 37 ov x^P 6 *) so that they leave less unconsumed.
2 2 K. iv. 43 44. The verb 1JV, "leave," may mean "leave as
a remnant saved from destruction," but it may also mean "leave
as superfluous"; and forms of "in* 1 = Trepio-o-e m about 13 times, and
TTfpHrcros more than 20 times.
8 Jn vi. 12. What the Jews rejected might be regarded as coming
back to the Apostles in the form of a "gathering" of the Gentiles
(see Rom. xi. 15 32).
338 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
of "superabundance," and substitutes, literally, "fillings" in a
curious phrase rendered by R.V. "basketfuls," but by A.V.
"baskets full 1 "; Matthew has the latter, "baskets full," but
retains "superabundant 2 "; Luke makes no mention of "full"
in any form, but has "superabundant 3 ." The explanation
suggested is, that the Hebrew "left," or " super abounding,"
twice repeated in the miracle of Elisha, was taken by Mark in
the Feeding of the Five Thousand as meaning "running over"
or " quite full*." By taking it thus, the charge of imputing
to Jesus a superfluous multiplication of food would be some-
what softened 5 .
Luke inserts the dative "to them" after "superabounded."
John inserts a similar dative, but one of a much more
special kind "to those who had consumed [the food] 6 ." This
Greek word "consume [food]" meaning in literary Greek
"gnaw," "eat up," and often applied to eating raw flesh, etc.
occurs in LXX fairly often to represent the ordinary Hebrew
1 Mk vi. 43 K\a.crp.aTa. <adeK.a KO(j)iv(0v TrXT/pco/Mara KOL a?r6 rwv l^dixav,
A.V. "twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes."
" The fragments" suggests "the fragments that would naturally fall
from such a meal." But there is no "the." The literal rendering
is "broken pieces, fillings of twelve baskets, and of (lit. from) the
fishes."
2 Mt. xiv. 2O TO TTfptcrcreCoi/ rwv K\a<T/jidT(ov ScuSexa Ko(f)ivovs 7r\r)p(is,
"that which was [found] superabounding of the broken pieces,
twelve baskets [quite] full," where "full" is emphasized by its
position.
3 Lk. ix. 17 TO TT6pi(r(rv<rav avrols K\a(rp.a.T(t)v Ko(f)ivot SooSe/ca, "that
which was [found] superabounding by them (or, for them) of broken
pieces, baskets [precisely] twelve," where "twelve" is emphasized
by its position.
4 nX^pco/za occurs rather rarely (15 times) in LXX. It corre-
sponds to Heb. "full." Cant. v. 12 "channels of waters" is para-
phrased as "fillings (TrXrjpwpaTa) of waters" to express full-flowing
streams. Much more defensibly might the Heb. "left," "W, be thus
paraphrased.
5 Note however that Mark does not avoid Trepio-o-eiy-iara in Mk viii.
8 (the Four Thousand) .
6 Jn vi. 13 rots- /3e/3pa>Ko<rii>,
339 (Mark vi. 29 44) 22 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"eat," but mostly in a bad sense. In the Prophets it refers
to the devouring effect of fire, rust, or blight, or the eating of
food defiled or offered to idols. In Genesis it does not occur
once. But in Exodus and Leviticus it is frequent, occurring
about ten times in prohibitions ("this shall not be eaten")
(as well as positively). For our purposes, however, the two
points of special importance are that (i) it occurs for the
first time in connection with the Paschal Lamb, of which it
is said " It shall be consumed in one house," and that (2) this
follows the precept "Ye shall cause none of it to superabound
(lit. be left over and above) till the morning 1 ."
Do not these facts go some way toward justifying what at
first sight seems the wild imagination of Origen namely, that
a fault of non-receptiveness is implied in those who "leave
broken pieces"? May it not be that John had in view both
dicta: (i) that of the Law "Ye shall cause none of it to
superabound," and (2) that of Elisha "They shall cause to
superabound " ? At all events John would probably regard the
" superabounding " as divinely ordained in order that remnants
from the Bread of the Gospel, rejected by the unbelievers
\mong the Jews, might pass to the Gentiles; and yet, as in
ihe Epistle to the Romans, the rejection would be regarded
as a fault in the Jews, who did not discern, and receive in its
entirety, the Living Bread, which was also the Paschal Lamb.
Jerome calls Christ's distribution of bread "a sowing of
food," and implies, somewhat obscurely, that the food was
" divided into (or with a view to) a manifold harvest 2 ." About
the distribution, the following comment has been preserved
as coming from Ammonius: "He [i.e. Jesus] did not give
1 Exod. xii. 10 "ye shall let none of it remain," Exod. xii. 46
"it shall be eaten (/Spto^a-ercu)." The word for " superabound " is 1JV,
the same as that in 2 K. iv. 43 44.
2 Jerome, on Mt. xiv. 19, "Frangente Domino, seminarium
fit ciborum. Si enim fuissent integri . . . nee divisi in multiplicem
segetem. ..."
340 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
[the food] to the multitudes to carry (?), but to the disciples,
since He above all things desired to train these the destined
teachers of the world. For the multitude was not destined to
receive any great fruit from the miracle (lit. wonder). For
they straightway forgot it and began to ask for another miracle
(lit. wonder). But these [i.e. the disciples] were destined to
receive no common gain 1 ." This appears to express at all
events an important part of John's meaning. The first harvest
was, so to speak, a failure the harvest for the multitude,
the Five Thousand, that is, for Israel after the flesh. The
second harvest the gathering of the fragments by the Apostles,
regarded as their harvest by Ammonius was not a failure.
It was the harvest of souls to be subsequently gathered by
the Twelve, who (in spite of Judas) were typical of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel after the Spirit. The key to the Johannine
meaning lies in the words of Jesus "that nothing may be
lost" a phrase peculiar (with slight variations) to the Fourth
1 Cramer p. 243 on Jn vi. 13. The words OVK eduKc Se rots
ao-rdCeiv dXXa TOIS paOrjTcus somewhat resemble a passage
from Origen's commentary on Mt. xiv. 16 (quoted below, p. 356)
where Origen applies (f>epiv to the disciples. And Origen there,
like Ammonius here, uses iraibevat to describe Jesus as "training"
the disciples through the miracle of the Five Thousand. But
Origen represents Jesus as saying, in effect, to the disciples, "I have
trained you to give the Bread. Now give it." Ammonius much
more accordantly with Johannine doctrine regards the ''training"
as now going on in the course of this miracle ("since he especially
desired to train these (circtdi) fiaXiorra TOVTOVS Trat&eCo-ai tjSavXcro) "). And
Ammonius speaks of the disciples, not as "teaching" but as "destined
to be teachers (TOVS peXXovras ecreo-dai o'lo'do-KaXovs}." Ammonius
meets the objection that Judas received a basketful by saying that,
as the rest of the Twelve received "no ordinary gain," so Judas
received "no ordinary condemnation when he carried the basket
(fa 8e KOL ro> 'louSa Karafcptfia TO yivdpcvov ov TO rt^oi/, ^aord^ovTi TOV
Kofavov)." Does Ammonius mean, in his first sentence, "He did not
give to the multitudes [the right] to carry ($ao-Tafiv} [the baskets oj
fragments'] but to the disciples," and does he, in the last, allude to
Jn xii. 6 " [Judas] (R.V. marg.) carried (fpaaragev). . ." ?
341 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Gospel, and used to describe something corresponding to what
the Prophets call the "remnant" of Israel 1 .
As regards Mark's ambiguous words "and from the fishes"
John intervenes, at least negatively, so far as to indicate that
there were no fishes or fragments of fishes in the twelve baskets.
The baskets were "filled [to the top] from the five barley-
loaves 2 ." According to his view, the fishes that Mark described
as being "taken up" were not placed in the twelve baskets.
They must have been brought to Jesus, if at all, separately.
As to the difference between the "twelve cophinoi" filled
in the earlier miracle, and the "seven sphurides" filled in the
later one, we have seen above 3 that a distinction between kinds
of "baskets" is recognised by Jewish Tradition in connection
with the "basket" of firstfruits which is made the subject of
a kind of votive hymn in Deuteronomy 4 . Philo paraphrases
this hymn in a fragment of a treatise on the Feast of Baskets
in which he says that it was celebrated "on two seasons" of the
year 5 . But Rashi says expressly "once in the year, not twice 6 ."
In this, he is following the Talmud, which says "Firstfruits
1 Comp. Jn iii. 16 1va...p.r) arr6\i]Tai, vi. 12 Iva \vr\ n aVoXr/Tat, vi. 39
1va...p.r) aTToXeVa*, X. 28 ov p,rj aTroXoovrai, xvii. 12 ouei...a7ra>XeTo i p.f)...,
xviii. 9 OVK aVeoXeo-a.
2 John expresses Mark's TrXr/pco/xara, Mt. TrXi^my, Lk. om., by
(vi. 13) f-y^io-av, using the same word that he used before (ii. 7 bis)
in the miracle of Cana, to describe the waterpots as "filled to the
top."
s See above, pp. 208 9.
4 Deut. xxvi. 2 4 "Thou shalt put it in a basket. . .the priest
shall take the basket," LXX KapraXXov, Aq. dyyeiot>. The Heb. occurs
(Gesen. 380 b) only there and ib. xxviii. 5, 17 LXX dirofffJKM.
5 See Philo post ii. 298 eori de TIS napa ravra foprrj p.tv Oeov, copras
5e iravTjyvpis yv KaXoixri KapraXXov... 3 TO ao-/za TOVTO (i.e. Deut.
Xxvi. 5 15) a'Serat Svcri <aipols.
6 On Deut. xxvi. 3 Rashi says "una vice in anno, non vero bis,"
and (on ib. 10) "non. . .nisi a fine septem septimanarum," i.e. from
the end of the week of weeks which introduced the Feast of
Pentecost.
342 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
are not to be offered before Pentecost^." The Targum on Deuter-
onomy paraphrases "basket" by three words, and the LXX
renders "basket" in a later passage of Deuteronomy by
"receptacles 2 ." Also a Jewish distinction is made between
these "baskets" when made of metal and when made of twigs
or similar material 3 .
Pseudo-Jerome says "The seven sportae (i.e. sphurides) are
the first seven Churches. The broken pieces of bread are the
mystical perceptions belonging to the first Pentecost*." This
mention of "Pentecost" connects the Christian narrative with
the "baskets" in Deuteronomy, according to the Rabbinical
view adopted by Rashi ('not before Pentecost"), and with the
Symposion of the Therapeutae described by Philo as honouring
not only the seventh day but also the square of seven, i.e. the
eve of Pentecost 5 . On the other hand, Philo's mention of "two
seasons" indicates another view in accordance with which there
might be "two" Symposia, one of a rudimentary character.
Such a rudimentariness would be symbolized by "barley,"
which, as we have seen, John alone mentions in connection
with the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
1 Biccurim (Mishna) i. 3 quoted by Wagenseil (Sota p. 661).
2 On Deut. xxvi. 3 the three words of Targ. Jer. I are
rendered by Walton (i) "canistra," (2) "sportulas," (3) " cophinos
papyraceos." In Deut. xxviii. 5, 17, LXX has airoQrjKai.
3 So Tosephoth quoted by Wagenseil (Sota p. 662). /. Biccurim
(Mishna) iii. 8 says "The rich offered their firstfruits in KaXadoi
plated with gold and silver." Levy ii. 168 a gives "OLD (the Deuter-
onomic "basket") as " ein grosses, metallenes Gefass " and quotes
j. Sota ix. 24 & "a leaden receptacle full of barley bran."
4 On Mk viii. i foil. "Septem panes dona sunt septem Spiritus
Sancti. Quatuor millia annus est Novi Testamenti cum quatuor
temporibus. Septem sportae primae septem Ecclesiae. Fragmenta
panum mystici intellectus primae septimanae sunt," i.e. they are the
outpourings of "mystical understanding (or, perception)," with the
gift of tongues, recorded in Acts ii. i foil.
5 Philo ii. 481 ou povov TTJV cnrXf/v e/3So/nd8a aXXa *cal TTJV bvvap.iv [i.e.
the power or square of the hebdomad] Te^Trdres. ..eVrt Se
foprrjs, rjv irevTrjKOVTas eXa^ey.
343 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
At this stage, the following objection may be raised:
"John is supposed to regard the Feeding of the Five Thousand
as rudimentary. Mark is supposed to relate the Feeding of
the Four Thousand as a miracle of an advanced character.
Luke omits the latter. According to the rule of Johannine
Intervention, John ought to insert it. But he does not. Is
not the rule broken?"
We reply that the rule is not broken because John does
insert a second miracle of feeding, and that, too, "of an ad-
vanced character." Only John, as often, does not repeat
what is in Mark but adds something corresponding to what
is in Mark. This John places after the Resurrection. Whereas
Mark symbolizes the advance by a change from the Jewish
cophinos 1 to the Gentile sphuris or sporta, John symbolizes it
in a different way by representing Jesus as feeding seven
disciples from one loaf (artos) and one fish after they have caught
and presented to Him an offering of " a hundred and fifty-three "
fishes. Through that mystic number, representing the Law
merged in the Spirit 2 , and through the context as a whole,
John leads us to see, in that final meal after the Resurrection,
a type of divine Unity working through human multitudinous-
ness, so as to lift mankind above Jewish and Gentile distinctions,
bringing about for all alike the fulfilment of Christ's promise
about the one "bread" or "loaf": "The bread (artos) that I
will give is my flesh, for the life of the world 3 ."
30. " They that ate the loaves," in Mark*
Instead of the past participle Matthew has the present
participle of a different verb (esthieiri) never used by John,
1 The connection of cophinus with Judaeus twice by Juvenal iii. 14,
vi. 542, justifies our regarding it as being thus connected in the minds
of Gentile readers of the Gospels in the first century.
2 See Joh. Gr. 2283 c.
3 Jn vi. 51.
4 Mk vi. 44 ot <f>ayovTCS TOVS aprovs, Mt. xiv. 21 of 5e fo~6iovres.
344 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
but used by the Synoptists in discussions about eating and in
the narratives of the Eucharist where a past tense is not
required 1 . We have seen above that John here useo about the
eaters a word ("consume") that seemed to allude to the eating
of the Paschal Lamb 2 . This hypothesis of allusion will be
confirmed if we can shew that John had some reason, or at all
events some consistent method, in his avoidance of esthiein.
This is shewn by a passage where John represents Jesus as
quoting from the Psalms "He that eateth my bread lifted up
his heel against me 3 ." Here the LXX uses esthiein. But
John uses a word signifying "chew (trogein)," which occurs
nowhere in the LXX and only once in N.T. outside the Fourth
Gospel 4 . In that single instance which occurs in Matthew's
description of the luxurious feeding (lit. " chewing and drinking ")
in the days of Noah the parallel Luke has the ordinary
esthiein 5 . This is easily intelligible, but why should John
The latter might be rendered "the eaters," the former "those that
had eaten the loaves." For the parallels, see below, p. 348, n. 3.
1 See Joh. Voc. 1680 b. <f>ayelv is freq. in the Synoptists and
fairly freq. in Jn, but Jn never uses co-diet?. The difference
between co-fficiv and fyaydv is often simply a difference of tense,
i.e. of time, lo-OUiv having no aorist, and (paydv no present or
imperfect.
2 See pp. 339 40.
3 Jn xiii. 1 8 6 rpcayuv fj.ov TOV aprov. Nonnus has epfTTTw, a word
applied to horses, geese, fishes, feeding in multitudes, but applicable
to men with a notion of greediness.
4 Tpooycu is mostly used with an object. But it is frequently
used without an object where the juxtaposition of "drinking"
makes the meaning clear. Steph. Thes. quotes Trivfiv <a\ rpuyeiv
from Demosth. p. 402, 21, and Plutarch Mor. 716 E, and rpwyeiv KO.\
7rivfiv from ib. 613 B.
5 Mt. xxiv. 38 Tpwyovres KOI TTIVOVTCS (Lk. xvii. 27 fj<r6tov, eerivov)
describing the revels of those on whom the deluge came. Tpo>ya>,
"chew," is applied in various contexts to feeding on uncooked
food. In Mt., it means "chewing" delicacies that might be called
"dessert," where "eat for pleasure" would express the meaning, as
in Hermas Sim. v. 3 " Take only bread and water, and give in alms
from your delicacies that you were intending (lit.) to chew
345 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
without any justification derivable from the Hebrew text of
Scripture represent Jesus as quoting from the Psalms the
words "He that cheweth my bread"?
The following explanation is obscurely suggested by
Jerome's commentary on the Psalm, and (more clearly) by
Origen's commentary on earlier passages in the Gospel where
John represents Jesus as using the word "chew 1 ." Jerome
says that Judas "was receiving celestial food... and distri-
buting it to others 2 ." Origen, when commenting on what he
calls the "paraphrase" of the Psalm as quoted by Jesus, says
that the bread referred to was "most nourishing 3 ." Else-
where, in his treatise on the daily bread in the Lord's Prayer,
he takes in order the passages in which Jesus speaks of the
need of His disciples to "chew" His flesh and "drink" His
blood, and not only repeats the epithet "nourishing" again,
but adds to it others such as "solid," and "athletic 4 ." Taken
together, Origen's remarks confirm the view that the language
of Christians about the Eucharist might give rise, even as early
as the days of Nero, to a popular belief that they practised in
their "mysteries" the eating of human flesh 5 .
i.e. to eat for pleasure. In other contexts it might mean "chew (a
crust)" and be applied to a beggar. See Steph. Thes. rporyw, which
shews that the grammarians expressly distinguish rptoyo), as having
a more particular meaning than co-din, and as being applied to the
eating of rpay^/iara, "sweetmeats."
1 Jn vi. 54, 56, 57, 58. In all these, Jesus is speaking. John
never uses rpo>'ya> in his own person.
2 Jerome on Ps. xli. 9.
3 Origen on Jn xiii. 18 (Lomm. ii. 419) Trapcnrffppao-rai, (ib. 420)
rp o 0ijua)r arco v .
4 Origen De Orat. 27 (Lomm. xvii. 205 foil.) leads us from 6
\6yos to the thought of its o-Tfpporrjs and eurovia, as being
Tpo(f>rj distinguishing it from "manna" and "milk."
5 See p. 398 foil. If this was so, John might indirectly vindicate
the Christians, and also teach the true doctrine of Christ, by repre-
senting Him as using spiritual language about His flesh and blood,
which was misunderstood at first even by His own disciples.
346 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
A close examination of the Greek justifies Origen. Neither
the Latin, nor the Syriac, nor the English Versions represent
the abruptness with which the word "chewing" is as it were
thrown in the faces of the Jews by the Fourth Gospel after
they have said "How can this [man] give us his flesh to eat
(phagein) ? " It is true that Jesus is made to reply at first with
a repetition of their word ("Except ye eat (phagein) the flesh of
the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in your-
selves"). But He immediately adds "He that cheweth (trogein)
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life eternal .... He that
cheweth (trogein) my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in
me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me and I live
because of the Father, [so] also he that cheweth (trogein) me
he too shall live because of me. This is the bread that came
down from Heaven. Not as the fathers ate (phagein) [manna]
and died 1 [not so is it now] ; he that cheweth (trogein) this
bread shall live for ever 2 ."
These last words, contrasting the death that came after
Israel "ate" the manna with the life that will belong to him
that "cheweth" the "bread" that "came down from heaven,'*
should be illustrated from Israel's complaint about the manna
that it had no sustaining moisture for them. "Our soul is
dried away" they cried, and "who shall give us flesh to eat 3 ? "
The Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as affording to the spiritual
Israel a food of spiritual nature that should satisfy both hunger
and thirst. It was to be the "flesh" of the living Son, which
1 "Died." See Numb. xiv. 30 "save Caleb... and Joshua."
2 Jn vi. 52 8. Our English Versions have "eat" throughout,
and so have the Syriac. The Latin Versions vary somewhat
strangely; d renders $ayeiz/ by "manducare" in 52 and 58 (where
d has " non sicut manducaverunt (e^ayoi/) . . . qui manducat (6
rpwyav)." Chrysostom, commenting on this passage, makes no
comment on the transition in Jn from cfrayelv to rpcoyeii/.
3 Numb. xi. 4 6 12Q. Comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 20 "Will he provide
flesh ("IXB>)," LXX rparrf^av, where Rashi says that 1NK> (which
rather suggests flesh with blood in it, Gesen. 984 5) stands for
347 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
could not possibly be received apart from the reception of
His blood. Isaiah invites the soul to "eat" the food of heaven
as being "wine" and "milk," not mentioning, but assuming,
that it included "bread 1 ." So John connects the life and
being of the Son with "bread" and with "flesh," and even with
"blood," not mentioning, but assuming, that this included
"wine 2 ."
31. "Five thousand men" or " about five thousand [men] 3 '
The following questions arise out of the Marcan phrases.
Why does Mark insert " men (viri,not homines*) " in one narrative
and omit it in the other? Why does Mark insert "about" in
one narrative and omit it in the other? Why does John insert
"in number" before "about five thousand"? Why does
Matthew in both narratives insert "apart from women and
1 Is. lv. i "buy and eat," where Ibn Ezra remarks of "wine"
and "milk" that each serves for food as well as for drink.
2 John's above-noted application of rpwyttv to Judas in an
altered quotation from LXX is perhaps part of a consistent tradition
(not mentioned by the Synoptists) concerning the bread dipped in
wine and given to Judas alone.
8 Mk vi. 44 (R.V.) Mt. xiv. 21 (R.V,) Lk. ix. 14 (R.V.) Jn vi. 10 (R.V.)
And they that And they that For they were So the men sat
ate the loaves were did eat were about about five thousand down, in number
five thousand men, men.
beside women and
children.
Mk viii. 9 (R.V.)
And they were about four
five thousand men.
about
sand.
five the
thousand.
Mt. xv. 38 (R.V.)
And they that did eat were
four thousand men, beside wo-
men and children.
Note that avftpes is inserted except in Mk viii. 9. The Greek
phrases are as follows. In the Five Thousand, Mk vi. 44 TrevTOKia--
^iXioi avdpes, Mt. xiv. 21 avftpes axrel rr., %a>pis yvvaiK.>v Kdl 7ratdt'coi>,
Lk. IX. 14 oocrei (iv8pfs TT., Jn VI. IO oi avdpes (or, av8pfs) TOV dpi0p.bv a>s
TT. In the Four Thousand, Mk viii. 9 o>s rerpaicto-xiXiot, Mt. xv. 38
rerpaKio^i'Xtoi (marg. a>s rerpaKKr^iXtoi) avdpes, ^copt? yvvaiKOiv KOL iraidiwv
(marg. Traifttctiv nai yvvaiKwv).
4 "Men," avdpes. 'Avf]p occurs in Mk elsewhere, only in the
sing. vi. 20 "a righteous man," x. 2, 12 "husband."
348 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
children"? And why do Luke and John omit Matthew's
clause ?
If we look for illustrations from Scripture to answer these
questions, we find that the first Hebrew instance of "about"
with numbers of men occurs in the description of Israel going
forth from Egypt 1 . The same passage contains almost the
first instance of the plural of "man of military age 2 ," as distin-
guished from women and children: "And the children of
Israel departed . . . about six hundred thousand on-foot (or,
footmen) the men [of military age], apart from children 3 ."
This looks back to the first Biblical use of the plural of the
word, uttered by Pharaoh, who refuses to let the "children"
go, but will let the "men" (Heb. geber) go. In the LXX, these
two passages are the first where we find Mark's Greek word
for "men" representing the Hebrew geber*. Later on, the
Pentateuch omits both "about" and "men of military age"
in the passionate exclamation of Moses "Six hundred thousand
footmen (or, travellers on foot) are the people amid whom I am 5 ."
Jewish tradition notes the apparent discrepancy between this
and the preceding mention of the same number; for, during
1 Exod. xii. 37 Heb. 3 "like," i.e. about. LXX els "amount-
ing to." This is the first instance mentioned in Gesen. 453 a.
Strong's Concordance, which is generally very accurate, omits it.
2 Heb. "Q3, geber. See Gesen. 149 50.
3 Exod. xii. 37 " apart from children (P\D)," LXX TT\T)V TTJS airoa-Kev^.
'ATroo-Kfi^, outside LXX, would mean "baggage," the Latin "im-
pedimenta," but in LXX it freq. represents P]O, "children." Here Aq.
has x<opis curb VTJTTIOV, Sym. ...TOV 6'^Xov. Comp. Exod. x. 10 n, where
Pharaoh says to Moses that he will not let go the "children (pp) "
(LXX, Aq. and Sym. as here) but " Go ye, now, the men [of military
age]," Aq. rropeveo-Qe drj, ol ai/Spey, LXX TropfvecrOcacrav &e ol avdpes
(a variation that somewhat resembles the variation in the punctuation
of Jn vi. 10). Steph. Thes. does not mention this meaning of a-rro-
o-Kcvr), but see Gen. xxxiv. 29, xliii. 8, etc.
4 'Ai'?)p in Pentateuch occurs about 180 times, but not as repre-
senting geber except in these two passages and Deut. xxii. 5 (for-
bidding an adult male to put on woman's clothing, and vice versa).
6 Numb. xi. 21.
349 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the interval, the number is stated elsewhere to have incn
Accordingly Rashi says "Moses was not solicitous" aboi
including additions 1 . Many passages in Midrash comment on
the numbering of Israel on or before the night of the Exodus
as one of ten occasions on which Israel was numbered 2 .
Passing to the Gospels we see that some of their variations
correspond to variations in Hebrew Scripture or Jewish
tradition. Mark's omission in one narrative, and insertion in
another, of "about" and "men [of military age]," corresponds
to the omission of these words in Numbers and the insertion
of them in Exodus. Matthew's insertion of "men" in both
narratives indicates that he regarded "men" as emphatic,
meaning "men, not to speak of women and children." This
followed the precedent of Exodus, where "apart from children"
was interpreted by R. Ishmael as "apart from the women and
the little ones," and by R. Jonathan as "apart from the women,
the children, and the aged 3 ."
1 See Exod. xxxviii. 26, Numb. i. 45 6 "all that were able
to go forth to war. . .603,550" (comp. Numb. ii. 32). Rashi, on
Numb. xi. 21, says "Non solicitus fuit [Moses] ut singulatim nume-
raret," and tells us of a Rabbi who suggested that the additional
3550 (called by him 3000) were not included because they did not
murmur so that they did not belong to the sixty myriads destined
to die in the wilderness.
This view is confirmed by Sir. xvi. 8 "So were 600,000 ^Ji,
edd. footmen, that were taken away in the arrogancy of their heart,"
Sir. xlvi. 8 "two alone were reserved, out of 600,000 ^r\, edd. men
on foot." Clem. Rom. 43 calls them "the 600,000," although at
the time mentioned (Numb. xvii. i foil.) the number would have
been increased, o-wfKaXfo-ev iravra rov 'lo-pa^X, ray e
Sota 12 b gives a quaint interpretation of WJ, "footmen," in
the utterance of Moses. It meant "on my account," and implied a
presumption for which Moses was punished !
2 Ten occasions are mentioned in Numb. r. on Numb. ii. 32, and
Pesikta sect. 2, Wii. p. 18 etc. In Numb. r. on Numb. xxvi. 2 it is
said that whenever Israel went wrong it needed to be numbered.
3 See Mechilt. on Exod. xii. 37.
350 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
It is more difficult to say why John inserts "in number,"
before "about five thousand." It is apparently superfluous.
Yet in his subtle, mystical, and allusive Gospel cautious critics
will very seldom confidently commit themselves to a statement
that they have found superfluities. Can it be that John is
affected by Jewish traditions above referred to concerning the
"numbering" of Israel as being connected with imperfection
or evil?
That, perhaps, is the Johannine view. When Luke in the
Acts mentions "number" in passage after passage describing
the growth of the Church, he does it with obvious satisfaction 1 .
But it is doubtful whether John has any such satisfaction in
the numbering of the Five Thousand. Regarded mystically,
the number "five" is of the flesh, like the "five husbands"
of the woman of Samaria; and "the five barley loaves" are
typical of rudimentary revelation. Regarded historically
(according to John's view), the Five Thousand so completely
fail to understand the nature of Christ's sign that they are
described as purposing "to snatch him away that they may
make him a king 2 ." We can at least say that this explanation
is more probable than the hypothesis that John inserted " in
number " and this in a narrative so familiar to the Church in
various forms and so obviously typical without attaching to
the insertion some meaning, or at all events some allusive
significance.
occurs in the Acts (iv. 4, etc.), four times out of
five, about the growth of the Church. But in the Epistles it
occurs only in Rom. ix. 27 " If the number of the children of Israel
be as the sand of the sea it shall be the remnant that shall be saved."
This appears to depreciate the value of "numbering." The other
N.T. instances of api^pos (except Lk. xxii. 3 "Judas... of the
number of the twelve") are all (10) in Revelation. This book also
(vii. 9) speaks of "a great multitude which no one could number,
standing before the throne." The first mention of "counting" and
"numbering" in the Bible is in Gen. xiii. 16 (comp. xvi. 10) and
declares that the seed of Abraham cannot be numbered.
2 Jn vi. 15.
351 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
32. Irenaeus and Origen on the "five thousand" in the A(
and Clement of Alexandria on the "five loaves"
The narratives of the Feeding of the Five Thousand ai
likely to have been influenced not only by allusions to the
events in the history of Israel, and particularly the giving of
the manna, but also by prospective allusions to the growth of
the Christian Church, more particularly during the period when
thousands at a time were converted, according to the Acts,
by the preaching of Peter. This influence is not likely to have
been so great as that of Eucharistic allusion, but still it is not
to be passed by.
Irenaeus says that the convincing effect of prophecy in
bringing souls into the Church explains the success of the
apostolic preaching, whereby "on one day there were baptized
three thousand men, and four, and five 1 ." The Acts mentions
the "baptizing" of "three thousand," and subsequently speaks
of "five thousand," but nowhere "four thousand"; and such
language, however it may be explained, shews that early
variations might arise about the details of the growth of the
Church, some of which might bear on the Gospel narratives
of miraculous Feeding 2 . Origen, if his text is not corrupt,
1 Iren. iv. 23. 2 "et una die baptizati sunt hominum tria millia r
et quatuor, et quinque."
2 Acts ii. 41 01 p.v ovv ...fftairricrOrjcraV) KOI TrpofreTtQrjirav ev rfj rj/j,pa
K(tvr) \lsvxal docTfi rpicr^iAiai, iv. 4 TroAAoi Se TWV aKovaravTotv rbv \6yov
TTicTTv(rav Koi fyfvr\6f] dpi6p.6s ra>v dvdpwv ws ^tAtaSe? irVT. Grabe on
Irenaeus points to Acts ii. 47 6 Se Kvpios irpoa-fTidfi rovs a-<aop,vovs K.a6*
f)p.pav as a possible explanation. The tradition from which Irenaeus
borrowed may have stated that the number of the baptized " became
on one day 3000, and then 4000, and then 5000." "The [total]
number became " might easily be confused with "the number [added
on this or that occasion] was." Comp. Acts iv. 4 fyfvrjdr), A.V. " was,"
R.V. "came to be." This may be illustrated by a difference between
Lk. ix. 13 14 Curet. "'But let us go ourselves [and] buy food for
all this multitude,' for they were become five thousand men," and SS
"'Except we go and buy ourselves food for all this multitude, for
352 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
appears to combine the Feeding of the Five Thousand by our
Lord with the conversion of the Three Thousand in the Acts,
and to regard both as fulfilments of the exclamation of Isaiah,
"Shall a nation be brought forth at once 1 ?" Jerome, com-
menting fully on the same prophecy, says "It also refers to
that time when, on one day, there believed three thousand,
and five thousand, of the Jewish people 2 ." But Origen's
text, as it stands, by inserting a mention of the Saviour's "Incar-
nation," and also by placing the Five Thousand before the
Three Thousand, makes it difficult to suppose that he is
referring merely to the Acts. Possibly "three," in Origen's
text, is an error for "four." His view certainly was that the
miracle of the Four Thousand typified the inclusion of the
Gentiles. This "inclusion," if Origen wrote "four thousand,"
he may have described (in the language of the Acts) as " adding,"
just as he describes the miracle of the Five Thousand (in the
language of the Acts) as "believing": "When the Saviour
they are five thousand men.' " Possibly Acts iv. 4 lycvr)6r) dpi6p,bs T&V
dvdpav is a corruption of some tradition that "there was made a
numbering (api^o-i?) of the men." Something is needed (but
Hebrew origination might suffice) to explain the omission of 6 before
dpidp-os (comp. Acts vi. 7 6 dpidpbs rwv p.a0r)Tcov).
1 Origen Jerem. Horn. ix. 3 (on Is. Ixvi. 8) "But 'a nation was
brought forth (eVe'x^?;) at once' when the Saviour (?) had been with us
on earth (ore eVtSeS^^Kev 6 2<r77p) and in one day five thousand
believed (eTrio-Tevcrav) and on another day there were added
(irpoo-fTfdrjo-av) three thousand." I do not understand the force of
the perfect eVtSeS^T/Kev contrasted with the aorists. Is it possible
that we should read , the pluperf. f7rf8fdrjp.iiK.ei, i.e. "when the
Saviour had [recently] been incarnate " ? Comp. the earliest instance
of f7ri8r)p.f<o quoted in Euseb. H.E. iv. 3. 2. (from Quadratus) ovdf eVi-
8rjp.ovvros p.6vov TOV "S,a>TJJpos dXXa KCU aTraXXayfVTos. In that case we
must suppose that Origen is quoting from the Acts but reverses the
order of the Acts in order to put the larger number first: "There
'believed/ as the Acts says, five thousand men, and on another
[and earlier] day there were added [to the Church], as the Acts
says, three thousand."
2 "Et ad illud tempus referre quando una die tria millia et
quinque millia de Judaico populo crediderunt."
A. L. 353 (Mark vi. 2944) 2 3
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
was on earth and there 'believed' (Acts iv. 4) in one day Fr
Thousand, and in another day there were 'added' (Acts ii. 41)
Four Thousand 1 ."
Other early Christian literature throws little light on
distinctions between the Synoptic "five thousand" and "four
thousand," or the "five loaves" and the "seven loaves."
The plural "loaves" is not used by the Apostolic Fathers ai
Apologists 2 . The only mention of the "five loaves"
Irenaeus is in an attempt to shew that the number "five" is
of frequent occurrence in Scripture and need not have the
mystical meaning attributed to it by heretics. In doing this,
he asserts that "five" is the number of the pillars that support
the veil of the Holy of Holies. But in fact there were "four 3 ."
His error is the less excusable because Philo had taught that
the "four" pillars before the Holy of Holies were spiritually
superior to the "five" pillars before the screen of the Taber-
nacle 4 . Clement of Alexandria adopts Philo's interpretation of
the "five pillars" as referring to the things of the senses and
applies it depreciatively to "the five loaves," which, he says,
"are most mystically broken by the Saviour, and supply
fulness (?) to the crowd of those hearing Him ; for great [indeed
is] the [crowd] that gives heed to the things of sense as being alone
realities*" Clement then mentions "the four pillars" that
1 That is to say, the order of the two miracles is that of the
Gospels, but the language is that of the Acts, because Origen regards
the miracle placed second in the Gospels as being of the nature of
an "addition" such as the Acts connects with "three thousand."
If Origen wrote thus, it would be very natural for scribes to alter
his "four" into "three" (A into r).
2 Goodspeed gives it, however, as a v. r. of Cod. A in Justin
Martyr Apol. Ixvii. 3 a>$ 7rpoe<^>77/zei/...apros' 7rpocr(j)pTiu, where irpo(pr]p.(v
refers to ch. Ixv. and ch. Ixvi. mentioning the sing, apros.
3 Iren. ii. 24. 4.
4 Philo on Exod. xxvi. 32 37. Irenaeus (see Grabe's note
which should have been added in* Clark's translation) has confused
the two verses.
5 Clem. Alex. 665 ravrr) roi /ivcmxcorara TTCVTG aproi TTpos TOV
354 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
stand at the entrance of the Holy of Holies, as being typical
of a more inward and spiritual knowledge. Then he passes to
the number "seven," as being that of the planets and of the
branches of the sacred lamp, and of "the seven eyes of the
Lord" which ("they say") are "the seven spirits resting on
the rod that flowers from the root of Jesse 1 ." Although
Clement does not, in this connection, make mention of the
"seven loaves" that were broken for the "four thousand,"
the transition suggests that he had that thought in his mind.
If he had, it would be consistent with Origen's view that the
miracle of the Four Thousand was higher in the spiritual scale
than the earlier miracle of the Five Thousand.
33. "Give ye them to eat," why omitted by John
This omission has not been commented on above because
our first business has been to discuss Marcan passages omitted
or altered by Luke, and this is not one of them. All the
Synoptists have the words "Give ye them to eat," and all of
them, especially Luke, emphasize the pronoun "ye 2 ." Origen
explains the emphasis, allegorizing the "eating," as if Jesus
meant " Ye, my disciples, ye whom I have trained to give the
Bread of Life to others, give ye them to eat, and do not think
of sending away the hungry multitude unfed 3 ." Origen also,
in his own person, declares that Jesus "said Give ye them to
Kara/cXcoi/rai KOI Tr\r)dvvov(ri TO) o^Xw TWV OKpowp-fvcov, TTO\VS yap 6 rols
alo-drjrols ws povois ov(ri 7rpo<raj/e'x<i>. H\r)6vv(0 is perhaps used as a
mild paraphrase of ^opra^co.
1 Rev. v. 6, Is. xi. i.
2 In Mk vi. 37, Mt. xiv. 16 Sore avrols vpels (payelv, the addition
of v/zeis to Sore shews that the pronoun in "give ye" is emphasized;
but in Lk. ix. 13 (W.H. txt) Sore avrois (payelv v/ieTs, "ye" is extra-
ordinarily emphatic, coming at the end of the sentence.
3 Origen on Mt. xiv. 16 (Lomm. iii. 68) 'ETrei ovv Traidcvo-as vfias
tKavovs fTroirjo'a irpos TO SiSoi/cu rols 8eop.vois \oyiKrjv rpo(f)f)v, v/net? Sore....
355 (Mark vi. 29 44) 23 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
eat because of that power to feed others besides themselve
which He had bestowed on the disciples 1 ."
It may be taken as certain that John did not believe th;
the disciples had received at this time the "power to feed
others" in the full spiritual sense. Origen adds "So long as
these five loaves and two fishes were not borne (or, brought) by
the disciples of Jesus, they did not increase 2 ." But John
represents Jesus as Himself distributing the bread to the
multitude 3 , and excludes the disciples from any part in the
miracle except the collecting of the broken pieces. The
Johannine view of the miracle is quite different from that of
the Synoptists. In John, Jesus cannot say to the disciples
"Give ye them to eat," for they have nothing to give. The
loaves do not belong to them. Origen himself points out
this, though he quaintly connects it with the inferior nature of
the "barley" loaves: "John alone says that the loaves were
'barley loaves/ Wherefore, perhaps, in the Gospel of John,
the disciples do not acknowledge that the loaves are with them,
but say, in John, ' There is a lad here who has five barley loaves
and two fishes 4 /"
It must be admitted that John, by omitting Christ's precept
to the Twelve, not only greatly lowers the spiritual character
of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, but also departs from
what appears to be the earliest and most faithful traditions
about it. In the Synoptists, the miracle is a kind of firstfruits
of the Eucharist, illustrating the Christian Law of Giving.
In- the Fourth Gospel, it is a kind of last repetition of the old
1 Origen (Lomm. iii. 69) Si* TJV fdaxe 8vvap.iv <al
2 Origen (Lomm. iii. 70) oa-ov /J.CV...OVK efa'povro. Is it possible
that he is referring to Mt. xiv. 18 0e'pere /xoi &>e avrovs, "bring them
hither to me," so that the meaning is "Until they were brought by
the disciples of Jesus [to their Master] " ? 'E</><fpoi/ro does not seem a
suitable word to mean " distributed" by the disciples to the multitudes.
3 Jn vi. n, omitted in the Arabic Diatessaron.
4 Origen (Lomm. iii. 70).
356 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
gift of Manna, and the old gift of the Law, exemplifying the
failure of both to satisfy and redeem mankind, and demon-
strating the need of a new source of spiritual life 1 .
34. "Eating" in the presence of the Lord
We have spoken above of the meal provided by Elisha for a
hundred of the sons of the prophets ; but some mention should
also be made of an earlier Scriptural precedent, when Aaron
and two of Aaron's sons and seventy of the elders of Israel
went up with Moses, "and they saw the God of Israel. . .and
they beheld God and did eat and drink." The latter part of
this is paraphrased by Onkelos, "They saw the Glory of the
Lord, and rejoiced in their sacrifices, which were accepted with
favour, as though they had eaten and drunk," but by the Jeru-
salem Targum, "They saw the Glory of the Shekinah of the
Lord, and rejoiced that their oblations were received with favour,
and so did eat and drink 2 "." The passage is frequently referred
to in Midrash, where it is mostly implied that Aaron's sons
were led into error, perhaps an error of familiarity, in eating
and drinking, and were punished for it 3 . But other passages
1 If many versions or MSS followed Lk. ix. 13 (codex a) "date
eis manducare" (omitting "vos") we might suppose that textual
variations induced John to omit a phrase that meant no more than
"give them something to eat." But the omission in codex a is so
exceptional that nothing can be based on it. And the conclusion
seems necessary that John's omission was dictated almost entirely
by the feeling that the real Eucharistic "giving" was not understood,
and indeed was not fully instituted, till after the Resurrection, when
Jesus gave the command "Feed my sheep."
2 Exod. xxiv. 9 n. The Targums are quoted from Etheridge.
3 See Exod. r. (Wii. pp. 38, 317), Lev. r. (Wii. p. 136), Numb. r.
(Wii. p. 411), Pesikt. (Wii. p. 252). Rashi says ad loc. "contemplari
erant ilium curiose (or, animo elato) etiam inter edendum ac biben-
dum, sic interpretatio Tanchumae habet; sed Onkelos non ita
interpretatus est." Comp. Lev. x. 8 (Jer. Targ.) "Drink neither
wine nor anything that maketh drunk, ... as thy sons did, who
have died by the burning of fire." .
357 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
connect the "eating and drinking" with a "banquet" on "the
glory of the Shechinah," quoting from Proverbs "In the light
of the King's countenance is life 1 ." This "banquet," and the
"sitting down" with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the
aeon that is to come, are referred to in the tradition of Matthew
and Luke 2 . Luke also once connects "table" and "covenant"
and "thrones" in such a way as to constitute a parallelism
between his words and those of the Pentateuch describing the
"eating and drinking" of the "nobles" of Israel 3 ; but the
parallel Matthew has nothing that suggests a banquet. Nor
has Matthew any mention of eating in his parallel to an earlier
passage where Luke has "We ate before thee and drank; and
in our streets didst thou teach 4 ."
In the passage last quoted from Luke, Cyril paraphrases
"ate" as the imperfect ''used to eat," supposing that the words
were uttered as an appeal to the Father (not to the Son) and
that the words "ate before thee" referred to sacrifices eaten in
the Temple. But if that had been the meaning, the imperfect
1 See Taylor's note on Aboth iii. 25 "Everything is prepared for
the banquet," quoting Berach. 17 a, and Numb. r. xxi., which
says that the ministering angels "are fed on the splendour of the
Shechinah, for it is said (Prov. xvi. 15) 'In the light etc.' ' On
Prov. xvi. 15 see Pesikt. Wii. pp. 70, 140, 252, etc.
2 Mt. viii. n, Lk. xiii. 29.
3 Lk. xxii. 29 30. Comp. Exod. xxiv. n "nobles," a noticeable
word, LXX TTL\KTO)v (one of 13 deviations of LXX discussed
in the Talmud, see Levy i. 508 a). The parall. Mt. xix. 28
mentions "thrones" and "judging," but has nothing that suggests
a banquet.
4 Lk. xiii. 2O e(f)dyop.ev CVVTTIOV aov KOI eiriofj.cv. The parall.
Mt. vii. 22 ou T<U (TO) ovopaTi e7rpo(f>T)Tv(Tap.v is blended by Origen
repeatedly with Lk. so as to drop the difficult phrase cvtoiriov <rov.
Cyril (see Cramer ad loc.) explains "thee" as "God," thus: "How
then used they to eat and to drink (fjo-Qiov <al CTTIVOV) in the presence
of God? By performing the sacrificial-service (\arpeiav) of the Law."
And he explains "thou didst teach" as referring to the Scriptures,
the word of God, heard by the Jews in the synagogues.
358 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
might have been used by Luke here as elsewhere 1 . Never-
theless Cyril is right in supposing that "ate before thee" is not
the same as "ate with thee," and that it suggests some act of a
disciple of Christ corresponding to the eating of a sacrifice by
an Israelite "in the presence of" Jehovah to whom it is offered..
But what act, what "eating," could be meant? The least
unsatisfactory explanation, perhaps, is that Luke has placed
the words in such a position that they may refer to the " eating "
of the Five Thousand, which, according to Mark and Luke,
was preceded by "teaching" or something corresponding to
teaching (so as to fulfil the saying "thou hast taught in our
streets 2 ") . That would bring the Lucan tradition into harmony
with the Johannine view, that the Five Thousand, for the most
part, though they "ate in the presence of" Jesus, never truly
knew Him or believed in Him. He "taught " in their " streets,"
but they did 'not accept" the teaching.
We are not, however, on safe ground in attempting to
build positive conclusions as to fact on this Lucan passage 3 .
For there may have been other occasions to which "we ate"
might definitely refer, e.g. the Feeding of the Four Thousand.
That Luke does not mention this miraculous act does not exclude
the possibility that he collected traditions referring to it although
he did not know the reference. And if there were two such
miraculous acts why should there not have been three or
more believed to have occurred before the Resurrection?
It does not follow that there were only two because Mark has
recorded only two, any more than it follows that there was only
1 Lk. xvii. 27, 28 fjaOiov, fTrivov, followed by eyd/uoui/ and rjyopa&v.
'E0-0i< is freq. used for habitual or uncompleted eating.
2 Mk vi. 34 SiSaor/cetj/, Lk. ix. II e'AaAei Trepl T^S ftcuriXeias TOV Beov.
3 The fact that Matthew deviates from Luke, and the nature of
Matthew's deviation, indicate that we have not here actual words
of Christ, but early evangelistic paraphrases of them, indicating
how extremists, on either side, whether anti-judaizers or judaizers,
would be rejected by Jesus if they rejected His Spirit.
359 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
one because Luke and John have recorded only one that
is to say, only one before the Resurrection. The Acts of
John boldly declares that every meal of the disciples with
Jesus, even at a Pharisee's table, was miraculous: "Now
if ever, having been invited by one of the Pharisees, He went
in compliance with such an invitation, we used to go with Him.
And one loaf used to be set by the inviter for each [of the
guests], among whom He also used to receive one [and no
more]. But He, blessing His [own] loaf, would distribute [it]
to us. And from the little [thus distributed] each [of us]
used to be filled-to-repletion, and our loaves were kept whole
and sound, so that amazement fell on those who invited Him 1 ."
35. "That he shoitld give something to the poor,"
in John
John tells us that after the Last Supper, when Jesus said,
"That thou doest, do (R.V.) quickly," some supposed that
Jesus meant "Buy what things we have need of for the feast,
or, that he should give something to the poor 2 ." Either
supposition implies that Judas had been tardy about performing
one of two duties that ought seemingly to have been performed
before the Supper. We can understand this about the things
needed "for the feast"; but how does it apply to the words
"that he should give something to the poor"? Was that a
duty calling for immediate performance? Only if the duty
was connected in the minds of the disciples with the meal at
1 Acts of John 8. "One loaf (apros f Is) " appears to be meant
to be more emphatic than apTos would have been (without r).
"One" is emphasized by its position in "among whom He also used
to receive one [and no more] (eV ol$ KCU CIVTOS cXdnftavev eva}." "Filled
to repletion," e^opra^ero is here used as in the Synoptists, and not in
a bad sense (as in Jn vi. 26). Incidentally the mention of "one
loaf" is important as shewing the smallness of such "loaves" as we
read of in the Bible.
2 Jn xiii. 29.
360 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
which they were seated. If their Master had habituated them
to the practice of giving something to the poor from their
common purse on any special occasion when He sat down to
a meal with them, in that case and only in that case could
they suppose that Jesus sent out Judas, the purse-bearer, with
something of the nature of a reproach for neglecting the duty
to the poor, "That which thou art bound to do, do more
quickly 1 ."
On another occasion, Luke represents Jesus as saying
"Now do ye, the Pharisees, cleanse the outside of the cup. . .
but your inner part is full of ravening .... Only give ye the
things that are inside [the vessel] as alms, and behold, all things
are pure unto you 2 ." Here the meaning might be taken to be,
literally, "send out some of the food in the dish to the poor and
then all that is in the dish is pure." The parallel Matthew
has " Cleanse first the inward part of the cup," shewing that this
literalism ("send out to the poor") would not represent the
meaning 3 . Yet it may represent a part of the meaning. Luke's
version may represent a fact, namely, that Jesus was in the
habit of giving to the poor either a portion of the meal at which
He presided, or else a gift of money in lieu of that portion where
the poor were not present in person. This would be a way of
teaching the duty inculcated by Isaiah "Draw out thy soul
to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul 4 ."
In view of these passages and of what Philo tells us about
the common meal of the Therapeutae, we ought not perhaps to
put aside the above-quoted grotesque extract from the Acts of
John with a mere negation: "Of course there was nothing like
this." Of course there was nothing "like this" literally. But
1 Jn xiii. 27 raxiov "more quickly." See Joh. Gr. 1918 and
Index.
2 Lk. xi. 39 41, see Son 3362 (iv) a, and below, p. 455 foil.
3 Mt. xxiii. 26.
4 Is. Iviii. 10, on the interpretations of which see Proclam. p. 312
"It is not to exclude, but to accompany, material giving."
361 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
are we not in danger of failing to realise that there may have been
something "like this" spiritually, even before the Eucharist
was instituted? Even at the house of a Pharisee where Jesus
was but a guest, the disciples might be made by Him to feel
that He was still their King, and that "in the light of the
king's countenance there was life 1 ," and that in His doctrine
there was the living bread 2 . Much more would this be the case
where Jesus was Himself the host and the breaker of the
bread. It seems antecedently probable that Jesus would have
put into the breaking of the bread, and into the blessing of
God over the bread, something beyond the formal Jewish
meaning, something that was of the nature of a sacrifice.
In one of the Psalms, what is called by our Revised Version
"the sacrifice of thanksgiving," is called by the Authorised
Version, more simply and more literally, "thanksgiving"; and
Aquila, too, renders the precept "Sacrifice unto God eucharist*."
The next Psalm says "The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit; *& broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise 4 ." To such a sacrifice Jesus seems to have pointed in
His story of the publican who would not so much as lift up his
face to heaven but stood afar off saying "God be merciful to
me a sinner 5 /'
Sorrow for wrong done to one's neighbour goes hand in
hand with love and sympathy for one's neighbour; and the
awaking consciousness of one's own sins awakens kindness
towards others. Jesus is represented by Matthew as twice
quoting from Hosea the words "I desire kindness and not
1 Prov. xvi. 15. See above, p. 358, and Addendum on p. 402.
2 See Addendum on p. 402.
3 Ps. 1. 14 Aq. dvaov (nut) r<3 6fa> evxapt-o-Tiav (mm) (LXX dvaov
ro> 0a> dva-iav mVo-eoos). See Gesen. 393 a. "Acknowledgment" would
be, in many respects, a good rendering of the Hebrew word min,
since it could include "confession" and (Gesen. 3926) "thanks-
giving."
4 Ps. li. 17.
5 Lk. xviii. 13, peculiar to Luke.
362 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
sacrifice 1 ," and by Mark as endorsing the saying of a scribe
that to love God and one's neighbour is " better " than sacrifices 2 .
Some early Evangelists may have argued: "We, too, we
Christians, have a sacrifice. Jesus did not mean that God
really desired no sacrifice. The words 'I desire kindness and
not sacrifice' are misleading if interpreted apart from the
doctrine of Christ as a whole." This may be the reason (or
one of the reasons) why Mark and Luke omit the quotation
from Hosea, and why Matthew and Luke omit the Marcan
tradition. Nevertheless it may be taken as certain that the
omitted passages represent Christ's fundamental thought.
36. "We all partake of the one loaf*"
One more remains to be added to the allusions inherent in
early traditions about Christ's Doctrine of Bread, and about the
acts accompanying it. It comes to us stamped with Pauline
authority, but very difficult (one would suppose) for Greeks to
understand without some knowledge of Jewish customs 4 .
Speaking to his Corinthian converts about the Christian
Eucharist Paul says "We all partake of the one loaf."
This assumes that "the one loaf" was the emblem of unity
and that the Corinthians understood the assumption. There
is nothing in Greek literature that points to, or explains, any
such notion. But we learn from Maimonides and from a
Talmudic tract called Erubin, that is, Communions or Mixings,
that the Jews had such a notion and a practice based upon it.
The scribes carried it back to Solomon, and the language used
by Paul indicates that it was at all events an established
practice of the Synagogue in Corinth during the first century.
1 Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7 quoting Hos. vi. 6.
2 Mkxii. 33. 3 i Cor. x. 17.
4 Acts xviii. 7 17 shews the important part played by the
Corinthian Synagogue in connection with the foundation of- the
Corinthian Church.
363 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Maimonides tells us, in effect, that it is forbidden to neigh-
bours to go [on the sabbath day] from one house to another
" unless all the neighbours on the sabbath eve enter into
communion (lit. make an Erub or Mixing) But how is that
communion made? They communicate in one food, which
they prepare on the eve of the sabbath, as though they would
say, We all communicate, and we have all one food 1 ." Then
he adds that this communion must be made with a whole loaf.
Portions, however large they may be, of large loaves, cannot
replace the one small loaf however small it may be: "They
do not consort together in courts save with a whole loaf 2 ."
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles contains a brief
Eucharistic ritual in which what Paul calls "the loaf that we
break" is briefly called "the broken [thing]," or "this which we
are breaking 3 ." This is said to be a unique use of the word
clasma, which in the Gospels and elsewhere means "fragment."
Certainly it does not mean "fragment" here. For the ritual
continues "As this clasma existed [once as seed] scattered
abroad (or, widely sown) on the hills, and having been gathered
together, became one, so let thy Church be gathered together
1 See Hor. Heb. on i Cor. x. 17.
2 The quotation continues "Although the bread of the batch be
a whole seah, if it be not a whole loaf, they do not enter into consort-
ship with it. But if it be whole, if it be no more than an assarius
only, they enter into consortship with it."
"How do they enter into Kotvwiav, communion, in the courts?
They demand of every house which is in the court one whole cake
or loaf, which they lay up in one vessel, and in some house which is
in the court, although it be a barn, or a stable etc. And one of
the company blesseth, and so all eat together, " etc.
The phrase for " a whole loaf " is 12^2 nD s fe' nB " a loaf complete by
itself." Apparently the blessing and breaking would take place over
one of these "whole loaves," one representing the whole number.
3 Didach. ix. 3 trfpl 5e TOV K\do~p.aTOS' Ev^aptorov/ieV trot. . .follows
irpwTov irepl TOV Trorrjpiov ' Ev)(apio~TovfjLv (rot, implying that "the
broken" was a Eucharistic term as familiar to the readers as "the
cup."
364 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom 1 ." This passage,
and the Jewish practice of "communion by means of the one
loaf," indicate that the word " bread (or loaf) " conveyed to
Jews suggestions of unity that would be unintelligible to
Greeks without explanation.
In the first passage where "bread" is mentioned in the
Bible the LXX represents God as saying to Adam "In the
sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread 2 ." But the Hebrew
omits "thy," and the Targum takes the meaning to be, in
effect, "Thou shalt be permitted to eat bread, the food of man,
instead of eating the herb of the field, the food of beasts
which was at first the sentence pronounced on thee." The
Jews appear to have discerned in a loaf prepared by the hand
of man out of many particles through many processes, sowing,
reaping, threshing, grinding, kneading and baking a unity not
apparent in a heap of grass or herbs. This unity seemed a fit
symbol of the unifying power that converts individuals into
a community, congregation, or church. When and whence
this notion came into their literature is perhaps not ascertain-
able, but that it was current among the Christians of the first
century is certain. We ought therefore to be prepared to
find a trace of it in the Fourth Gospel.
37- "Jesus. . .taketh the loaf and giveth to them 3 ," in John
The Fourth Gospel concludes with a description of Jesus
giving a meal in the morning to seven of His disciples who
1 Didach. ix. 4 axnrep TJV TOVTO TO K\d(rp,a 8iecrKop7ri(r/iei/oi> eVaj/o) ra>i/
opecov Kai <rvvaj($fV eyeVero eV, ovrco avvaxOijTO) vov fj KK\r)o-ia dnb rwv
Trepdraiv TTJS yrjs ei? TTJV <rr]v flacriXeiav. The position of TJV shews that
it is best taken by itself and not as part of a pluperf. "had been
scattered." See p. 340, n. 2, for Jerome's saying "seminarium fit
ciborum," and see Son 3606 a for the metaphor of "sowing" Israel.
2 Gen. iii. 19.
* Jn xxi. 13 epX 6rat 'l^froCy KOL \ap./3dvei rov apTov KOL 8i8(cxrtv avrols.
On Jn xxi. 9 A.V. "fish. . .bread," Westcott says "Rather, a fish. . .
a loaf. . . . Compare ib. 13 the fish. . .the loaf. The thought of unity
365 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
have been fishing. The food is first spoken of thus, as being
seen by the fishermen disciples who have been fishing: "So
when they got out upon the land they see a fire of coals laid
and a fish laid thereon and a loaf 1 ." No mention is made of
the source whence the food came. Nor are the fishermen at
once invited to partake of it. First they are bidden to draw in
the net. They had caught nothing all through the night.
But at the dawn, having been instructed to cast the net "on
the right side," they have at last caught a draught, and the
"at last" is emphasized in the command "Bring of the fish
that ye have now taken." When this duty is performed they
are invited to the morning meal, and then it is said that Jesus
" cometh and taketh the loaf and giveth to them and the fish
likewise."
Why and whence is Jesus described as "coming"? Is He
to be regarded as now coming from a distance although at the
beginning of the story He "stood on the beach" and the
disciples have now "got out upon the land"? This seems
impossible. "Coming" seems superfluous, if taken literally.
But it may be taken as the act of "Him that Cometh 2 ," like
the Light that "cometh into the world," coming to all the seven
collectively and to each individually. Then it becomes in-
telligible.
Similarly as regards the "taking," we are not to regard
the word literally as signifying that He went to the fire and
seems to be distinctly presented." In Jn vi. u, W. H. read
(Tisch. c8a>Kcv) but here didwa-iv (D fvxapia-r^as ftiatKfv). In Jn xxi. 13,
SS has "and Jesus took [the] bread and [the] fish and blessed [God]
over them and gave to them."
1 Jn xxi. 9 ft\7rov(riv avOpaKiav KfifJLfvrjv KOL 6\^dpiov eirLKfi/Jievov.
R.V. omits Kifj.(vr)v, or paraphrases it by "there." But in view of
John's use of KCI/AOI elsewhere and the contextual eTriKcipfvov here, it
seems desirable to render the two participles "laid" and "laid
thereon." See below, p. 368 foil.
2 On "Him that Cometh" as a name of the Messiah, see Joh.
Voc. 1633, Son 3239-41.
366 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
took off the loaf 1 , either once for all the disciples, or seven times
for each of them. He "takes" it as the father of any Jewish
family might "take" bread in his hands before blessing God
and breaking it. In the Feeding of the Five Thousand Jesus
is described as "giving separately" or "distributing." Here
He simply "gives." What He "gives," whether a part of the
loaf or the whole, is not made clear. It would have been easy
to make it clear. But the writer leaves it in doubt with
what looks like deliberate purpose as if to lead us to say
" After all, what does it matter? Jesus conies. This must
mean He comes to each. He gives. This must mean He gives
to each. And what else can He give to us as our bread except
Himself? We had a foretaste of this truth in the sign of the
barley loaves; and the truth itself is now set forth in this
homely farewell breakfast given by the Lord to prepare the
disciples to labour for Him after His departure."
If words that at first appear superfluous in this narrative
are to be regarded as symbolical or allusive, what symbolical
meaning are we to attach to the "fire of coals laid"? Why
is the word "laid" inserted a word so superfluous (seemingly)
that it is left untranslated by our English Versions? And
what allusion, if any, exists in the rare word " fire-of-coals " ?
The Greek for "fire of coals" occurs nowhere else in N.T.
-except in the Johannine account of Peter's denials. There it
is said that the servants of the High Priest had "made" the
"fire of coals," but here no "maker" or "layer" is mentioned.
A supernatural origin is however suggested, like that of the
"coals" by the side of Elijah whom "an angel touched," and
" he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baken on
the coals 2 ." The Hebrew there rendered "coals" occurs no-
where else except in Isaiah "Then flew one of the seraphim
1 Apparently the loaf is on the embers. So Nonnus takes it,
calling the loaf viov, "new," and the fire ^.apaivo^vrjv, i.e. dying
down.
2 i K. xix. 6 "coals," marg. "hot stones."
367 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
unto me having a live coal in his hand," where the touch of
the coal purifies the prophet's lips and prepares him to deliver
his message 1 . An ancient Christian commentary calls attention
to the coincidence that Peter "denied and confessed near a
coal fire 2 ." Are we to suppose that it is more than a coin-
cidence, and that the coal fire represents trial or temptation
of two kinds: first, in the High Priest's palace, temptation,
for evil, proceeding from men, secondly, by the Sea of Tiberias,
temptation, for good 3 , proceeding from God?
There is more to be said for such a view than at first sight
appears. For if such a representation were intended we could
the better understand that this fire is regarded as "laid,"
"set," or "appointed." The Greek word is the same as that
used in the sayings "The axe is laid to the root of the trees 4 ,"
and "This [child] is (lit.) laid (R.V. set) for the falling and
rising up of many in Israel 5 ." It is also used by John in con-
nection with the sign of the wine at Cana: "Now there were
there stone water-vessels, six [in number], in accordance with
the purifying of the Jews, laid [ready]," that is, prepared for
use, or for Christ's sign 6 . And the same apparent superfluity
and latent mysticism is to be found in the account of the
vinegar at the Cross: "After this, Jesus,. . .that the scripture
might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. A vessel lay [ready for
1 Is. vi. 6 "live coal," marg. "hot stone."
2 See Son 3369 a foil.
3 Yet where is the " temptation for good " ? May we see it in
the question "Lovest thou me more than these?" as if it meant
"Wilt thou still set thyself up above the others, and say, Though all
should stumble yet not I ? " In his reply, Peter does not now give
prominence to "I" but to "Thou." That is to say. he makes no
profession directly about himself, but appeals to Christ's knowledge
("thou knowest that I love thee").
4 Mt. iii. 10, Lk. iii. 9. 6 Lk. ii. 34.
6 Jn ii. 6 Tjcrav 8e CK.fl \i6ivai vdpiat ! Kara rov KaBapicr^bv TU>V
'lov&uW Kfipevai. The Philocalia of Origen 12 (Lornm. xxv. 14)
paraphrases this as cu eVt K.adapi<rp,c0 TU>V 'Iov8aia>v vftpiai Kflaflai \fyop.vat f
but that is only a paraphrase.
368 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the soldiers, or for the fulfilment of scripture] full of vinegar 1 ."
Similarly here the meaning may be that the "coal fire" was
"laid" by the hand of God, the sign of that fiery trial through
which the soul is to pass into communion with Him. This is
a new revelation not given to the Five Thousand. They took
the bread of the barley loaves and were filled with it as cattle
with fodder. But this bread, or rather this one loaf, comes
"laid above" fire; and the fire itself is no ordinary one, but
fire as from the altar in heaven, "laid" by the hand of God.
It should be noted that after Peter and the rest have
partaken of this food baked on the coal fire, Peter is warned
that he himself will "follow" Jesus on the way of the Cross,
dying by crucifixion. If that is to be his fiery trial, the question
arises whether in early Christian literature there are any traces
of a comparison between martyrdom and the baking of bread
baked on the coals. There is something of the kind in the
account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He was burned alive,
and the martyr's body is said to have emitted a fragrant odour
like that of "bread that is being baked*." Eusebius omits this;
but there can hardly be a doubt that he omits it, not as a
corrupt reading but in fear that the detail might shock his
readers. The fear was (doubtless) well grounded in the days
of Constantine. But when the Church was not yet established,
and while it was still being watered with the blood of martyrs,
passionate metaphor was natural and necessary. Clement of
Alexandria not only uses language resembling that rejected by
Eusebius, but also applies it to Christ Himself. Commenting
on the words of Jesus "The bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world," Clement implies
that the "flesh" must be prepared by "fire" to become the
food of the world. Then, playing on the double meaning of
1 Jn xix. 29 (r<evos fKfiro oovs fj.f<TTov. Nonnus " there was
ready (eroi^ov f'rjv}."
2 Polyc. Mart. S 15 OK apros O7rro>juei>of (v.r. oirrop-fvos] is omitted
(Light!) by Eusebius.
A. L. 369 (Mark vi. 29 44) 24
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the Greek puros, i.e. "fire" or "wheat," he introduces tl
thought of the wheat rising up in a kind of resurrection, am
likens it at the same time to "bread that is being baked 1 ."
Aesthetically such language may be repellent, but it will be
of use if it leads us to think how very much is implied by the
author of the Fourth Gospel, for himself and for those who are
in sympathy with him, by the vision of "the fire of coals" and
that which was "laid thereon."
38. Christ's "leaven"
This loaf that is seen, along with the fish, on "the coal
fire 2 ," is it to be supposed to be leavened or unleavened? The
same question applies to the "one loaf" that the disciples had
with them when they were told to "beware of leaven 3 ." Ter-
tullian implies a connection of "leaven" with fire through the
"oven" in which bread is baked 4 . He is referring to Christ's
saying that the Kingdom of God "is like unto leaven, which
a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was
all leavened 5 "; but he does not explain to us the nature of
this "leaven," or its relation to "the leaven of the Pharisees."
Ignatius recognises a "new leaven" as appertaining to Christ 6 .
1 Clem. Alex. 125 evravda TO P.VO-TIKOV rov aprov 7rapa(TT)p.fia)T(ov, on
<rdpKa avrov Xe'yei KOI oas dvKTTap-evrjv 8fj6cv dia Trupoy, Kaddrrfp CK (pdopds
KOL (nropas 6 Trvpbs dytOTOTCU, <al p,VTOi did Trvpos avvia'Tap.evrjv els fv(ppo-
avvTjv KK\r)(rias as aprov Treirrop-fvov.
2 Jn xxi. 9. 3 Mk viii. 15.
4 Tertullian Adv. Marc, (on Lk. xiii. 21) " fermentationem quoque
congruere . . . regno Creatoris quia post illam clibanus vel furnus
gehennae sequatur." See context. Is he referring to Hosea vii. 4?
6 Mt. xiii. 33 op.oia eorii/ f) ftaaiXfia TWV ovpav&v vp.ij rjv \af3ovcra
yvvrj VKpv\lf(v els dXevpov crdra rpia a>s ov e^vp-wdrj oXoi/, sim. Lk. xiii. 21.
6 Ign. Magn. IO VTrepOecrde ovv rrjv KOKTJV vp,r)v TTJV naXaicodelaav
Koi fvo^ifrcicravj KOI p-fraftdXecrBe fls viav ^vp.r]v^ os f&rw 'lij&ovs Xpioroy.
On this, Lightf. quotes i Cor. v. 7 "purge out the old leaven," but
gives no instance of "new leaven." He adds "On the metaphor
generally see the note Galatians v. 9." In that note, he says "The
370 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Justin Martyr recognises a "new leaven" as the opposite of the
"old" Egyptian "leaven," which was to be superseded by the
"new," after the brief interval of the week of unleavened
bread 1 . It is possible that this aspect of Christ's doctrine
implying an antithesis between " old leaven" and "new leaven,"
between "bad leaven" and "good leaven" was overshadowed
by the Pauline antithesis between "leaven" and "the un-
leavened 2 ." At all events it is a significant fact that in the
writings of the early Christian Fathers and Apologists the
words "leaven" and "unleavened" do not occur except in
leaven of Scripture is always a symbol of evil, with the single excep-
tion of the parable (Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 20, 21), as it is for the
most part also in rabbinical writers : see Lightfoot on Matt. xvi. 6
and Schottgen on i Cor. v. 6."
But "for the most part" would be misleading if it led the reader
to suppose that either Lightfoot (i.e. the author of Horae Hebraicae)
or Schottgen quotes, from "rabbinical writers," a single instance
of "leaven" in a good sense. Nor does Wetstein quote one. Nor
is any alleged in the Biblical Dictionaries of Black and Hastings
("Leaven"). Dr A. Buchler informs me that he has been unable
to find any such instance.
1 Justin (Tryph. 14) is bold enough to say to the Jews "Where-
fore also, after the seven days of eating unleavened bread, God com-
manded you to knead for yourselves new leaven, that is to say, the
doing of other works and not the imitation of those that were old
and vile." He has previously said (ib.) "For this is the symbol of
the unleavened, [being intended] in order that ye may not do the
old deeds of the evil leaven."
2 i Cor. v. 6 foil. " Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump ? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,
even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed,
[even] Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the un-
leavened bread of sincerity and truth."
If Paul had been asked " But what are we to do during the rest
of the Christian Year, after keeping the Christian Passover? Are
we never to partake of the bread described by our Lord as 'wholly
leavened'?" he would doubtless have replied "Yes." But he
deals with a different aspect of the metaphor, as if Christians were
always keeping their Passover.
371 (Mark vi. 29 44) 24 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the two passages quoted above from Ignatius and Justin
Martyr, and in one other instance where Justin says to the
Jews "If ye eat unleavened bread ye say that ye have fulfilled
the will of God 1 ." Perhaps one reason why the doctrine of
Christ's leaven fell into the background was that among
Gentiles, as well as among Jews, there was a feeling that
leaven was corrupt and impure 2 . Another reason may have
been that Christ's doctrine was obscured by superabundant
allegorism 3 .
1 Justin Martyr Try ph. 12.
2 See Lightf. on Gal. v. 9, "Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 109 (p. 289 E),
in answer to the question why the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to
touch leaven, explains it, f] {vpr] <a\ yeyovcv f* (pdopas ain-i) KOL (pdfipa,
TO cpvpa/jia piyvvfj-evr)." Comp. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 30 "post illam
[i.e. fermentationem] clibanus vel furnus gehennae."
3 Jerome, on Mt. xiii. 33, gives three explanations of it, and says
that he has not space for others. Many of them might deal with
the allegorical meaning of the "three measures of meal," on which
see Clem. Alex. 694. The N.T. evfKpv^tv els d\evpov o-dra rpia might
invite comparison with Gen. xviii. 6 (Aq. Sym.) rpia o-dra o-f/nfin'Xecos-
(al. exempl. rpia p-erpa d\fvpov o-e/uSaAecos) *at iroir^aov fyKpv(pias, on
which Philo has much to say. Clem. Alex. 693 4 (following Philo)
connects Gen. xviii. 6 eyKpvfpias, "cakes hidden [in the embers]"
with a mystical "hiding," and subsequently quotes Mt. xiii. 33
fveicpv^ev, referring to the threefold nature of man.
The doctrine of "good leaven" and "bad leaven" seems to imply
the pre-existence of a food that can be assimilated to good or evil.
Elsewhere Jesus speaks of a "good eye" and an "evil eye," and of
an antagonism, or want of harmony, between "the flesh" and "the
spirit," and implies (Mk xiv. 38, Mt. xxvi. 41, but not L*k.) that man
can control the evil or the weakness. Some of these expressions
may be illustrated by a very ancient Jewish doctrine about a " good "
and a "bad" nature in man. See Aboth iv. 2 "Who is mighty?
He that subdues his nature (11^) " (Taylor's note). The Heb. yetser
(Gesen. 428) meant "form,, framing, purpose," occurring for the
first time in Gen. vi. 5 "every imagination of the thoughts of his
[man's] heart was only evil." It means, in New Heb., "impulse"
or "tendency" (Gesen. "good or bad tendency in man"). Levy
gives abundant instances of the New Heb. use, and (ii. 258) of the
fern. n*V* meaning the earthly and the heavenly shaping ("Bild-
ung") of man. Inter alia it quotes j. Jeb. iv. 5 "zwei Bildungen
372 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
And yet is it not in accordance with the simple homeliness
and restfulness of Christ's doctrines that He should have
raised a protest for leaven as an emblem of quiet and un-
obtrusive growth, and for leavened bread as a homely and
pleasant gift of God? Luke places the parables of leaven and
mustard seed after the sabbath cure of the "daughter of
Abraham." The ruler of the synagogue reproved the
act. Jesus said to him and his abettors, "Ye hypocrites 1 !"
He implies that they were denied with "the leaven of the
Pharisees," a hypocritical zeal, a sin against the light, in
placing the literal prohibitions of the Law of Leviticus above
the dictates of natural humanity. God, in Nature, works not
so much by repressing as by developing. And this Jesus
proceeded to shew by the parables of the mustard seed, and
of the leaven fermenting in the loaf. The leaven was kindness,
divine kindness, passing from the Father in heaven to His
children and from His children to one another.
An instance of what Paul might have called "the leaven of
the Pharisees" may be found in the record of the proceedings
des Menschen, naml. zuerst innerhalb dreier Tage nach Empfang
des Samens, und dann nach 4wo c higer Schwangerschaft."
Ign. Magn. 10, after the words "new leaven which is Jesus
Christ," continues, "Be salted (dXio-dqrc) in Him, lest any one among
you grow putrid (dicxfrtiapfj) since from your savour ye will be detected
(e\ryX0r](rfo-0f) " which alludes to Mk ix. 49 50 (comp. Mt. v. 13,
Lk. xiv. 34) "for everyone shall be salted with fire." On the other
hand Justin Martyr (Tryph. 14) before mentioning "new leaven,"
discourses on "baptism," and "the water of life" not the "living
water" that satisfies spiritual thirst, but the "water of life"
regarded as washing away spiritual defilement. Both writers
illustrate the variety of metaphor with which early Christians,
following the earliest traditions of their Master's words, inculcated
the doctrine of spiritual regeneration, and they lead to the con-
clusion that this doctrine was very much more in His thoughts
than we might have inferred from the Synoptic Gospels, and from
the absence of any continuous discourse about it in the Double
Tradition of Matthew and Luke (commonly called "Q").
1 Lk. xiii. 15.
373 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
of the Council of Jerusalem. After the admission of un-
circumcised Gentiles to the Church by Peter, in accordance
with a revelation from the Lord, "There arose up certain of
the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to
circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of
Moses 1 ." Paul did not speak on this occasion. But, had he
spoken, it would probably have been to this effect : "In Christ
Jesus neither circumcision avail eth anything nor uncircum-
cision, but faith working through love. ...This persuasion
[cometh] not from him that calleth you. A little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump*." This "little leaven" is leaven in
a bad sense. Why .cannot we point to mentions of "a little
leaven" in a good sense? Perhaps because this metaphor was
too cosmopolitan for many Jews and too homely and original
for many Gentiles. But these very reasons are reasons for
believing that it originated from Jesus Himself more alive
than His disciples to the quiet and unobtrusive influences of
beneficent Nature.
These considerations indicate that the whole of the Mark-
Matthew comparison between the Feeding of the Five Thousand
and that of the Four Thousand may have been omitted by
Luke, not because he disbelieved that there had been such
a comparison, but because he believed that it referred to a
period after Christ's resurrection. The disciples may have
received at that time some revelation about the admission of
the Gentile element into the Church, such a revelation as
Peter received at Joppa. A voice may have come to them
from Jesus, warning them against the "leaven" of "the
Pharisees," the leaven of exclusiveness and unkindness, and
reminding them that all alike, Jews and Gentiles, must feed on
a bread that was not unleavened but was leavened with the
"new leaven" of "faith working through love." The cir-
cumstances of the two acts of feeding were different, but the
1 Acts xv. 5.
2 Gal. v. 69.
374 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
principle was the same. As the Apostles, when ministering to
the twelve tribes of Israel, received correspondently twelve
cophinoi of fragments, so, when ministering to the multitude
of the Gentiles, who came from the four quarters of the world,
they received seven sphurides, a number that would correspond
to "the seven Spirits of God" and "the seven Churches," men-
tioned in Revelation. The "five loaves " of the Law were broken
for the former; the "seven" loaves of the Spirit for the latter.
But the loaves were broken by one and the same Lord. The
difference did not prevent the recognition of the fact that all
alike, Jews and Gentiles, partook of the "one loaf."
39. The passionateness of the Eucharist
In the foregoing investigation the main object has been to
ascertain, not what was the fact, but what was believed to
be the fact by the Evangelists, and especially in those narratives
where Luke omitted or altered something that was in Mark.
And we have been led to the conclusion that Mark contains
traces not found in Luke and rarely found in Matthew of
early Eucharistic doctrine taught by Christ before the institu-
tion of the Eucharist. John appears to have cleared away
what obscured those traces so that they shew something like a
path, which he has broadened and lengthened into a highway
running right through his Gospel. But this path or highway
may guide us to the actual and historical fact.
Among the Jews it was customary for the father of the
family, at the commencement of a family meal, to take up a
loaf and to bless God over it and break it. This practice Jesus
appears to have adopted, breathing into it a new spiritual
meaning and a passionateness of His own. It was not enough,
He might say, to lift up and break the loaf. We must, as
Jeremiah said, "lift up our heart with our hands unto God in
the heavens 1 ," and the best way to lift up the heart to God
1 Lam. iii. 41.
375 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
the Father in the breaking of bread was to do something from
one's heart for His children that had no bread. This some-
thing was not to be the mere giving of alms for the sake of
reward. Such alms (Jesus declared) the Pharisaean forma-
lists gave. They allowed a conventional religion of rules to
drive out the natural morality of the conscience. They
encouraged a son to withhold a Corban from his needy parents
in order to give it to God. But Christ's religion was to be
of the heart, and His almsgiving was to be a "drawing out" of
the "soul" to the hungry 1 , a suffering with their sufferings, an
action that partook of the nature of sacrifice.
It is not definitely recorded that Jesus ever carried out
these precepts in a literal way by summoning the poor to His
table and giving them food, or by sending them food or money
before sitting down to table 2 . Jesus had no house, no "table,"
that He could call His own. But all the Evangelists agree
that on one occasion, out in "the wilderness," He (so to speak)
extemporised a "table" for a hungry multitude. Mark and
Matthew add that He did this on a second occasion. John
relates that He did this, after the Resurrection, on a third
occasion. In the apocryphal Acts of John it is said that He
did this habitually for His disciples even when He and they
were in the house of a stranger.
There is a striking difference between Mark and Luke in
one of these traditions about Jesus and His disciples at their
common meal. Whereas Luke represents Jesus as. saying to His
disciples "Who is greater, he that sitteth at meat or he that
serveth [at table] ? . . . . But I am in the midst of you as he that
serveth [at table]," Mark represents Him as saying "The
Son of man came not to be served [at table] but to serve [at
table], and to give his life (or, soul) a ransom for many."
1 Is. Iviii. 10.
2 See, however, p. 360 foil., on Jn xiii. 29 "that he should give
something to the poor."
376 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Also the occasions differ. Luke places the words much later
than Mark, as being actually uttered at table, during the Last
Supper 1 .
John deals with these traditions in a simple, concrete, and
dramatic way. Perhaps he knew that Mark's noun "servant
[at table]," diaconos, or " deacon " omitted by Luke was liable
to be confused with the Christian official "deacon 2 ." At all
events he first uses the noun concerning the "servants [at
table] " in Cana who draw the water that becomes wine 3 . Then
he uses the verb concerning Martha's literal, homely, waiting
at table "Martha was serving [at table]*." Then, in the Temple
on the morrow, when Jesus has heard that "certain Greeks"
desire to see Him, there is a noteworthy change in the use of
the word. The Law of the spiritual Harvest, and of Life
through Death, is proclaimed as if it were also the Law of the
Feast, or Joy, or Table, in Heaven, at which Table no soul is
admitted to feast until it has first "waited," or "served," and
he that desires thus to "serve" must be willing to lose his life:
"He that loveth his life loseth (or, destroyeth) it, and he that
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If
any one is bent on serving me [at my table] let him follow me,
and where I am there also shall be my servant [that serves at
my table]. If any one is bent on serving me [at my table], him
will my Father honour 5 ."
This is the last Johannine instance of the word "serve
[at table] " either as noun or as verb, but John proceeds to
dramatize the thing by representing Jesus as actually "serving
[at table]," during the Last Supper, girding Himself with a
towel and washing the feet of the disciples. This no other
Evangelist has related. In previous parts of this series the
1 Mk x. 45, Lk. xxii. 27. 2 Proclam. p. 404.
3 Jn ii. 5, 9.
4 Jnxii. 2. Comp. Lk. x. 40 "Martha was distracted
about much serving [at table] (SiaKoviav)."
* Jn xii. 25 6. See Joh. Gr. 2552 c.
377 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
question has been discussed whether John's narrative of this
particular act of "serving at table" can be accepted as literally
true in spite of its omission by the Synoptists, and the opinion
was expressed that the event was probably historical even if
it did not occur on that particular occasion 1 . This opinion
has been confirmed by further study revealing, through many
sources, but especially through Mark and John, traces of early
passionate feeling, expressed in passionate words, concerning
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and details connected with it.
Some of these expressions might be omitted or softened in
later days.
40. The " kiss of love "
It is of the utmost importance that we, Christians, should
recall as far as possible this Christian passionateness, so far
as it came from Christ Himself. The details of the Miracles
of Feeding the "taking" and "blessing" and "breaking," and
the question whether the "breaking" may be metaphorical as
well as literal, meaning the dividing and distribution of the
word of God are all subordinate to the realisation of the
spirit of the common meal which we call the Eucharist, and to
the question of the origin of that spirit. Hence, in conclusion,
a few words of apparent digression from the Miracles of Feeding
in the Gospels to the thought of the Eucharist as it is discerned
in the Epistles, may really be no digression at all, but a return
to the essence of our subject. Now among the accompaniments
of the Eucharist (or of Christian gatherings) most frequently
mentioned in the Epistles is the "kiss." Paul speaks of "a
holy kiss," Peter of " a kiss of love" wherewith Christians are to
salute one another 2 . Whence did this spring?
1 See Son 327 '6 a (and Index, "Washing") and the references
there given.
2 Rom. xvi. 16, I Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 12, i Thess. v. 26, cv
(j)t\r]fj.aTi dyi(o (and COmp. I Pet. V. 14 V <pi\r)p.a.Ti dyaTnjs). The
meaning might be "with the holy kiss," or "the kiss of love."
The long article on " Kiss" in Smith's Diet. Antiq. ii. 902 6 contains
378 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
We find nothing alleged from Jewish or Gentile practice
that explains it 1 . It is true that Jesus is represented as saying
reproachfully to a Pharisee at whose table He is sitting as a
guest "Thou gavest me no kiss 2 "; but no commentator (so
far as I know) shews that the kiss was a mere courtesy among
the Jews a courtesy expected by guests from their host as a
matter of course. Has Luke been misled by the special
practice of Christians? Did Jesus introduce it among His
disciples as a sign that they belonged to the Family of God?
It was a practice open to obvious abuse. Only the earlier
Pauline Epistles and the first Epistle of Peter contain the
precept to salute after this fashion. Clement of Alexandria
complains of the abuse of it between the sexes 3 . Athenagoras
is said to quote an apocryphal precept of caution about it 4 .
no mention or suggestion of any Jewish or Gentile origin or precedent
for the Christian rite.
1 On Rom. xvi. 16 (on which Wetstein and Schottgen give no
help) Fritzsche has a long note, and Lightfoot has one on i Thess. v.
26. But they give no illustration from Jewish usage. Nor is there
any light thrown by Hamburger i. 685, or Levy iii. 453 4 where
different kinds of kisses are distinguished.
2 Lk. vii. 45. On this Hor. Heb. is silent, as also on i Cor. xvi. 20
"a holy kiss."
3 Clem. Alex. 301 "The shameless use of the kiss, which ought
to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and evil reports."
4 Athenagoras Legat. 32. This is important because if (as
the translator in Clark's translation suggests) Athenagoras is
quoting "probably from some apocryphal writing," the testimony
takes us back to a period even earlier, and perhaps much earlier,
than A.D. 177: "For the Logos again says to us 'If anyone kiss a
second time because it has given him pleasure, pie sins],' adding,
'Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the
greatest care (OVTWS ovv axpt^wcrao'&u ro 0tA?7/ztt /JLO\\OV Se TO TT po(T KVVT] ua
del) . . .'." Here the correction of "kiss" into Trpoo-Kui^/za, implying
an act of homage or "worship" (in the old English sense), and the
precept to "be precise about it (aKpifiwo-ao-dai)," prove that the author
of this early saying is referring to what Paul and Peter call "the holy
kiss" or " kiss of love." He seems to regard it as almost equivalent
to an act of homage or love to Christ, as the Lord and the Beloved,
379 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Athenagoras is defending the Christians against the chai
of practising promiscuous intercourse, and he declares that,
so far from doing this, they recognise fellow-believers as being
spiritually blood relations according to age, sons or daughters,
brothers or sisters, fathers or mothers ; and he bids us recognise
"the kiss or rather the obeisance" as the symbol of family
affection. Similarly the Jews, excusing the "kiss" given by
Jacob to Rachel, added to the three lawful kinds of kissing a
fourth, namely, the kiss between blood relations 1 . Now the
Synoptic Gospels tell us 'that Jesus introduced as it were a
relationship of blood between all His disciples, including them
in His own relations when He said "Who is my mother and my
brethren? And looking round on them that sat round about
him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren ! For who-
soever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and
sister, and mother 2 ."
The parallel Luke which has been discussed elsewhere 3
omits this last phrase where "sister" is added to "brother."
John has nothing of the kind verbally. But if, by "brother"
and "sister," we mean "beloved as a brother" and "beloved
as a sister," then we may say that by implication John did
not shrink from including sisters as well as brothers in the
newly instituted Family of Christ. He does this as usual in a
dramatic and concrete form. The sisters of Lazarus, he says,
"sent to Jesus, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is
paid invisibly to Him when paid visibly to the brethren and sisters
who are members of His Body.
1 See Gen. xxix. n and Gen. r. ad loc., also Exod. r. on Exod. iv.
27, and Levy iii. 453 b. The other three lawful kinds were (i) "the
kiss of magnifying (n^HJ) or glorifying," given by Samuel to Saul
(i S. x. i), (2) "the kiss of meeting [after long absence]" (Exod. iv.
27), (3) "the kiss of separation" (Ruth i. 14).
2 Mk iii. 33 5, Mt. xii. 48 50, comp. Lk. viii. 21.
3 The exact details of the parallelism are somewhat complicated.
See Proclamation p. 470 foil.
380 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
sick 1 ." Then he adds, "Now Jesus loved Martha and her
sister and Lazarus"; and he represents the tears of Martha's
sister as preceding, and in part causing, tears from Jesus, and
thus as preceding (and perhaps preparing for) the raising of
Lazarus 2 .
Lucian is the only writer of literary Greek quoted in the
Thesaurus as using the expression "salute with a kiss," and
the context shews how bad an impression the connection of
such a phrase with Christian worship might produce on
Gentiles 3 . Philo would certainly not have approved of it, for
he expatiates on the frequent falseness of this "superficial
welcoming," and is at great pains to distinguish the Greek,
philema, "kiss," literally "act of love," from philid, "love"
(or "friendship") 4 . Thus no Greek source presents itself for
this Christian custom. And we have seen above that no Jewish
source presents itself either, except in special conditions. We
are driven to the conclusion that in some way one or more of
those "special conditions" was fulfilled. Now one of these
"special conditions" was blood-relationship. That, as we
have seen, Christ might be said to have introduced among
1 Jn xi. 3.
2 Jn xi. 5, 33 foil.
3 See Lucian ii. 248 Alex. 41 (^tX^fiart da-Trd^a-6ai, and ot CVTOS TOV
<j)i\r)H(iTos, i.e. "those who were included in [the circle of those
honoured with] a kiss," about a monster of sensuality, named
Alexander. Possibly Lucian regarded Alexander as having borrowed
from the Christians (though Alexander was opposed to them) this
detail of their worship, and as having perverted it. A preceding
chapter (ib. 38) says that Alexander began his "mysteries" by pro-
claiming " Out with the Christians ! "
Reasons of seemliness may have combined with textual reasons
to induce John to omit the Synoptic tradition that Judas "betrayed
with a kiss (pB>3)." See Son 3326 c, and add Ps. cxl. 7 "day of
battle (pfcJO)," explained (Levy iii. 453 a) by some as "arming"
against the Messiah. This is more probable than the Greek cor-
ruption suggested in Paradosis 1365.
4 Philo i. 478 9 <tX?7/ia Se Sta^epei TOV (frtXclv . A "kiss" he calls
e rr ITT 6\aiov def-iaxriv.
381 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
His disciples. Another condition was consecration. This, too,
might be regarded as proceeding from Christ's lips when He
was present in the Eucharist. Another was either parting or
return after absence. This would be fulfilled with special
reality when Jesus, after the Resurrection, fulfilled His promise,
" I will see you again, and your joy no man taketh from you."
When He came thus to "see" them "again," it is said by John
that He "breathed into them" and said "Receive ye the Holy
Spirit 1 ." Perhaps this might be regarded as, in some sense,
the "kiss" of Christ. According to Jewish tradition, God
"kissed" Moses when He drew forth his soul in a peaceful
death 2 . That might be called a kiss of parting, the work of
life on earth being over. But the name might also be given to
the kiss of return, when the Lord prepared His disciples for
the work of the Gospel, touching their lips and comforting
their hearts with the kiss of the Holy Spirit. And the disciples,
having once received this kiss from their Master at their first
Eucharist after the Resurrection, may have henceforth passed
on the salutation from one to another at every Eucharist, as
being the kiss "of love" and "holy 3 ."
1 See Son 3623 g j on Jn xx. 22
2 Deut. xxxiv. 5 Jer. Targ. Miriam also (M. Kat. 28 a) died by
"God's kiss," Abraham (Test. Abr. 20) by kissing the hand of
the Angel of Death.
3 The thought of the philema, or "kiss," as proceeding from
Jesus leads us to the thought of the title philoi, or "friends," used
by Jesus about His disciples. Luke is the only one of the Synoptists
who represents Jesus as using it thus:
Mt. x. 27 8 Lk. xii. 3 4
"What ye hear in the ear, "What ye have spoken in
proclaim upon the housetops; the ear in the inner chambers
and be not afraid of them that shall be proclaimed upon the
kill the body " housetops; and / say unto you
my friends, Be not afraid of
them that kill the body "
In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus explains (Jn xv. 13 15) what He
means when He says to the disciples "Ye are my friends." Friend-
ship may imply dying for one's friend ("Greater love hath no man
382 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Even if we reject this explanation some of us may be
benefited by being compelled to confess that there is beneath
this ancient Christian rite something that needs to be explained.
The explanation, whatever it may be, appears to involve
the recognition of a personality in Jesus even more marvellous
than we had supposed. Many believe easily enough in Christ's
material miracles who do not realise His spiritual, social, and
(so to speak) revolutionary miracles wrought on human nature.
This "holy kiss" seems to represent a kind of high-water mark,
reached at one rush by the religion of Christ during the period
that followed His death, and perhaps to be reached again,
after an interval of many centuries hereafter, but in a different
way. Then it was reached by a visible Presence and an
audible Voice. Hereafter the Presence may be not visible,
and the Voice not audible, to the bodily sense. But in either
case the Spirit will be the same, human yet divine, cosmopolitan
yet homely, the Spirit of the Family of God breathed into God's
children by God's Son 1 .
than this") but such death is not a condition: "Ye are my friends
if ye do the things that I command you." The term "Caesar's
friend" was known to the mob (Jn xix. 12) in Jerusalem. Epictetus
uses it repeatedly in his lecture on Freedom (iv. i. 8 95) bidding
his pupils not to seek freedom by gaining admission to the circle of
" Caesar's friends " but (ib. 98) to " attach themselves to God." Luke's
tradition, taken with the context ("kill the body") enables us to
understand that there would be a tendency in the Christian Church
to call the martyrs " Christ's friends" in a special sense.
The conclusion of the Fourth Gospel (Jn xxi. 15 22) neutralises
such a tendency. It shews that Peter, the future Martyr on the
Cross, had no precedence in the matter of friendship, over the silent
disciple "whom Jesus loved." The proof of Peter's affection de-
manded by Jesus is not expressed in an imperative "Then die for
me," but in "Feed my sheep." In 3 Jn 14 (15), the expressions
"The friends salute thee," and "salute the friends," are probably
to be explained (from Jn xv. 14) as meaning "the friends of the Lord
[with me] " and " the friends of the Lord [with thee] " (not " my friends "
and " thy friends ") .
1 Attention has been called (Joh. Voc. 1697, and Index) to the
383 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
41. "Testament" or "Covenant"
The last two sections bear less directly on the miracles
feeding than on what appears to be their outcome. What
follows will depart still further from the miracles and will turn
itself toward the Eucharist. Not that we must permit our-
selves to discuss so important a subject here out of its place.
But in fact all the preceding forty sections have been leading
us up, through the words "Give ye them to eat," to the
question "What was Jesus Himself preparing to give us to
eat?" Consequently, in taking our leave of the miracles of
feeding, some reply to this question seems demanded.
fact that Mark never uses the word dydtrr]. Hernias, who frequently
resembles Mark, mentions dydtrr] as a virtue thrice, twice connect-
ing it with "understanding ((fjpovrjais) " : (Sim. ix. 17) "Having
therefore received the seal, they had one understanding, and one
mind, and their faith became one, and their love one," (ib. 18) "the
church of God shall be one body, one understanding, one mind, one
faith, one love." But he also uses it as a proper noun to denote the
last of the Angels that build up the Church (Vis. iii. 8 (bis], comp.
Sim. ix. 15). And here he regards it as proceeding "from Under-
standing," called 'ETTIOT^/JT;. 'Aydtrrj is called by the Greek Thesaurus
"a mere Biblical word (vox mere biblica)." In LXX it is almost
confined to Cant, and almost always has a sexual significance, but
the Wisdom of Solomon applies it to man's love of God (iii. 9) and says
that the beginning of wisdom is the desire of discipline, and (vi. 18)
" the care ($po/riy) of discipline is love, and love is the keeping of her
laws (dydrrrj rr)pT)<ris v6p.a>v avrrjs)." Comp. Jn XIV. 23 "if a man
love me he will keep (r^o-ei) my word."
The Fourth Evangelist does not mention the noun "love"
(Jn v. 42 "I know you, how that ye have not the love of God within
you ") till he has prepared his readers for it by connecting the verb
with God as loving (iii. 16, 35) "the world" and "the Son." After
that one mention of the noun, it is not mentioned again till the
night before the Crucifixion where it is, in effect, defined (xiii. 34 5,
xv. 9 foil.) as a unique love personified by Christ. The Gospel
manifests not only a spiritual struggle to express an inexpressibly
divine emotion, but also an intellectual attempt to rescue the word
dydirrj from its Old Testament associations.
384 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
We have seen above that John omits the words "Give ye
them to eat/' But we have been led to the conclusion that
they were part of the earliest form of the narrative. If that
is so, Jesus (we may suppose) was, even in those early days,
training the disciples to "give" to the multitude, as, later on,
He Himself was destined to "give" to the disciples in the
Eucharist. What was that "gift"? As to part of it, all the
Synoptists are agreed. They all tell us that He "gave" it
with the words "This is my body." About this we shall say
nothing here, since there is no disagreement. But as to
another part there is a difference. Mark and Matthew indis-
putably represent Jesus as connecting the words "my blood"
with a word (diatheke) variously translated by our English
Versions "covenant" or "testament," so that Jesus says
"This is the blood of my covenant (or, testament) 1 ." Luke,
in one version of his text, the one adopted by our Revised
Version, has "This cup is the new covenant (or, testament) in my
blood." But Westcott and Hort place this (and some of the
context) in double brackets, as not being a part of the original
text 2 . Thus we are led to narrow down our question about
the "gift" to a question, in the first place, as to the meaning
attached by Jesus to the word diatheke.
In LXX, the word diatheke occurs for the first time in
connection with the deluge by which God purposed to destroy
mankind but to spare Noah: "Everything that is in the earth
shall die, but I will establish my covenant with thee 3 ." The
1 Mk xiv. 24, Mt. xxvi. 28. Or the meaning may be (as R.V.)
"This is my blood of the covenant (or, testament)." The Greek is
TO alp,d JJLOV rrjs diaOrjKTjs.
2 Lk. xxii. 20. Curet. omits this. SS combines xxii. 17, 20
thus " . . .divide it among you ; this is my blood, the new testament."
For "testament" SS uses NpTlNH, a Syriac form of the Greek
dtadrjKTj, which is regularly used for "testamentary disposition,"
"will" (Thes. Syr. 873). The word for "covenant," e.g. with
Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc., is represented by Syr. \Sty\> = Heb.
(Thes. Syr. 3534).
3 Gen. vi. 17 18.
A. L. 385 (Mark vi. 29 44) 25
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Hebrew for "covenant" is berith, meaning "compact,"
"alliance," "league," "agreement," "pledge of friendship."
This is often well expressed by "covenant" as when Joshua
made a "covenant" with the Gibeonites at the time when he
was purposing to destroy the Canaanites 1 . But in the case of
Noah's berith, as also often elsewhere, Aquila and Symmachus
both substitute suntheke for diatheke 2 . And they appear to be
justified. For suntheke, in Greek, regularly has the meanings
of the Hebrew berith, that is, "compact," "agreement," etc. ;
diatheke has not. The regular meaning of diatheke outside
LXX and outside writings influenced by LXX is "last will
and testament*."
1 Josh. ix. 6 16, see Gesen. 136.
2 They also substitute <rw0r)Kr) for LXX 8iadr}<rj in Gen. xvii. 2
(the BER!TH with Abraham). There Jerome says "Notandum quod
ubicumque in Graeco testamentum legimus, ibi in Hebraeo sermone
sit foedus, sive pactum, id est BERITH." Field, on Is. Ivi. 6 (one of
the very few instances where Aq. and Sym. are recorded to have
used 8i,a6t)KTi) , says "Pro 8ia6r)KT)v juxta usum binorum interpretum
requiritur o-wQrjKrjv."
3 The only instance known to me of 8ia0r)Kr) meaning " agreement,"
in Greek outside the sphere of LXX influence, is one quoted by
Wetstein (on Mt. xxvi. 28) from Aristophanes (Av. 439). This is
mentioned by Lightfoot (on Gal. iii. 15) as one of "some few excep-
tions." Westcott, who writes later, does not add any of these
" exceptions " in his very long note on Diatheke in The Epistle to
the Hebrews. He says merely (p. 301) "The more general sense
of 'arrangement/ 'agreement' is also found (Arist. Av. 440)."
But Steph. Thes. gives no instance of "the more general sense"
except the one from Aristophanes.
Josephus (Ant. xvii. 3. 2, xvii. 9. 7, Bell. ii. 2. 3) not only uses
diatheke several times for a "will," but also avoids using it in the
phrase "the ark of the covenant," as, for example, in describing the
passage of the Jordan by Joshua, and the capture of Jericho, where
the phrase recurs frequently in Scripture. Justin Martyr, in his
Dialogue with the Jew, where he frequently quotes LXX, uses
SiadrjKr) more than thirty times; but in his Apology, addressed to
Greeks, he does not use it once ; De Monarch, ii. 3 quotes from the
Diathekai of Orpheus, apparently regarded as meaning " last instruc-
tions " a testamentary recantation. Hermas never uses diatheke.
386 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Philo affords conclusive evidence that the LXX applica-
tion of the Greek diatheke to the "covenants" of God with
Noah and Abraham caused difficulty to students of the
Greek text. Unfortunately his Greek comment on the berith
with Noah is lost. When referring, however, to the berith
with Abraham, he says "Diathekai are written for the sake
of those who are worthy of a free gift, so that a diatheke
is a symbol of grace 1 ." Then he says "About the whole
subject of diathekai I have written fully in two lectures, and
I pass over the subject to avoid repeating myself." But he
adds something that indicates (although briefly and obscurely)
a connection in his mind between the diatheke with Abraham
and the "inheritance" promised to Abraham 2 . "To one class
of men," he says, "God holds forth benefits through earth,
water, air, sun, moon, sky, [and] other incorporeal powers 3 ,
1 Philo i. 586 "a free gift (Scopeas)." This appears directed
against the view that the diatheke was a " compact," or " agreement."
As a fact, the Hebrew, berith, does mean "compact." But the
Greek 8ta6r)Krj does not.
2 It should be noted that the Hebrew verb "inherit (KH 11 )" occurs
for the first time in the Bible where God establishes His berith with
Abraham : Gen. xv. 3 8 " One born in my house shall inherit me. . .
shall not inherit thee ... he that shall come forth out of thine own
bowels shall inherit thee ... to give thee this land to inherit it. ...
Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" In the preceding
context, according to our R.V. text, God has promised Himself to
Abraham (xv. i) "I am. . .thy exceeding great reward." All this
is above the level of "compacts" and "agreements" in the ordinary
sense of the terms.
There is however no Hebrew noun whether derived from BT
or otherwise that represents the "bequeathing," or "testamentary
disposition," of an inheritance. The Heb. verb H1V, "give [testa-
mentary] instructions," is represented in Targ. by the Aram, verb
Ip2 in 2 S. xvii. 23, 2 K. xx. i, Is. xxxviii. i ; but the noun from
IpQ is not known to occur in Palestinian Aramaic, see below,
p. 390, n.
3 Philo i. 587. Comp. Gal. iv. 3 "We were in bondage under
the elements (o-rot^ela) of the world," where however a-Toi^do.
probably means " elements " in a metaphorical as well as in a literal
sqnse.
387 (Mark vi. 29 44) 25 2
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
but to another class through Himself alone, making Himself
the inheritance of those who receive Him." All this is based on
the utterance of God to Abraham, which Philo reads thus:
"And I, behold, [am] my diatheke with thee 1 ." He adds, as
comment, "Now this suggests the following meaning. Though
there are very many kinds of diatheke, bestowing kindnesses
(lit. graces) and free gifts on those who are worthy, yet the
highest kind of diathekai I MYSELF AM."
What Philo means and especially what he means by "free
gift" and "grace" can hardly be understood unless we
realise that by diatheke he means, not "covenant" but "testa-
ment." By a "testament" a man may leave gifts and legacies
to friends, servants, and dependants, but the highest form of
it is that by which a father leaves "his real estate" to his sofi,
who is to succeed him after the testator's death. God cannot
die. Nevertheless God makes Abraham His "heir," and be-
queaths to him, so to speak, His "real estate," His own personal
presence, Himself. This conclusion as to Philo's meaning is
confirmed by a Latin fragment of a comment of his on God's
diatheke with Noah: "In the case of men an inheritance trans-
mitted by them is possessed [by the heir then, and only then]
when the men themselves exist no longer but are dead. But
on the other hand God, since He is everlasting, concedes to
the wise a joint participation in the inheritance that He transmits
[to them while He is still living], and He rejoices at their
entering into possession of it 2 ."
1 Gen. xvii. 4 KOI e'yo> I8ov 17 8ia8r)Kr) p.ov /Atra crov. This may be
variously punctuated. Clem. Alex. 427 quotes iSov cy> (sic) tj
8ia6r)KT] pov /nera <rov as a proof that "Moses manifestly calls the
Lord a diatheke."
2 Philo Ouaest. in Gen. (on Gen. vi. 18 " I will establish my coven-
ant with thee"). The comment concludes as follows: "Secundo
ampliorem quandam largitur sapienti haereditatem. Non enim
dixit Ponamfoedus meum tibi, sed te : id est, Tu es justum verumque
foedus, quod statuam generi rational! pro possessione ac decore
quibus opus est virtu tis." I am unable to explain this. The
388 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
In this last passage, about the diatheke with Noah, we see
Philo apparently influenced, partly by the natural meaning of
the Greek word (namely, "testament"), and partly by the
thought of the subsequent diatheke with Abraham, so that he
imports into the transaction with Noah a meaning that the
Hebrew can hardly justify. As to the motives of the LXX in
using diatheke to render berith we cannot speak confidently.
It is possible that they avoided suntheke, the correct rendering,
because the thought of God as making a " compact " or " treaty"
with man seemed too anthropomorphic. In the illustrious
instances of Noah and Abraham, the LXX may have felt
justified in attempting to force into the Hebrew word some
higher thought taking diatheke to mean not exactly a "will"
but a "deed of gift." Then this precedent may have been
followed by them in subsequent instances, for consistency's
sake, where the Hebrew could not have that meaning.
At this stage, after these repeated mentions of "testament"
in Greek, before we pass to the Gospels, it will be well to ask,
"How would a Jew of the first century in Palestine express
himself in Aramaic, if he wished to say 'This is my last will
and testament' 1" The answer is important and to some it
may be surprising. The Jew could not possibly express this
by "This is my berith" any more than we in English could
express it by "This is my treaty." He would have to say
"This is my diatheke," using a Hebraized form of the Greek
word. Abundant instances of this use are given by Levy and
Krauss. Babylonian Jews might have used another word
(apparently of rare occurrence) ; but Palestinian Jews appear
to have had practically no other 1 .
heading of the comment is " Quid est Statuam foedus meum tecum ? "
The expression "I will give [i.e. appoint] thee for a covenant"
occurs in Isaiah xlii. 6, xlix. 8 ; but Philo hardly ever quotes prophecy,
and there is no various reading of te for tecum (or tibi) in renderings
of Gen. vi. 18.
1 See Levy, Levy Ch., Krauss, and Thes. Syr. on prVH or
389 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Now coming to the Epistles we perceive that the Epistle
to the Hebrews definitely says "For wherever there is a dia-
theke there the death of the maker-of-the-diatheke must of necessity
have its course (lit. be brought), for a diatheke [is as it were] based
on dead persons*." The Epistle to the Galatians takes the
diatheke with Abraham expressly out of the region of "law,"
and by implication out of the region of "compact," into the
region of "heirs" and "promise" and "faith," when, after
insisting on the unalterableness of a human diatheke 2 , it goes on
to say " A diatheke [such as that with Abraham] confirmed be-
forehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty
years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of
no effect.. . .But before faith came we were kept in ward under
the law. . . . And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
heirs according to promise*." In the light of these two passages
we perceive that elsewhere, when Paul speaks of God's diatheke
with Abraham he not only does not include the thought of
"compact," but excludes it and implies God's "free gift" (as
used passim for "a will." Levy iv. 88 a gives one
instance of the phrase "a writing of NmpD," i.e. "a writing of
last instructions," "a will," in Git. 50 b. But I am informed by
Dr A. Biichler that this is in a discussion of Babylonian scholars
and that he knows no instance of it in Palestinian Aramaic. Levy i.
404 quotes, inter alia, ] . Berach. v. 9 b, where God is represented as
saying that He gave the dew to Abraham "in a diatheke," where
Schwab has (p. 101) "C'est a litre immuable que j'en ai fait don a
Abraham" (comp. Gal. iii. 15 foil, on the unalterableness of the
diatheke with Abraham). But it means "deed of gift" in Gen. r., on
Gen. xxiv. 10 "All the good[s] of his master was in his hand," where
the comment is "This means a diatheke," i.e. a deed of disposition
by which Abraham, while still living, made over his property to his
servant in trust for Isaac. This is exceptional. Neither here nor
elsewhere do Levy's instances indicate that the Hebrew diatheke
was used to mean "bargain," "treaty," or "compact."
1 Heb. ix. 16 17.
2 Gal. iii. 15.
3 Gal. iii. 17 29.
390 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
Philo does) and the thought of a Father bequeathing an in-
heritance to sons 1 .
In dealing with the Law of Moses Paul labours under
great difficulties. The LXX so frequently calls it a diatheke
that Paul is obliged to do the same. But he explains it as a
testamentary disposition of an inferior character given to
Israel for a time almost as if he were Ishmael not Isaac
for "So long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a
bondservant 2 ." This diatheke is both old and new. Relatively
to the Christian diatheke, it is old and ready to be superseded.
Relatively to the Promise, it is "new," but not in a good
sense being the diatheke of Sinai, which "beareth children
unto bondage," a novel though necessary makeshift. It cannot
invalidate the ancient and unalterable diatheke of God be-
queathing Himself to Abraham His son and heir 3 .
1 Comp. Rom. ix. 4 "Whose is the adoption and the glory and
the diathekai," ib. xi. 27 "this is the diatheke from me to them
(comp. Is. lix. 21) when I shall takeaway their sins." The Epistle to
the Hebrews (viii. 8 10) quotes Jeremiah (xxxi. 31 3) as predicting
that God will make "a new diatheke" for Israel, "I will put my law
in their inward parts and in their heart will I write it, and I will be
their God, and they shall be my people." This is in Paul's mind
as the true diatheke, the fulfilment of the diatheke with Abraham and
Isaac "the heir." The diatheke of Sinai (Gal. iv. 24) "bearing
children unto bondage" is represented by Hagar. That, too, is a
legacy of a kind, since Ishmael is Abraham's child, but it is of an
inferior kind.
2 Gal. iv. i.
3 See 2 Cor. iii. 6 14 f)fJLas SLCIKOVOVS Kaivrjs 8LadrjKTjs...7T\ r?{
TTJS TraXaias dtadrjKrjs. Eph. ii. 12 eVot TO>V diadrjK&v rfjs
ias, appears to mean "strangers to the diatheke of the
promise to Abraham in all the forms in which it was given to him
and confirmed to his successors." For the remaining Pauline
instance "this is the new diatheke in my blood" see below, 42.
The instances in the Epistle to the Hebrews where both meanings
are intermixed are too frequent to be quoted.
391 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
42. "Testament" in the Gospels
Passing now to the Gospels we find that, apart from the
narratives of the Eucharist, their evidence is almost entirely
negative, since the word occurs but once, namely, in the Song
of Zacharias "To remember his holy diatheke, the oath that he
sware unto our father Abraham 1 ." Jesus repeatedly speaks of
" the law," but never of the diatheke of God, either with Abraham,
or with Israel at Mount Sinai. Nor does any evangelist use
the word, when writing in his own person.
In the accounts of the Eucharist the texts vary greatly.
The Revised Version gives a longer Lucan text including a
phrase that contains the word diatheke, and closely agreeing
with a Pauline passage that includes the same phrase 2 . West-
cott and Hort give a shorter Lucan text omitting the phrase
and containing no mention of diatheke*. Also, in Mark and
Matthew, Westcott and Hort reject "new" as applied to
diatheke. The Revised Version, although it says that "some
ancient authorities" insert new in Mark, and that "many"
insert it in Matthew, nevertheless does not itself insert new in
either Gospel.
This omission of "new" makes all the difference in the
interpretation of diatheke. If "new" had been part of the
text, we might have supposed the meaning to be "This is my
blood of the New Covenant, or the blood of my New Covenant,
as distinguished from the blood of the Old Covenant which was
given to Israel on Mount Sinai." Even with the addition
of "new," such a doctrine would seem abrupt and almost
startling especially in view of the fact that Jesus is not
1 Lk. i. 72 3.
2 Lk. xxii. 20 "This cup is the new diatheke in my blood," comp.
i Cor. xi. 25.
3 W.H. pass from Lk. xxii. 19 "This is my body" to Lk. xxii. 21
"But behold, the hand. . . ," bracketing "that is given for you. . .
that is shed for you."
392 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
recorded in any Gospel to have ever previously mentioned the
word thus interpreted "covenant," either to the multitude
or to the disciples. But, without the addition of "new," the
meaning "covenant" seems quite impossible.
That being the case, we are led to accept, as probable, an
explanation based on the demonstrated meaning of the Pales-
tinian Aramaic word diatheke, namely, "last will and testament."
There may possibly have been some allusion to, the diatheke in
Sinai 1 . But much more probably there was no allusion at all
to that or to anything else in the Old Testament. It was an
utterance of personal affection and of divine conviction. Using
the language habitual in Palestine, Jesus said to His disciples,
"This is the blood that signifies my death and yet not my
severance from you. This is the blood of my last will and
testament in which, though dying, I bequeath to you my life
and presence in perpetuity 2 ."
Here we must add that although Mark and Matthew do
not represent Jesus as speaking of a "new diatheke" in con-
nection with "cup" or "blood," they do represent Him as
using the word "new" in connection with the act of drinking
1 Comp. Exod. xxiv. 8 I8ov TO alpa rfjs SiaQrjKrjs 779 Sie'tfero Kvptos
rrpos v/j,as Trepl 7rdvT<ov TWV \6y(ov TovTtov, These words Christians
would naturally connect with Christ in after times, as they are
connected in Heb. ix. ig, 20 etc. And the tradition peculiar to
Luke and added by him a little later on (xxii. 29) K.aya> diaridfj,ai
fyui/.../3a<nXeiai/ (perhaps referring to the crown to be gained by the
blood of martyrdom) may be an allusion to the 8iadfjKT] of Sinai.
But the words of Institution seem best interpreted as a simple,
direct, non-allusive and personal utterance in which Jesus be-
queathed Himself to His disciples.
2 This conclusion rejecting the word "new" is compatible
with a grateful acknowledgment of the value of the Pauline
tradition (i Cor. xi. 23 "received from the Lord") concerning the
meaning of the Eucharist, as being something that was to be " done
in remembrance " of the Lord, and also concerning the relation of it,
as a "new" and higher "testament," to the old and inferior one.
But the Pauline tradition has no claim to be regarded as more
faithful than that of Mark and Matthew to Christ's original words.
393 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
from a "cup" at the Eucharist 1 . The parallel Luke, thougl
in other respects closely similar to Mark and Matthew, omits
"new 2 ." John therefore is bound (according to the Rule of
Johannine Intervention) to insert something about "newness,"
equivalent from a Johannine point of view to what Mark
and Matthew have about "not drinking from the offspring
of the vine" until Jesus shall "drink it new" in "the
kingdom of God" (or, as Matthew has it, "the kingdom of
my Father").
Starting, then, from the Synoptic "offspring of the vine,"
we ask for some equivalent in John. Origen, when com-
menting on "the offspring of the vine," in Matthew, asks
"What vine?" He replies (from John) "That vine of which
He Himself [i.e. Jesus] was the figure, saying / am the Vine,
ye the branches. Whence He says again My blood is truly
1 Mk xiv. 25
Verily I say unto
you, I will no more
Lk. xxii. 1 8
For I say unto
you, I will not drink
from henceforth of
Mt. xxvi. 29
But I say unto
you, I will not drink
drink of the offspring henceforth of this
of the vine, until that offspring of the vine, the offspring of the
day when I drink it until that day when vine, until the king-
new in the kingdom I drink it new with dom of God shall
of God. you in my Father's come,
kingdom.
The columns follow R.V., except in rendering yivr^ia "offspring"
instead of "fruit." The formula for "blessing over the wine" was
Berach. 35 a (Mishna) "Blessed [is] He that created the fruit (ns)
of the vine," and the usual Greek for na is Kapiros. But in
Deut. and Isaiah it is sometimes rendered -yeV^a.
2 Luke has also a corresponding utterance of Jesus about
"eating," peculiar to his Gospel (xxii. 16) "I will assuredly
not eat it [where "it" refers to (xxii. 15) "this Passover"] until
it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." There, too, Luke omits
"new."
The importance attached to "the cup" may be illustrated by
the tradition in Pesach. 106 a "The Rabbis said that (Exod. xx. 8)
Remember the Sabbath meant Remember it over the wine." This
"remembering" was a part of the "Hallowing of the Sabbath,"
a domestic rite known to have been practised before, and pro-
bably long before, the days of Hillel and Shammai.
394 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
drink. . . . For truly He ' washed His robe in the blood of the
grape 1 . ' '
Now all would agree that the blood of Jesus represents His
"love" ("greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends 2 "). And the love of Jesus
is regarded in the Fourth Gospel as a new kind of love. At
the conclusion of His prayer to the Father for the disciples,
Jesus says that He will make the Father's name known to
them, "that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in
them, and I in them 3 "; and He has previously denned this
love in "a new commandment" to the disciples. Their love
is to be like His love: "A new commandment give I unto
you, that ye love one another even as I have loved you, that
ye also love one another 4 ."
Does not this "new commandment," in John, correspond
to the "new wine," in Mark and Matthew? That the epithet
"new" is emphatic is confirmed, not only by the context, but
also by the play on "new" and "old" in the Johannine Epistle 5 ,
and by the fact that, apart from narrative, this is the only
instance of the epithet in the whole of the Fourth Gospel 6 .
Some may object that "commandment" implies constraint.
"Love," they may sa}^, "must not be commanded." That is
not an objection that would be felt to be a serious one by John
or by any spiritually-minded Jew, who would accept as God's
gifts the two "great" commandments of the Law. God's
1 Origen Levit. Horn. vii. 2 (Lomm. ix. 292 3) quoting Mt. xxvi.
29, Jn xv. 5, vi. 55, Gen. xlix. n. Comp. Didach. 9 "First, about
the cup : We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy Vine of
David thy servant (rraidos), which thou madest known to us
through Jesus thy servant (irtuSos)."
2 Jn xv. 13. 3 Jn xvii. 26.
4 Jn xiii. 34. There would be nothing "new" in the com-
mandment "love your neighbours," or "love one another," but
there was something "new" in the kind of love.
5 The commandment was (i Jn ii. 7) "not new" and yet (ib. 8)
"on the other hand new."
6 Jn xix. 4 "a new tomb" is the only other instance.
395 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
commandments are affectionate imperatives, like the Pauline
paraphrase "Be ye reconciled unto God 1 ." They come to us
appealing for love love toward God the Father, and love
toward men the brethren. And, coming to us through the
Son, they convey to us, if we will receive them in the Spirit
of the Son, a power to respond to the appeal. Hence, in the
Fourth Gospel, a "commandment" is regarded as something
"given" by the Father to the Son, and even as being "eternal
life 2 ." The final mention of the word by Jesus indicates, so
to speak, an appropriation of the Commandment of Love by
the Son: "This is my very own commandment, that ye love
one another 3 ." By using "commandment" and not the am-
biguous diatheke, John avoids all notion of "covenanting" or
" bargaining," And yet he also avoids any expressions that
imply unconditional "giving" to those who are incapable of
"receiving" the gift.
No Gospel inculcates more consistently than the Fourth
the necessity of something real at heart and spiritually solid,
incompatible with nebulous mysticism or inflated bubbles of
profession. Conditions of act as well as thought are not only
expressed but also reiterated. "If ye have love one to
another," and "If ye do that which I command you," are but
two out of many specimens 4 . Our expectation, then, that
John would intervene so far as concerns the Marcan tradition,
certainly omitted by Luke, about the "newness" of the wine
that was to be drunk by Jesus after His death appears to
be justified. We have no right to push our expectation
further and to claim that John should intervene about the
Marcan diatheke to tell us whether it meant "testament" or
1 2 Cor. v. 20.
2 Jn xii. 49, 50.
3 Jn xv. 12. On the emphasis of fj eWoAj) 17 epfj see Joh. Gr.,
Index erf.
4 See eav in Jn xiii. 17, 35, xiv. 15, 23, xv. 7, 10, 14.
396 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
"covenant." For, as we have seen, it is not certain that
Luke omits this word.
Nevertheless we may say with confidence that, all through
Christ's Last Discourse and Last Prayer, John is endeavouring
to set before us the Son as playing (so to speak) the part of a
Testator in behalf of the Father. In the Father's name, He is
bequeathing Himself to mankind. The difficulty pointed out
by Philo that God the Father cannot die, so as to make a
"testament" in the ordinary way disappears in the Person
of the incarnate Son. The Son could die. Since He could die
He could make a "testament" as Mark and Matthew apparently
say that He did. The difficulty for John, therefore, consisted,
not in the actual words of Jesus, but in the interpretations of
them by Christians, who might confuse "testament" with
"covenant," or might give to both terms formal and unspiritual
significations.
In the Fourth Gospel this danger is avoided partly by
negative means by avoiding the word "testament." But far
more importance attaches to the positive means the intro-
duction of a substitute that could not possibly be reduced to
the level of a technical term. This substitute which reminds
us of the promise to Abraham as interpreted above, "And
I, behold, [am] my diatheke with thee" is a personal Testa-
ment, a Paraclete, an Alter Ego, or Second Self, who is
to represent the Son after His departure and to recall the
Son's acts and words and strengthening presence, with in-
creased power. Thus, without hearing from His lips any
such words as "This is my testament," we see Jesus revealed
to us in this Gospel as standing in the midst of His troubled
followers on the eve of His departure from them, and be-
stowing on them a Testament of a new kind, no less "new"
than His love. It is a Testament indeed yet not a writing.
It is a spiritual Friend sent to take His place in their orphaned
hearts, and to breathe into them the assurance that although
absent He is present and that they are not orphans in the
397 (Mark vi. 2944)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
comfort of His perpetual presence: "Peace I leave unto you,
my own peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth give
I unto you." "I will not leave you orphans; I come unto
you 1 ."
In the preceding remarks about the language of the Eucharist
nothing has been said about the fact that this language was
misunderstood as early as the days of Nero, and gave rise to
accusations against the Christian religion that were credited
by all classes, educated as well as uneducated. Tacitus,
writing about Nero's persecution of the Christians, calls them
"hateful because of their shameful crimes," guilty of "hatred
of the human race," practising "a deadly superstition," and
deserving of "the severest punishments" and this even in
Rome, "the resort of all things abominable and shameful 2 ."
Suetonius perhaps assumes all this when he more briefly says
that Nero, along with other measures of wholesome reform,
"punished Christians, a class of men given up to a new and
maleficent superstition 3 ."
We have evidence as to the nature of the "shameful crimes
(flagitia) " imputed to the Christians by everybody and believed
in by Tacitus. In large measure, they sprang out of distorted
reports of the Christian Eucharist, which was regarded as a
"Thyestean banquet 4 ." Thyestes fed on the flesh of his own
son. The language of Christians describing the Father as giving
the flesh and blood of the Son for the life of the world, could
easily be taken literally even by honest pagans, and still more
1 Jn xiv. 27, 18.
2 Tac. Ann. xv. 44.
3 Suet. Ner. 16.
4 See Athenagoras (before 177 A.D.) 3 "Three things are alleged
against us, atheism, Thyestean feasts, CEdipodean intercourse."
Atheism would be inferred from the refusal of Christians to worship
the Greek and Roman gods, CEdipodean intercourse might be
inferred from mystical language about the Church as the Bride of
the Son.
398 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
easily by enemies and spies. The Second Apology of Justin
Martyr mentions the charge of feasting on human flesh in con-
nection with "mysteries of Cronos 1 ." "Thyestean banquets"
are mentioned both by Athenagoras and by the Elders of the
Church of Lyons (writing about the persecution under Verus)
in such a way as to shew that they were accusations of long
standing 2 . Such "banquets" are almost certainly included in
the "shameful crimes" mentioned by Tacitus.
How could the Fourth Evangelist deal with falsehoods of
this kind, while still preserving unimpaired the spiritual reality
expressed in the passionate language of the Eucharist as pro-
ceeding from Christ : "This is my body," "This is my blood"?
To an educated Greek, like Plutarch, such language might
suggest the omophagiai that is, the "eatings of raw flesh (or,
living creatures)" practised in their "mysteries" by some of
the worshippers of Bacchus 3 . No doubt a Bacchic dance seems
to us a thing that could not conceivably be connected even by
the bitterest foes of the Christians with the celebration of the
Eucharist. But the Acts of John takes a different view. On the
night before the crucifixion, it tells us, Jesus bade the disciples
form a circle, Himself standing in the centre, and they " danced "
round Him in response to His "dancing 4 ." If a Christian
1 Justin Mart. 2 Apol. 12, mentioning Kpovov p.va-Trjpta, i.e.
sacrifices of children (connected in the Bible with Moloch).
2 Euseb. v. i. 14, and see Iren. Fragm. 13.
3 Plutarch, De Defect. Orac. 14 (Mor. 4170) copras 8e /cat dvaias
. . . ev als o) p. o (fray la i KOL ia<T7racr/Lioi . . ,deS)v p,ev ovdevl dai/j.6va)v de (pavXcov
jcraip av reAeI0-0cu. This is the earliest mention of
given by Steph. Thes. The next is from Clem. Alex. 12
" The bacchanals hold their orgies in honour of the frenzied Dionysus,
celebrating their sacred frenzy by the eating of raw flesh, and go
through the distribution of the parts of butchered victims...."
Plutarch does not mention "Dionysus" as Clement does, but says,
in effect, that sucn rites, even if nominally consecrated to a god,
were really addressed to demons.
4 Acts of John, ii 12 mentions ^opeuw and x9P ' ia seven times,
besides 6ov,ai and (TKipra<.
399 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
" ' " - .. i ...--.. .
Gnostic could write thus about the Christian Eucharist, might
not a Roman historian like Tacitus, or a literary Greek like
Plutarch, be excused for going a little further and for supposing
that the Christians practised a "mystery" in which they
actually tore to pieces and devoured human flesh?
Until we realise the fact that from the days of Luke to those
of Tertullian Christians in the arena were scoffed at in torture
and death, as being monsters who butchered little children and
"left a bite in their bloodstained bread 1 ," we shall not realise
the task set before the author of the Fourth Gospel. Luke
had greatly altered the language of Eucharistic Institution
perhaps by paraphrase, or perhaps, if the longer text is
altogether rejected, by omission; but he had written nothing
bearing on the Eucharist in a positive way so as to vindicate
the Christians from an accusation that seemed no less true to
the accusers than it seems absurd to us.
What was needed was some expansion and full explanation of
that which Jesus actually did say, something that might compel a
dispassionate and educated Greek or Roman reader like Plutarch
or Pliny, to confess: "After all, it seems that this man Christus
did not mean 'flesh' literally. He was not speaking calmly ; he
was not speaking like a philosopher; he did not preserve a
calm tranquillity as Socrates did up to the very moment of
drinking the hemlock; he seems to have lost his presence of
mind when face to face with death ; but at all events he did not
encourage his followers to tear and devour human flesh."
John, on the other hand, does seem to have included in
his Gospel some such vindication of the Christians. He places
it, however, not on the night preceding the Crucifixion but long
before. And he does it in an indirect and unexpected way. He
represents Jesus as actually using language that Gentiles might
naturally take in a literal sense as referring to omophagia and
this, in an atmosphere of calm when there was no thought of
1 Tertull. Apol. 7, Ad Nat. i. 7.
400 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
impending death. Later on, when death does actually impend,
he represents Jesus as using no such language ; for then, on the
night before His death, His thoughts turn not on Himself, nor
on the immortality of His own soul (like the thoughts of
Socrates) but on the future welfare of the disciples to whom
He is bequeathing His legacy of love. But here, at this earlier
stage, Jesus utters fervent and strange language strange to
Jews as well as to Greeks and Romans about "feeding" on
His "flesh" and "blood," to express in metaphor the trans-
ference from Himself to others of a vital and vitalising
personality. " Flesh and blood," among the Jews, was a phrase
representing human weakness as contrasted with divine strength.
The Son of God had taken upon Himself, or into Himself,
human weakness human "flesh" and human "blood" in
order to transmit it to the sons of men as divine strength,
according to the word of God "My strength is made perfect in
weakness."
At the same time John does not conceal from us the fact
that this metaphor was misunderstood even from the first,
not only by Jews in general but also by Christ's own disciples.
Jesus Himself perceives this misunderstanding but will not on
that account soften or attenuate the truth. His disciples must
rise up to it. He will not draw it down to them: "It is the
spirit that quickeneth. The flesh profiteth nothing. The
words that I have spoken unto you are [indeed] spirit and are
[indeed] life 1 ."
Coming as they do after the exclamation "How can this
man give us his flesh to eat? " and after the explanation given
by Jesus which the disciples still find difficult, the words "the
flesh profiteth nothing" seem intended to have a twofold
meaning. Jesus seems to mean, not only, "the fleshly or material
view of things is unprofitable," but also "the flesh about which I
spoke to you when I said ' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
1 Jn vi. 63.
A. L. 401 (Mark vi. 29 44) 26
CHRIST'S MIRACLES OF FEEDING
man ' this, in a literal sense, and regarded materially, is of no
profit." But this must be admitted to be doubtful. What is
hardly doubtful or at all events cannot be dismissed as im-
probable is the conclusion that the Johannine version of
Christ's discourse, taken in its context, and with an apprecia-
tion of the circumstances, was adapted to open the eyes of
any educated Greek or Roman to the falsity of the popular
charge against the Christians that they celebrated in their
mysteries "Thyestean feasts" and fed on the "raw flesh" of
human beings.
ADDENDUM
The connection between the Synoptic doctrine of the Sacrifice
on the Cross and the Johannine doctrine of the Living Bread is
illustrated by the following hymn:
To sacrifice, to share,
To give as Jesus gave,
For others' wants to care,
Not our own lives to save,
This is the Living Bread
Which cometh down from heaven,
Wherewith our souls are fed,
The pure, immortal leaven.
The hidden Manna this,
Whereof who eateth, he
Grows up in perfectness
Of Christlike symmetry.
Who seeks this bread shall be
Nor stinted nor denied :
Our hungry souls in thee
O Christ, are satisfied !
From The St Olave's Hymnal, p. 379 (Lucv LARCOM).
402 (Mark vi. 29 44)
CHAPTER IX
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
[Mark vi. 45 52]
i. The sequel of the Feeding of the Five Thousand 1
CHRIST'S Walking on the Sea is not related by Luke. Con-
sequently, so far as concerns the Rule of Johannine Intervention,
1 For convenience of reference, R.V. is given at full length
below, as usual, but in detailed comment it is frequently departed
from. In Mt. xiv. 24, R.V. marg. "many furlongs" etc. (which is
W.H. txt) is accepted as probably correct.
Mk vi. 45 52
(45) And straight-
way he constrained
his disciples to enter
into the boat, and to
go before [him] unto
the other side to
Bethsaida, while he
himself sendeth the
multitude^ away.
(46) And after he
had taken leave of
them, he departed
into the mountain to
pray.
(47) And when
even was come, the
boat was in the midst
of the sea, and he
alone on the land.
(48) And seeing
them distressed in
rowing, for the wind
was contrary unto
them, about the
fourth watch of the
night he cometh unto
them, walking on the
sea ; and he would
have passed by them :
(49) But they,
Mt. xiv. 22 33
(22) And straight-
way he constrained
the disciples to enter
into the boat, and to
go before him unto
the other side, till he
should send the mul-
titudes away.
(23) And after he
had sent the multi-
tudes away, he went
up into the mountain
apart to pray: and
when even was come,
he was there alone.
(24) But the boat
was now in the midst
of the sea (some anc.
auth. was many fur-
longs distant from
the land), distressed
by the waves; for
the wind was con-
trary.
(25) And in the
fourth watch of the
night he came unto
them, walking upon
the sea.
(26) And when
Jn vi. 15 2i
(15) Jesus there-
for perceiving that
they were about to
come and take him
by force, to make
him king, withdrew
again into the moun-
tain himself alone.
(16) And when
evening came, his
disciples went down
unto the sea;
(17) And they
entered into a boat,
and were going over
the sea unto Caper-
naum. And it was
now dark, and Jesus
had not yet come to
them.
(18) And the sea
was rising by reason
of a great wind that
blew.
(19) When there-
fore they had rowed
about five and
twenty or thirty fur-
longs, they behold
Jesus walking on the
403 (Mark vi. 45 52) 26 2
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
we are spared the necessity of examining Mark's text, phrase
Mk vi. 45 52
contd.
when they saw him
walking on the sea,
supposed that it was
an apparition, and
cried out :
(50) For they all
saw him, and were
troubled. But he
straightway spake
with them, and saith
unto them, Be of
good cheer : it is I ;
be not afraid.
(51) And he went
up unto them into
the boat; and the
wind ceased : and they
were sore amazed in
themselves ;
(52) For they
understood not con-
cerning the loaves,
but their heart was
hardened.
Mt. xiv. 22 33
contd.
the disciples saw him
walking on the sea,
they were troubled,
saying, It is an ap-
parition ; and they
cried out for fear.
(27) But straight-
way Jesus spake unto
them, saying, Be of
good cheer ; it is I ;
be not afraid.
(28) And Peter
answered him and
said, Lord, if it be
thou, bid me come
unto thee upon the
waters.
(29) And he said,
Come. And Peter
went down from the
boat, and walked
upon the waters, to
come (some anc. auth.
and came) to Jesus.
(30) But when he
saw the wind (many
anc. auth. add strong) ,
he was afraid ; and
beginning to sink, he
cried out, Lord, save
me.
(31) And imme-
diately Jesus stretch-
ed forth his hand,
and took hold of him,
and saith unto him,
O thou of little faith,
wherefore didst thou
doubt ?
(32) And when
they were gone up
into the boat, the
wind ceased.
(33) And they
that were in the boat
worshipped him, say-
ing, Of a truth thou
art the Son of God.
Jn vi. 15 21
contd.
sea, and drawii
nigh unto the boat
and they we
afraid.
(20) But he sail
unto them, It is I
be not afraid.
(21) They were
willing therefore to
receive him into the
boat: and straight-
way the boat was at
the land whither they
were going.
404 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
by phrase, to note what Luke alters or omits. There are,
however, reasons why Marcan details should not be passed over.
In particular, the introduction to the Walking on the Sea, that
is to say, the sequel of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, claims
attention, because it marks a line where Luke breaks away from
Mark and Matthew and leaves them altogether for a considerable
interval.
This interval may be called the Period of Suspense. It
begins shortly after the execution of John the Baptist and
lasts till the Confession of Peter and the Transfiguration, when
Jesus definitely resolves to go up and meet the end in Jeru-
salem. During this interval Jesus seems to have become an
object of suspicion to Herod Antipas, who feared that Jesus
might attempt to avenge the Baptist's death ; unpopular with
the multitude, because He did not attempt to avenge it;
and disappointing to many of His own disciples, who found
Him unpractical and fanciful, departing from all the precedents
of the ancient Deliverers of Israel, and failing to satisfy their
Messianic expectations. This part of His life He spent
(according to Mark and Matthew) moving about from place to
place in North Palestine, reaching Tyre and Sidon on the West,
and finally Caesarea on the East, a city in the tetrarchy of
Philip, which was called distinctively Caesarea Philippi. Here
he was not under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, nor under
that of Pilate, and here it was that He received the confession
of Peter and, shortly afterwards, resolved to go up to Jerusalem 1 .
1 Luke (ix. 51 3) represents Christ's resolution to go up to Jeru-
salem as a reason why Samaritans rejected Him. But this would
call forth the zeal of Jewish disciples and followers (comp. ib. 57) ;
and some one, not a follower, is described (ib. 49 50) as casting out
devils in His name and as being " not against " Jesus. The preceding
disputes of the disciples about supremacy (ib. 46) shew that they
believed Him to be about to assert the claims of the Son of David.
The appeal "thou Son of David" is recorded by all the Synoptists
as uttered when Jesus passed through Jericho on His way to Jerusalem
(Mk x. 46) "with his disciples and a great multitude." All this
405 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
Then He appears to have regained His popularity with tl
multitude, but the rulers of the Jews feared and hated
more than ever.
Luke tells us nothing of all these wanderings in Nortl
Palestine. But he gives us glimpses of reasons that might
cause them. When rumours arose about Jesus as the Baptist'?
successor, Luke tells us significantly that Herod "sought
see" Him 1 . The Pharisees also, in Luke, warn Jesus, "Get
thee out" presumably from Galilee or Peraea " and go hence,
for Herod would fain kill thee 2 ." And Luke has previously
said "There were some present at that very time who brought
word to him [i.e. Jesus] about the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate
had mingled with their sacrifices 3 ." This implies a warning
against going into Pilate's jurisdiction. But Luke describes
Jesus as rejecting both warnings, and as persevering in His
resolution to go up to the City, "because it is not possible that
a prophet should perish out of Jerusalem 4 ."
None of these details, whether those peculiar to Mark and
Matthew or those peculiar to Luke, are mentioned by John 5 .
But he throws light on the period as a whole by telling us that
the multitude sought to make Jesus "king" and that Jesus
"withdrew" from them 6 . Thus he makes us see both why
Herod Antipas would suspect Jesus and why the multitude
would be disappointed in Him. At the same time we receive
the impression that the radical cause of Christ's unpopularity
indicates that from the time when Jesus decided to go to Jerusalem
He regained popularity.
1 Lk. ix. 9. 2 Lk. xiii. 31.
3 Lk. xiii. i. 4 Lk. xiii. 33.
5 In almost all the passages where John mentions Judaea it is
as a region from which Jesus departs to avoid the jealousy of the
Jews (iv. 3, rep. 47, 54), or to avoid persecution (vii. i), or to which
He proposes to return at the peril of His life (xi. 7). The only
exception (and a very strange one) is where His brethren say (vii. 3)
"go to Judaea."
6 Jn vi. 15.
406 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
and of the withdrawal of almost all His disciples was the
mysterious and personal character of His teaching. To spiritual
incompatibility John attributes the attempts to kill Jesus,
which all emanate from "the Jews," that is, in effect, the
rulers of the people, to whom Christ's "word" was not a
"seed" but "a stone of stumbling 1 ."
As regards the details of the narrative of the Walking on the
Sea, although there is no parallel Luke to occupy us, there are
important deviations of Matthew and John from Mark which
(besides being interesting in themselves) may explain why
Luke omitted the whole. The narrative seems to suggest a
spiritual storm of doubt and temptation besetting the disciples,
besides describing a material storm of wind and waves. And
we shall find Matthew intensifying this aspect of doubt and
temptation by introducing a story (not mentioned by Mark)
of Peter attempting to walk on the waves and failing because
he doubted. But before discussing these matters it will be
well to have before us a summary of all the Mark-Matthew
traditions from which Luke, at this point, breaks away. They
constitute what may be entitled "Christ's journeying in North
Palestine."
2. Christ's journeying in North Palestine
After the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Mark, Matthew
and John agree that Jesus went up "into the mountain," and
that He was there "alone." Mark and Matthew add (but
John does not) that He went thither "to pray." Luke's next
words do indeed mention "praying" and "alone" but not
1 Jn v. 18, vii. i 35. Incompatibility is implied in viii. 37
"Ye seek to kill me because my word hath not free course in you."
Comp. Wisd. ii. 13 14 "He professeth to have the knowledge of
God and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to
reprove our thoughts."
407 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
"mountain," and they are parallel, not to the Marcan traditi<
under consideration, but to one that comes much later:
Mk viii. 27
And Jesus came-
Mt. xvi. 13
But Jesus having
Lk, ix. 1 8
And it came
forth and his dis- come into the parts of pass when he vn
ciples into the villages Caesarea Philippi.... praying alone....
of Caesarea Philippi^
and on the way....
Before this mention of "Caesarea Philippi," and after the
Feeding of the Five Thousand, Mark mentions other places
which it will be convenient to enumerate here:
Mk vi. 45
He constrained
his disciples to enter
into the boat and to
go before [him] unto
the other side to Beth-
saida...
Mt. xiv. 22
He constrained
the disciples to enter
into the boat and to
go before him unto
the other side...
There are no parallels to the following :-
Mk vi. 53 Mt. xiv. 34
They came to the They came to the
Jn vi. 1 6 17
His disciples went
down unto the sea
and they entered in-
to a boat and were
going over the sea
unto Capernaum....
Lk. om.
land, unto
aret...
Gennes-
land,
aret.
unto Gennes-
This is closely followed, in Mark, by a mention of Jesus as
going into "villages and cities," and healing, and subsequently
rebuking the Pharisees and teaching the multitude. Then, it is
said, more definitely :
Mk vii. 24 Mt. xv. 21 Lk. om.
But from thence And Jesus came
he arose and went out thence, and with-
away into the borders drew into the parts
of Tyre [and Sidon] 1 . of Tyre and Sidon.
1 "And Sidon" is bracketed by W.H.
408 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
Jesus is here in the region entered by Elijah when the Lord
said to him "Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to
Zidon . . . behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to
sustain thee" ; but whereas Elijah was sustained by the woman,
Jesus, metaphorically, feeds a woman with what are described
as "the children's crumbs 1 ." Then Jesus returns to the sea of
Galilee.
Mk vii. 31
And again having
come forth from the
borders of Tyre he
came through Sidon 2
to the sea of Galilee
through the midst of
the borders of Deca-
polis.
Mt. xv. 29
And having de-
parted thence Jesus
came by* the sea of
Galilee; and having
gone up to the
mountain he sat
there.
Lk. om.
Mark next relates the healing of "one that was deaf," and
the Feeding of the Four Thousand, after which it is said:
Mk viii. 10
And straightway
he entered into the
Mt. xv. 39
And he... entered
into the boat and
boat with his disciples came into the borders
and came into the of Magadan,
parts of Dalmanutha.
Lk. om.
1 See i K. xvii. 9 and Lk. iv. 25 6. Commenting on Lk., Origen
says that the famine was a famine for the word of God, and that the
widow was the same that is called by Isaiah (liv. i) "deserted,"
meaning the type of the Gentile Church. Then he adds, "Thou
wast a widow in Sarepta of Sidonia, from whose borders there
cometh forth the Canaanitish woman and desireth to have her
daughter healed, and, on account of [her] faith, earned that which
she sought," thus alluding to Mt. xv. 22, parall. to Mk vii. 26.
2 "Through Sidon." A.V. has "And again, departing from the
coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came. ..."
3 "By (Trapa) the sea."
409 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
In the next parallels, a journey on water presumabl
across the sea of Galilee is implied by Mark but not by
Matthew :
Mk viii. 13 i4(//V.)
And having left
them, having again
gone on board, he
departed to the other
side. And they had
forgotten to take
loaves... 1 .
Mt. xvi. 45 (lit.)
And having [finally]
left them he departed.
And the disciples,
having come to the
other side^ had for-
gotten to take loaves.
Lk. om.
Then follows, in Mark alone (viii. 22 6) "And they come
to Bethsaida, and they bring to him a blind man...." Him
Jesus "brought out of the village" and healed, and sent away,
saying, "Do not even enter into the village." And now comes
the tradition above quoted, where Mark and Matthew say that
Jesus came into the neighbourhood of "Caesarea Philippi,"
but Luke that He was "praying alone."
It will be seen that, if we ask whence Jesus came to Caesarea,
Mark answers "from Bethsaida." And it was to "Bethsaida"
(again, according to Mark) that Jesus "constrained the disciples
to go" immediately after the miracle of the Five Thousand,
although they were in fact carried to "Gennesaret." Thus
it may be said briefly that Mark, in relating the movements of
Jesus, makes two mentions of Bethsaida or its neighbourhood,
and that Luke omits practically everything that Mark places
between these two mentions. The omitted passages include
the Walking on the Sea, the Healing of the Syrophoenician
woman's daughter, and the Feeding of the Four Thousand, all
of which occur in the north of Palestine. Luke himself mentions
1 Mk viii. 13 14 Kai a0eis avrovs rrdXiv e/i/3as dnfjXdev els TO trepav
Kai 7T\d6ovTO Aa/3fiv aprou?, Mt. xvi. 4 KOI KCiTaXnr&v avTovs
Kai \66vTS ol p,adr]Tal els TO Trepav eVeXa^ovro aprovs Aa/3eiV.
410 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
a coming to Bethsaida, but it is before, not after, the Feeding
of the Five Thousand 1 .
The Mark-Matthew passages covering this interval between
the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Confession of Peter
will be discussed in their order. Meantime it may be noted
that, although John gives no details of such journeyings, he
tells us, in a general way, that when Jesus had set forth the
doctrine of bread in Capernaum, "many of his disciples went
back and walked no more with him 2 ," Hereupon Jesus said to
the Twelve "Will ye also go away?" and Peter protested his
unshaken belief in Him as "the Holy One of God." This is
consistent with the view that there was an interval passed
over by Luke without any indication and by John with nothing
but this brief indication between the Feeding of the Five
Thousand and Peter's protestation, followed by Christ's reso-
lution to go up to Jerusalem. During this interval, although
Jesus occasionally attracted multitudes around Him by His
power of working wonders, He would seem (according to the
Fourth Gospel) to have been gradually deserted by almost all
disciples except the Twelve.
Something of this kind Mark seemingly assumes to have
happened by the time Jesus reached Caesarea. From the
midst of the Pharisees (whom He had "offended" by His
doctrine) 3 , Jesus comes (desiring that no man should know of
it) first to Tyre and the Syrophoenician woman 4 ; then to the
sea of Galilee where He heals the deaf man ; then to a desert
place where He feeds the Four Thousand ; then to Dalmanutha
where the Pharisees again "tempt" Him 5 ; then to Bethsaida
1 Lk. ix. 10. 2 Jn vi. 66.
3 Mk vii. I (Twdyovrai rrpos avrov ol &api(raloi, Mt. XV. 12 (parall. to
Mk vii. 17) oldas on 01 &api<raioi. . .<TKav8a.\i(r6tjcrav;
4 Mk vii. 24 "He desired that none should know" indicates that
few of His disciples accompanied Him. There is a similar avoidance
of publicity in Mk vii. 33 6.
5 Mk viii. 10 n.
411 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
where the blind man is taken out of the village and not allowed
to re-enter it 1 , and lastly to Caesarea Philippi 2 . Here, according
to Luke, " as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him,
and he asked them saying, Who do the multitudes say that I
am 3 ?" Not one of them could reply "The multitudes confess
thee to be the Christ." That confession was reserved for Peter
when Jesus appealed from the multitudes to the disciples them-
selves: "But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and
saith unto him, Thou art the Christ 4 ."
Among many notable sayings in this Marcan section the
most important perhaps for us, in our attempt to explain
Luke's deviation from Mark, is the saying "There is nothing
from without the man that going into him can defile the man,"
or rather, to render the Greek literally, " make the man common*."
These words are not easy to reconcile with Peter's apparent
ignorance of the doctrine in the Acts, where the Apostle refuses
to eat of certain food until he hears a voice from heaven saying
"What God hath cleansed make not thou common 6 ."
Perhaps Luke's knowledge of Peter's vision, as being
required to remove his ignorance, was one of several causes
that induced him to omit the Marcan section containing this
exposition of Christ's doctrine of non-defilement. But we shall
have to note, in its order, that Mark (but not the parallel
Matthew) calls this saying "a parable 7 ." Now John represents
1 Mk viii. 22 6.
2 Mk viii. 27.
3 Lk. ix. 18. Luke does not mention Caesarea. Instead of
01 o^Xot, Mk viii. 27, Mt. xvi. 13 have ot av0po>7roi, i.e. " men in general,
as distinct from you."
4 Mk viii. 29 "the Christ," Mt. xvi. 16 "the Christ, the Son of
the living God," Lk. ix. 20 "the Christ of God."
5 Mk vii. 15, Mt. xv. n both use KOIVOVV, lit. "make common."
The word is quite different from that in Jn xviii. 28 "that they
might not be defiled (tva p.rj i*.ia.v6a><n.v}." KOIVOVV will be discussed in
its place.
6 Acts x. 15.
7 Mk vii. 17 ".. .his disciples asked of him the parable," parall.
412 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
Jesus as telling the disciples that all His utterances were of
the nature of proverbs, parables, or dark sayings, and would
remain so until the Holy Spirit came to illuminate them. It is
a reasonable hypothesis that this sweeping utterance of Jesus
(about non-defilement) by which the Pharisees were alienated
and Christ's own disciples astonished, was one of a number of
such dark sayings. They reached out so far into the future
that they might well seem to Luke to be erroneous anachron-
isms. But in fact they may have been the genuine utterances
of Jesus cast into the minds of His disciples like seeds that
needed time (and perhaps tribulation) before they could spring
up and grow and bear fruit. This hypothesis is at all events
so far probable as to make it worth while to include in our
study of the Fourfold Gospel this Mark-Matthew narrative of
journeyings in northern Palestine though Luke omits them all.
3. " Having (?) bidden them farewell," in Mark 1
Mark and Matthew agree, with very slight differences, in
saying that Jesus constrained the disciples to go on board and
precede Him, with a view to returning across the water, while
He was dismissing, or until He should have dismissed, the
multitude 2 . Mark however has "to Bethsaida" as well as "unto
the other side." Now Bethsaida could not be said to be "on
the other side." According to Luke, it was close to the scene
of the miracle 3 . In any case, it was on the North-East side
of the Lake not on the West with Gennesaret and Capernaum,
Mt. xv. 12 ". . .the disciples said unto him, Knowest thou that the
Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"
1 Mk vi. 46 KCU aTTOTa^dpevos avTols, Mt. xiv. 23 KCU aTroXixras TOVS
Mk vi. 45 *ai ev6vs r)vdyKao~v TOVS p.a0rjTas UVTOV e^rjvaL fls TO
KCU Trpodyeiv els TO Trepav Trpbs Bj/tfo-aiSai', <os OVTOS aTroXvei TOV
i/, Mt. XIV. 22 KCU [evtfecos] r)vdyKao~i> TOVS paOrjTas efiftrjvai els [marg.
+ ro] 7rXoioi> KOI irpodytLV OVTOV fls TO Trcpav, eW ov 077-0X1)077 TOVS o^Xovs.
3 Lk. ix. 10.
413 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
to which the disciples actually came 1 . Mark may perhaps be
explained as meaning that the disciples were to row first of all
to Bethsaida, where Jesus would meet them and come on board
with a view to returning to Capernaum. At Bethsaida they
might wait till He had disengaged Himself from the multitudes
who flocked round Him 2 . A similar meaning though with
"until" instead of "while," and without "Bethsaida" may
be extracted from Matthew; the disciples were "to go on board
and precede Jesus [with a view to crossing] to the other side
[waiting] until Jesus had dismissed the multitudes."
So far, the statement of Mark as to the "preceding" of the
disciples, and its correction by Matthew (to whom "Bethsaida"
may well have seemed obscure and, in any case, superfluous)
present no very great difficulty. And the statement, made by
both, that Jesus "constrained" the disciples to precede Him
may also be reasonably explained. John says that the multi-
tude purposed to snatch Jesus away and to make Him "king."
To leave their Master at nightfall in a lonely place and in the
midst of an excited multitude who thus claimed Him as their
own, may well have been distasteful to some of the Twelve.
Others, including Judas Iscariot, may have sympathized too
much with the excitement, and may have desired Jesus to
take advantage of it. Jesus said to them not long afterwards
"One of you is a devil." He referred to Judas Iscariot. But
others of the disciples may have needed to be delivered from
the temptation to join the multitudes in putting pressure upon
Him to become a king of this world. If so, for their own sakes,
they might need to be "constrained" to depart from Him for
a season.
1 Mk vi. 53, Mt. xiv. 34 "Gennesaret," Jn vi. 17 "Capernaum."
2 Cramer (on Mk vi. 45) has "Having therefore dismissed
(anoKvaras] the multitudes (o^Xouy) because men kept coming to
Him, some of them probably to receive His blessing, and others for
Some kind of service (ra>v 8e KCU eVt Qeparreiq nvi) . . .." 'AiroXvo-as and
o%\ovs are the forms used in Mt. not in Mk. Qfpaneia might mean
(i) homage to Jesus, (2) medical service from Jesus (comp. Lk. ix. n).
414 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
But this explanation of "constraint" does not include an
explanation of Mark's next words, which are ambiguous,
"Having bidden them farewell." Does "them" mean "the
disciples," or "the multitude" just mentioned ("while he was
dismissing the multitude")! If it means "the multitude," why
does not Mark repeat "dismiss" ("having dismissed them") as
Matthew does? It is not like Mark to vary words, introducing
a new and rare word "bid farewell" for the sake of mere variety
without any difference of meaning. On the other hand, if
"them" means "the disciples," the mention of "farewell"
here seems to come too late, since Jesus has already "con-
strained" them to enter the boat and to precede Him across
the sea.
Examining the versions of Mark, we find that A.V., Vulgate,
and Syriac render the two Greek words "dismiss" and "bid
farewell" by one and the same word 1 . But two of the principal
Latin codices render the latter " depart from 2 ." This affords
an -additional reason for investigating the meaning of the
latter (which it will be convenient to transliterate as apotass-
omai] and its applicability here. If it could mean that Jesus,
though He at first proposed to "send away" the multitude as
usual, found it necessary to disengage Himself from them with
unusual abruptness, that would meet the objection above
stated. It would shew that Mark changed his words because
Jesus changed His procedure.
Apotassomai is used by Philo, Josephus, Epictetus, and by
Luke in his Gospel and in the Acts, to mean "bid farewell,"
literally and metaphorically 3 . But earlier than these is a
1 "Dismiss" aTroXuo), "bid farewell"
2 Mk vi. 46 aTTorao-o-opu, b "proficiscor," Brix. "discedo," as
distinct from ib. 45 diroXixo, "dimitto." A.V. has "send away"
twice, R.V. "send away" and "take leave."
3 'ATroraWojial, in Philo ii. 593 "Lest thine own Agrippa bid fare-
well to life," a letter from Agrippa to the Emperor, conveys a gentle
threat to commit suicide. Josephus Ant. viii. 13. 7 says that Elisha
415 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
passage where Paul says to the Corinthians that, at Troas,
although "a door was opened" unto him "in the Lord," he
could not stay there: "I had no relief for my spirit because
I found not Titus my brother, but bidding them farewell I went
forth into Macedonia 1 ." Here an ancient Scholiast says
'"Bidding them farewell' does not mean 'he chose not to preach
the Gospel.' Far from it. It means that he could not stay as
long as they wished."
A reason can be found for this apparently superfluous
warning against "chose"' in the fact that apotassomai had
come to mean during the second century, among Christian
writers, "bid deliberate farewell" in the sense of discarding an
old Master while choosing a new one. Antithetically, the Christian
was said to "bid farewell to," or "renounce," "the Angel of
Wickedness," or "the things in the world," or "life," or "the
wisdom of the Greeks," in order to devote himself to the service
of God 2 . Paul, of course, had no such meaning when he
described in passionate language how he left the Church at
Troas against his own desire and theirs, under stress of a call
not to be refused 3 . But the antithetical meaning of "renounce,"
begged to be allowed to "salute (dcnrda-aa-dai} " his parents before
following Elijah, and that he accordingly "bade them [final] farewell
(drrora^dfjievos)," and was with Elijah as long as the latter lived.
Epictetus Ench. xxxiii. 6 (Stobaeus) says "As for dining out in
private houses, for the most part give it up (TO iro\v a7rora|m) (but
txt diaitpovov "thrust it away"). In Joseph. Ant. xi. 8. 6 (345)
tz7reraaro describes a ruler "dismissing" petitioners with the answer
that he will look into the matter. In Acts xviii. 18, 21 it seems to
imply an affectionate farewell for a long period, though with hope
of return.
1 2 Cor. ii. 13, on which see Cramer.
2 Hernias Mand. vi. 2. 9, Justin Martyr Apol. 49, Tryph. 119,
Tatian i. In Ign. Philad. n dirora^dfjifvos ra> t'o> is taken by
Lightf. metaphorically, but it is perhaps literal hyperbole, the
meaning being "he has [virtually] renounced life [by perilling it for
my sake]." It occurs in 2 Clem. Rom. vi. 4 and 5, and xvi. 2.
3 In Acts xviii. 18 "take leave" is a poor rendering (instead of
"bid farewell") in view of Paul's long and intimate relations with
416 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
or "not choose," had become so common in the second
and third centuries that the Scholiast above quoted thought
it necessary to explain that Paul did not use the word to mean
"renounce 1 ."
Returning to the Marcan apotassomai, we have to ask
whether John did take the word in this sense or at least a
sense approximating to it. The supposition that he did is
favoured by the fact that he represents Jesus as "withdrawing"
from the multitude and that two Latin codices render apotass-
omai by "depart 2 ." Such a departure might be regarded as
a kind of "renunciation." Jesus had fed the multitude and
had offered them the bread of heaven. They rewarded Him
by acting as the agents of "the ruler of this world," purposing
to "snatch him away" that they might make Him one of the
the Church of Corinth; and so it is in ib. 21, where he adds, to the
Ephesians, "I will return to you if God will." An affectionate
farewell is implied in Lk. ix. 61 "to those in my household," and a
disruption of old ties in Lk. xiv. 33 "bid farewell to, or give up, all
his [old] belongings (Tracri rols eavrov virdpxovo~iv)."
Phrynichus (under aTroraao-o/xai) says '" / bid you farewell' (d-rroTdo-o--
o/xai o-ot) is quite outlandish (eK(pv\ov). For one ought to say '/
salute you.' For this is what we find the ancients saying whenever
they are parting from one another (errciddv aTraXXarreorrai d\\r)\a)v) ."
Probably he intends to censure the indiscriminate use of the phrase
in the first person, and on slight occasions, not its use in narrative
and on special occasions.
1 On Mk vi. 45 Cramer prints a scholium not explaining OTTO-
ra^dp-fvos but contrasting the dismissal or "letting go," applied to
the multitudes, with the "constraining" applied to the disciples:
'ETTI (read eVei) TO irporepov diro\vo~at, (read OTreXvaf) ret ir\r]dr) r)vdyicao~fv
de avTovs OVK dv^xofJievovs dTrocrTrjvai pqdicos (TOVTO (JLCV 8id TTJV 8idOeo-iv,
TOVTO 8e Kal d-rropovvTas OTTOS av \6ot rrpbs UVTOVS, OVK eldoras on. . .)
d7ro\vo~as ovv TOVS OX\QVS . . . dvrjXdev els TO opos .... The sentence is
broken by parentheses, so that eVei. . .a7re'Xvo-e is taken up by aTro-
\vo-as with resumptive ovv. Then we have an antithesis between the
"crowds (ir\r)6ri}" and "them," i.e. the disciples. The former were
"dismissed," the latter needed to be "constrained," partly because
of their " [personal] disposition (didOeo-tv) " toward Jesus, and partly
because they were at a loss to see how He could come to them.
2 Mk vi. 46, b "profectus ab eis," Brix. "cum discessisset ab eis."
A. L. 417 (Mark vi. 45 52) 27
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
kings of the earth, after their type of kingship, which Jesi
would have described as a worship of Satan. "Turning awa]
from," or "renouncing," the agents of Satan, Jesus "went uj
into the mountain," into the presence of God. It is conceivable
that John discerned an antithesis of this kind in Mark's words
or at all events in one of the interpretations of them, suggested,
but not adequately represented, by Matthew.
Why does John say nothing about the "constraint" put on
the disciples by Jesus to leave Him? It is possible that John
regarded the " constraint " as proceeding from the multitude to
Jesus: "They were [for] constraining Him to go before them,"
that is, to become their leader or king 1 . If that is so, John
does not omit, but re-interprets the Marcan "constraint."
Mark may have been right as to the "constraint," which seems
to fit all the circumstances. John may have been right about
the desire to compel Jesus to become a "king," but wrong in
supporting it from a tradition that mentioned "constraint" in
an altogether different context. Mark and John, together, help
us to approximate to what was probably the historical fact.
4. "Distressed" and "the fourth watch of the night" in
Mark and Matthew*
These words are omitted by John, who, instead of men-
tioning the time at which Jesus came to the disciples, mentions
the distance over which the disciples had rowed: "When
therefore they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty
furlongs 3 ." Macarius has preserved an ancient attack on
1 See Gesen. 8176.
2 Mk vi. 48 (Mk inserts "about" before "the fourth watch,"
Mt. does not), Mt. xiv. 24 5, see p. 403. It will be convenient t(
discuss " distressed," applied by Mark to the disciples but by Matthew
to the boat, in the next section.
3 Jn vi. 19. The parall. Mt. xiv. 24 (W.H. txt) "many furlong
from the shore" should be contrasted with this more definite state-
ment. Mt. xiv. 24 (R.V. txt) "in the midst of the sea" seems likely
to be a corrupt assimilation to Mk vi. 47. Codex D has, in Mk,
418 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
the Marcan phrase by a hostile critic, who says that the Lake
is so narrow that even a canoe can cross it in two hours 1 , and
that the Lake is too small to have room for waves and tempests.
Although this last statement is quite untrue, the critic hits a
weak point in Mark, who tells us that "when even was come"
that is to say, roughly, during the first watch of the night,
which lasted from 6 to 9 P.M. "the boat was in the midst
of the sea," and that Jesus did not come till "about the
fourth watch," which lasted from 3 to 6 A.M. It is hardly
credible that two watches of the night, or six hours, were spent
in rowing on a small lake, without progress, and yet without
drifting somewhere into the shore. We have therefore to ask
whether Mark may have been misled by some tradition con-
necting some trial of the faith of the disciples with "about the
fourth watch of the night," which he has recorded here, out of
place.
The indefiniteness implied by "about" indicates that the
time might be taken by some as the beginning of the fourth
watch, by others as the end 2 . If taken as the beginning, it
would practically synchronize with the end of the third watch.
Now the third watch is, by implication, called " cockcrowing "
in Mark, later on, " Watch therefore ; for ye know not when the
TraXai TO irXolov eV p.<rr) rfj 0a\d<Tcrr) which seems an attempt to meet
objections as to time and space by suggesting that the vessel, having
"long ago" reached the middle of the Lake, could make no further
headway owing to the opposing wind. D, in Mt., has rjv ets- peo-ov
rrjs daXdarcnjs.
1 Macar. iii. 6 (ed. Blondel, p. 60).
2 See Macar. iii. 13, p. 84: Terdprj] e OVK. OTTO reXovs (pvXaKrj rr)<f
VVK.TOS avrols fVffpdvicrev, aXX* UTT' dp%r)$, TOVTCCTTIV &pa TfTfiprrj TTJS VVKTOS.
*Eav Se, <$ crv <prjS) /3ia(r$oo/iei' eiTrflv TTJV diro TeXovs .... The Apologist
appears to misrepresent his critic, who implies the same time in
his phrase (ib. iii. 6, p. 60) "tenth hour of the night" that the
Apologist implies in his phrase "fourth hour of the night" (namely
3 A.M., reckoned, severally, from average sunset or from midnight).
But the discussion, though confused, is instructive, as shewing that
a night-watch might be reckoned from its beginning or from its end.
419 (Mark vi. 45 52) 27 2
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or
at cockcrowing, or in the morning 1 ." It is probable that this
tradition of Mark not followed by the parallel Matthew, and
altered by the parallel Luke is very early, and that it con-
tains a reference to Peter's denial, which took place about the
time of "cockcrowing," after he and the rest had received the
warning "Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation."
This is all the more probable because the word alectorophonia ,
"cockcrowing," is not alleged to have existed in the Greek
language before this Marcan use of it. It would seem to be
a Greek rendering of the Latin gallicinium, which passed into
Mark's Gospel from Peter's indelible recollection of Christ's
prediction "before the cock crow."
According to this view, "about the fourth watch of the
night " in Mark's account of the Walking on the Sea must not
be taken literally. There may have been, literally, some storm
on the sea of Tiberias where Jesus appeared to the disciples as
their Saviour guiding them to safety. But, if there was, we
are not to assume that the details are here literally and exactly
described as to time and place. The time described as "about
the fourth watch" is to be regarded as "the hour of trial,"
corresponding to the " cockcrowing" in the darkness of the early
morning before the Crucifixion when Peter denied his Master.
1 Mk xiii. 35. Mark assumes that " even " is 6 9 P.M. (ist watch),
"midnight" 9 12 P.M. (2nd watch), "cockcrowing" 12 3 A.M. (3rd
watch), "morning" 3 6 A.M. (4th watch). Comp. Lk. xii. 38 "And
if he shall come in the second watch, and if in the third," sim. SS
(and Brix.) ; but Curet. has " If in the first watch he come. . .happy
is it for them. . .or if in the second watch or the third he come, ..."
D has " and if he shall come in the evening watch . . . and if in the
second and the third" (and sim. Corb. and e; b has simply "the
evening watch"). No particular "watch" is mentioned in Mt. xxiv.
43 "if the master of the house had known in what watch the thief
was coming."
Mark does not say that this warning was addressed specially to
Peter, but the parallel Luke suggests it (xii. 41) "And Peter said
Lord speakest thou this parable to us or also to all ? "
420 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
In Mark, it is true, there is no special mention here of Peter
connected with "the fourth watch." But there is in the
parallel Matthew. Matthew inserts an attempt of the Apostle
to walk on the waters, and relates how he began to sink and the
Lord took hold of him and said " O thou of little faith, wherefore
didst thou doubt 1 ?" It is incredible that Mark knew of this
miracle, as occurring at this point, and yet omitted it. But we
can understand how this phrase, "about the fourth watch of
the night," the period that followed "cockcrowing," connected
with the coming of the Lord in some trial or temptation of the
faith of Peter and his companions, may have induced an early
Evangelist Matthew, or some authority followed by him to
place at this point a tradition about Peter's temptation, and
fall, and restoration.
This leads us to ask whether the word "distressed," in the
preceding context, might have originally referred to some
temptation, or trial of faith, endured by all the disciples, but
most notably by Peter.
> 5. "Distressed," differently applied in Mark and
Matthew 2
The word rendered by R.V. "distressed" is applied by Mark
to the disciples, but by Matthew to the boat. The Greek
Thesaurus gives no instance of the application of the word to
an inanimate object of this kind, and we may safely infer that
Matthew transferred it from the disciples in the boat to the
boat itself because, when applied to persons, the Greek verb
basamzein often implied "torment" or "torture," and he
thought it desirable to avoid such a suggestion.
But in fact basamzein, though sometimes loosely used to
mean tormenting for the mere purpose of causing pain and
1 Mt. xiv. 31.
2 Mk vi. 48 Idciw CIVTOVS (3a<raviop.vovs ev r<u eXavveiv, Mt. xiv. 24 TO
421 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
in that sense loosely applied by Matthew to the torture of
disease 1 meant etymologically "test, or try, as one tesl
gold with a touchstone 2 ." When applied to persons it meant
" test " them (and this sometimes by torture) to ascertain
whether they were speaking the truth. But this might easily
pass into the meaning "test so as to bring out the truth,"
"test so as to refine, and purify, and make a man his true
self." Hence Plato speaks of a righteous man stripped of all
the rewards of righteousness as being "tested [as it were by
torment} with a view to righteousness 3 ." The first Epistle of
Peter, though not using this word for "test," implies something
very much like it when it speaks of "proof" in the words
"Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if
need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold temptations,
that the proof of your faith, [being] more precious than gold
that perisheth though it is proved by fire, might be found unto
praise... 4 ."
A passage in Ben Sira rather favours the view that there
was some early tradition, verbally followed by Mark, describing
Jesus, personally, as looking down in pity on the disciples as
they were "tested" by being tossed in the waves of tempta-
tion 5 . It is the only one where basamzein, in the LXX, has
1 Mt. viii. 6 8eiv>s Pao-avigopcvos an expression not used in the
parallel Lk. vii. 2 foil.
2 See Steph. Thes.
3 Plato Polit. 361 C pe(3ao-avi<rfJivo$ els diKaiovvvrjv.
4 I Pet. i. 6 7 cv <u ayaAAia<r0e, oXiyov apn el 8(ov \virrj64vTfS ev
TTOiKiXois irfipao'p.o'isi Iva TO r doKifj.iov^ vp.ci)v rrjs Trt'crreeos 1 7ro\vTip.oT(pov
Xpvariov TOV aTroXXvpevov Sia Trvpbs Se 8oKip,aop.fvov fvpeOfj els tiraivov ....
The words ftojet/uoi> and 8oKip.aop.evov, R.V. "proof. . .proved," Hort " test
(v. 1. approvedness] . . . tried (purified)," suggest aspects of fiao-avifa,
though the Epistle does not mention the word itself. Comp. ib. iv. 12
rf) fv iifjuv Trvpaxrei TTpbs Tretpacrnbv vp.lv yivop.fvr). The two tests of fire
and water are mentioned in Ps. Ixvi. 10, 12 "thou hast tried us as
silver is tried," "we went through fire and through water."
5 Comp. Ps. Ixxxviii. 7 (and sim. xlii. 7) "thou hast afflicted me
with all thy waves," and Chrys. on Mt. xiv. 23 4 "He suffers them
422 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
a Hebrew equivalent. It says that Wisdom "goes in a strange
form at first and will bring fear and fright upon him [i.e. on
the pupil whom she is training] and will test him [by torment] in
her training until he has [firm] faith in his soul [i.e. truly, in his
heart, and not in mere profession] 1 ." Such a tradition would
not exclude indeed it would rather favour the supposition
that the "test," or "trial," was caused by some impurity, or
imperfection, which needed to be refined away 2 . Hermas,
whose resemblance to Mark we have had frequent occasion to
note, is almost the only early Christian writer that uses and
repeatedly uses the verb "test" or "torment," and describes
the tormenting as being used sometimes to produce amendment
and not always to torment for the sake of mere punishment 3 .
In Hermas, the Angel of Punishment is described as "driving
about" the sheep that need to be "tested [by torment]" for
their good, in order that they may repent 4 . Here it may be
noted that "drive about" is a compound of "drive," the word
all the night long to be tossed on the waves (/cAvcoi/ieo-0ai), rousing
(I take it) their hardened heart." Mark describes Jesus as "seeing"
the disciples in their trouble, Matthew does not.
1 Sir. iv. 17 quoted from the Hebrew in Son 3499 (iv) in a note
on "Torments." 'E/iTrio-rfufti/, "have [firm] faith," is probably used
absolutely here, as in Sir. ii. 13 (v.r.), iv. 16, xix. 4 (see Steph.
Thes.}.
2 Comp. Lk. xxii. 31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath begged
you [i.e. thee and thy companions] to sift as wheat, but I have made
supplication for thee that thy faith fail not utterly, and do thou,
hereafter, when thou hast returned, strengthen thy brethren."
3 Goodspeed gives (Bao-avifa as occurring in Hermas about fifteen
times, in Ign. only once, in Polyc. Mart, twice. In the early
Apologists it is used only once, and then (Justin Martyr) in the
sense of "scrutinise."
4 Hermas Sim. vi. 2. 7 "driving about" irepifaawcv. Comp.
Clem. Alex. 458 "The same [i.e. the Pastor of Hermas] says that
repentance is high intelligence. For [a man] repenting of what
he did no longer does it or says [it], but tormenting (ftao-avifav) his
own soul for his past sins he benefits [it]." Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 8 which
says that Lot "tormented [his] righteous soul" with the unrighteous
works of the men of Sodom.
423 (Mark vi. 4552)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
used by Mark and John, in the Walking on the Sea, to mean
"rowing" " Drive" occurs only once elsewhere in the Gospels,
where Luke describes the man possessed with the Legion as
"driven by the devil into the deserts 1 ." The word that meai
in Hebrew "row" (literally "move to and fro") may mean ii
Aramaic "madman" or "fool" as in the Targum on the Psali
"Fools because of the way of their transgression. . .are afflicted
. . .then they cry unto the Lord. . .and he delivereth them out
of their distress 2 ." In Greek, too, "to be driven in one's mind"
is said to be "a more graceful phrase" than "to be mad 3 ."
The supposition that Mark's "rowing" conceals some obscure
reference to mental or spiritual "driving," or at all events
something more complex than the literal meaning, is confirmed
not only by Matthew's omission of "rowing," but also by the
fact that SS in Mark, instead of "tormented in rowing," has
"tormented from fear of the waves*."
Origen consistently assumes that what our Versions render
"distress" meant really a searching "test," "trial," or "tempta-
tion with a view to purification." The multitudes, he says,
were not able to endure this test, so Jesus "dismissed" them.
But He separated from them the disciples, whom He constrained
to enter the boat, that is to say "the conflict of temptations
and difficulties into which any one is constrained by the Word,
1 Lk. viii. 2g T)\avvTo. It occurs in N.T. elsewhere only in
Jas. iii. 4 TO. TrXoia. . .vnb dvfp.a)v cr K\TJ pS)v (\avv6p.fva, 2 Pet. ii. 17
o/i/xXac VTTO AatXaTTos- e'Aaui/o/zei/ai. It would be sometimes impossible
to teli whether tKavvfa-Bai virb TrvevpaTos meant "driven by a wind"
or "driven by a spirit," and the same ambiguity would exist in
Hebrew.
2 Ps. cvii. 17 19 "fools," Heb. D^IN, Targ. pDK>. See Gesen.
1001 2 on t31K> "row," "swim," "run to and fro" (n. "scourge"),
Dan. xii. 4 "run to and fro," LXX "become quite mad" or "be driven
to madness," diropavao-iv.
3 Steph. Thes. iii. 679 quotes Thomas p. 293, AaiWrai rrjv yva>^v
KaKXiov \tyeiv 77 paiverai.
4 Mk vi. 48. D has "tormented and rowing," d "remigantes et
laborantes (i.e. hard pressed)" (and similarly other Latin codices).
424 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
and goes unwillingly, as it were, when the Saviour wishes to
train by exercise the disciples in this boat which is tested [and
tormented] by the waves and the contrary wind 1 ." Later on,
without mentioning Peter as thus "tormented," he prepares
the way for it by saying "Then when we see that we are encom-
passed by many grievous troubles, and when by toil we succeed
passably in swimming through them 2 , let us consider that our
boat is in the midst of the sea, being at that moment tormented
by the waves which wish us to make shipwreck of the faith or
some one of the virtues 3 ." Lastly he includes Peter in those
who are thus "tormented," saying "If any Peter be found
among us ... having come down from the boat as if coming
out of that temptation in which he was being tested [and
tormented]. . . 4 "
This mention of Peter as being "tormented" for his good
suggests the question, How, if in any way, does the Fourth
Gospel represent Peter as being thus "tormented"? Want of
space compels us to pass over many differences between the
Synoptists and John at this point, as, for example, the reception
of Jesus into the boat related by the former but omitted by
the latter 5 . But what Origen says about "swimming through"
1 Origen on Mt. xiv. 22 foil. (Comm. Matth. xi. 5, Lomm. iii.
p. 77 foil.). He calls it (ib. p. 79) "the boat of temptations," and
speaks of the disciples as (ib. p. 80) "having come into the midst of
the sea and of the waves [that are] in temptations" and of (ib. p. 81)
"enduring the test [and torment] from the waves until they become
worthy of the divine assistance."
2 Origen (Lomm. iii. p. 81) "swimming through," biav^^o^ieBa, see
Proclam. Index "swim." Comp. Plutarch M or. 10633 "Those who
are progressing (TTPOWTTTOVTCS) are like. . .swimmers (i/^o/zeVoi?)."
3 Comp. I Tim. i. 19 Trepi TT\V iri<TTiv evavdyrjcrav. Lk. xxii. 3*
(rividcrai expresses Peter's trial in a different metaphor.
4 Origen Comm. Matth. xi. 6, Lomm. iii. p. 82.
5 Chrysostom, on Mt. xiv. 29 31, has a perplexing comment
that is instructive as shewing the difficulties of those who attempted
to harmonize the narratives while taking them literally. Quoting
Jn vi. 21, he says that Jesus did not go on board the boat till the
disciples "were on the point of being near the land (ft*\X6vr&9
425 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
troubles, and what he calls the "tormenting" of Peter, demands
special attention. Related by Matthew in the Walking on
the Sea, it recalls to our mind, by contrast, the Johannine
account of Peter's swimming to Jesus, connected by John
with a miraculous draught of fishes, and placed by him after
Christ's resurrection. Luke, who also (alone of the Synoptists)
relates a miraculous draught of fishes, places the event long
before Christ's resurrection, and connects it with the Call of the
Fishermen. And it has been shewn that Luke has probably
done this under a misunderstanding, apparently confusing a
Greek word that meant "he swam to shore" with another that
meant "he made signs 1 ." Luke appeared to be wrong and
John right in the interpretation of the Petrine story. We
shall now ask whether there is any indication that Matthew
is similarly wrong and John similarly right, in the interpreta-
tion of another Petrine story of the same kind.
6. How Peter "was grieved" by Jesus 2
At first sight it may seem something like bathos to pass
from the thought of Peter "tormented" to the thought of
Peter "grieved." Spiritually regarded, however, the transition
may be climax rather than bathos. The Suffering Servant in
Isaiah is "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," and
it pleased God "to put him to grief 3 ." Jesus, at Gethsemane,
says "My soul is exceedingly grieved," and Paul speaks of the
TTJ yfj yivfa-Qai}." And he adds, about Peter, "Having overcome
the greater [difficulty] he [Peter] was on the point of being harmed
by the less, I mean, by the violence of the wind, not the sea." The
Commentary on Jn attributed to Chrys. says "Why did not Jesus
ascend the vessel ? . . . He did not go on board the vessel in order
that the wonder He was working might be greater." See Joh. Gr.
27167.
1 See Proclamation pp. i foil., 35 foil., 91 foil.
2 Jn xxi. 17 "Peter was grieved (eXv-rrrjOr)) because he [Jesus]
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?"
3 Is. liii. 3, 10.
426 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
purifying influence of "grief according to God 1 ." When there-
fore we read in the Fourth Gospel that Peter was "grieved"
by a question of Jesus, and bear in mind how often in this
Gospel very deep thoughts are expressed in very simple language,
we ought not to pass over the words without serious thought.
Paul says to the Corinthians "For if I [I of all men] grieve you,
why, who is he that is to gladden me except the very same
person that is being grieved by me 2 ? " Much more (we may be
sure) might Jesus say the same thing about Peter; He would
not, without deep purpose, thus have "grieved" the disciple
who was hereafter to "gladden" His heart.
The scene of this "grieving" of Peter is also the scene of
what Origen calls the "tormenting" of Peter the sea of
Tiberias. The time also may be said to be the same. In
Matthew it occurs "in the fourth watch of the night" ; in John
it occurs near the conclusion of that watch, when dawn was
coming on 3 . Both in Matthew and John the night has been
spent in toil (differently, yet in both cases fruitlessly). In
Matthew, Jesus came over the sea, walking to the vessel
containing Peter and his companions; in John, Jesus "stood
on the shore." In both, the disciples at first fail to recognise
Jesus.
At this point, John's narrative of the fishing diverges into
symbolism intended to prepare the way for the "grieving"
that is to be caused by Jesus to the foremost and most strenuous
of His faithful Apostles. There is no "torment" of furious
winds or waves to shake Peter's faith. He swims the distance
is not great to his Master on the shore. There they see a
1 Mk xiv. 34, Mt. xxvi. 38 Trepi'AvTros, 2 Cor. vii. 10 17 Kara 6tov
\VTrrj.
2 2 Cor. ii. 2 fi yap ey<a XVTTCO vfj.as, KOI TLS 6 ev(f>pat.v(i)v fj.f fl pr) 6
\v7roi>ij.fvos e e/zoC; The advantage of rendering XUTTT; "grief" (and
not "sorrow") is that the similarity between noun and verb ("grief"
and "grieve") can be briefly expressed.
3 Jn xxi. 4 irpaias Se fjdrj yivo^fvr^s, A.V. wrongly, "when the
morning was now come," R.V. "when day was now breaking."
427 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
meal prepared, baked on a fire of coals. This has been shewn
above 1 to be a symbol of purifying trial, and sometimes of
martyrdom. The swimming and the fire, taken together,
suggest a double purification like the one in the Psalms ("we
went through fire and water 2 "). But still the purifying process
is not complete.
Therefore, although Peter has received, along with the
rest of the seven, the viaticum that is to prepare him for the
work of* the Gospel, there comes from Jesus a heart -searching
test, torment, or trial in the form of a question that seems to
throw doubt on the present genuineness of his love because in
a past hour of weakness he had denied his Master. At first
he replies meekly. To the question "Lovest thou me more
than these?" he will not say now that he loves "more." He
says, simply, "Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." But
the question is thrice repeated. Then, at last, turning on Jesus
with a mixture of passionate adoration and something like
passionate reproach for thus "tormenting" him, the deeply
wounded disciple exclaims against such a question proceeding
from one who knows all things: "Lord, thou knowest all things,
thou knowest that I love thee."
It needs some sympathetic effort on our part to enter into
the mind of the Apostle thus enduring a chastening all the
more grievous because it was so kind and so quiet. But, the
more we think over it, the more clearly shall we perceive that
the Evangelist regards it as a final trial of faith, a touchstone
or test of the Petrine gold from which the Apostle comes forth
recognised by our Lord as being not only a shepherd of His
sheep but also a follower of Himself in a special way. He is
the only Apostle whose "manner of death" is specially pre-
dicted by Jesus as destined to be like His own, so that he
might be said to follow his Master literally on the path of the
Cross. The very last words of Jesus on earth, as recorded in
1 See above, pp. 367 9. 2 Ps. Ixvi. 12.
428 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
the Fourth Gospel, contain a precept of special honour and
privilege ("Follow thou me") addressed to the disciple whom
He had recently "grieved 1 ."
7. "For they all saw him," in Mark 2
In attempting to explain why Mark, after saying "when
they saw him," adds "for they all saw him," we have to note
that Matthew appears to recognise two classes of people in
the boat, first "the disciples," and secondly, "the [men] in the
boat," that is, the sailors. It is true that Origen, commenting
on Matthew's peculiar addition at the end of the narrative,
"but those who were in the boat worshipped him saying, Truly
thou art God's Son," says "This the disciples in the boat say,
for I do not think that others than the disciples said it 3 ." But
if Matthew had meant "the disciples," why should he not have
said "the disciples," as he has said before 4 ? According to
Jerome, Matthew makes the same distinction here namely,
1 Comp. Plutarch Mor. 452 E where Diogenes condemns Plato
for never having "grieved" a single one of his disciples, TOO-OVTOV
Xpovov (piXoo-ofpwv ovdfva \e\V7rrjKev.
2 Mk vi. 49 50 "But they, having seen him. . .thought that it
was a phantasm, and cried out loudly, for they all saw him and were
troubled," Oi Se Idovres avrbv . . .edoav on (pavraar/jid fcrnv KOI dveKpa^av.
lidvres yap avrov elSav KOI eTapdxdr)(rav , Mt. xiv. 26 "But the disciples,
having seen him. . .were troubled, saying ' It is a phantasm,' and
cried Out from fear," Oi Se padr^ral Idovres avrbv . . .Tapd)(6r]o-av Xeyovrfs
on (pdvTao~p.d eVriv, /cat OTTO rov (po(3ov enpa^av. In Mark, D and the
best Latin MSS ("and cried out loudly all [of them] and were
troubled") omit yap avrov eiSai/, SS has "When they saw him. . .they
supposed it was a devil (Walton, visionem fallacem), and when they
all saw him they gave a cry."
To render Mk vi. 49 "but those who saw him," though allowable
in literary Greek, would not be in accord with the style of Mark.
Bruder (ed. 1888, pp. 587 8) gives no other instances of 6 8e with
particip. used relatively in Mark except in Mk v. 14, xiii. 13 [xvi. 16].
3 Origen on Mt. xiv. 33 01 fie eV ro> TrXouu, says 6V ep \eyovo-iv ol ev
r&) TrXoicp p.a6r]rai' ov yap a\\ovs rcav p-aQrjTwv VO/JLL^Q) TOVTO flprjKevai.
4 Mt. xiv. 26 01 Se jjLadrjral ioi/res. . ..
429 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
between "those who were in the boat," i.e. the sailors, and
"the disciples" that he made before, in the Stilling of the
Storm, where he alone mentions "men" at the conclusion of
the narrative "Bui the men marvelled 1 ." The question is
one of more than verbal importance, for it bears on the moral
and spiritual value of the confession, in Matthew, "Truly,
thou art God's Son." This confession, coming at the conclusion
of Matthew's narrative, is in strange contrast with Mark's
conclusion "they understood not." Also the contextual
mention of the Greek phantasma unique in N.T. and rendered
by A.V. "spirit" but by R.V. more correctly " apparition" -
demands careful consideration as being one of many details in
this narrative that point to the thought of the risen Saviour,
Christ, returning to the disciples across the waters of Sheol,
no "phantasm," but reality. It is connected with the dis-
tinction between "seeing Jesus" and yet not "knowing" Him,
or not "believing" Him to be "the Lord."
8. "An apparition," in Mark and Matthew 2
Instead of " an apparition," SS has " a devil" the Peshitta has
" a false apparition (or, vision) ," Delitzsch has "the appearance
of a spirit" The Greek word here rendered "apparition,"
1 Mt. viii. 27 (parall. to Mk iv. 41 "and they [i.e. the disciples]
feared [with] a great fear," Lk. viii. 25 "but they [i.e. the disciples]
feared and marvelled"). On this Jerome says "Not the disciples,
but the sailors and the rest that were in the ship 'marvelled/ But if
anyone contentiously wishes [to maintain] that those who ' marvelled '
were disciples, we shall reply that they were rightly called 'the
men (homines] ' those who knew not as yet the power of the Saviour
(qui necdum noverant potentiam Salvatoris)." He says also on
Mt. xiv. 33 " Nautae atque vectores vere Filium Dei confitentur,"
that is, "the sailors and the passengers."
In Mt. xiv. 33 "those who were in the boat" might be intended to
mean "the disciples that were in the boat" as distinct from Peter,
who had gone out of the boat and was now returning to it with Jesus.
But this would not explain Mt. viii. 27 "the men marvelled."
2 Mk vi. 49, Mt. xiv. 26.
430 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
phantasma, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels except in D's
version of a passage in Luke "They thought they saw a phan-
tasm," where the text has "a spirit^" Ignatius, apparently
referring to Luke, says "For I know and believe that also after
the resurrection He was in the flesh; and when He came to
Peter and his friends, He said unto them, 'Take, handle me,
and see that I am not a bodiless demon 2 .'" In LXX and early
Christian writers, phantasma hardly occurs 3 ; but we may
gather from its use in Euripides, Plato, Plutarch, and Pliny
(who uses it as a Latin word), that when applied to the appear-
ance of a human form it would mostly mean the "apparition"
of one dead, and that it would convey a notion of unreality and
sometimes of sinister influence 4 . It would seem that Mark
used the word to mean "ghost," probably implying that the
disciples, in their panic, thought that their Master had died,
and that they beheld a mere "apparition" of Him, perhaps
1 Lk. xxiv. 37. See Notes 2824* (i) b e. Tertullian Adv. Marc.
iv. 43 ad fin., while quoting Christ's words as " spiritus ossa non
habet," quotes, or paraphrases, the context as "quum haesitantibus
eis ne phantasma esset, immo phantasma credentibus. . . . "
2 Ign. Smyyn. 3 'Eyco yap KCU juera TTJV avdcrrao'LV ev crapK\ avrbv ot'Sa
.KOI TTKTTfVU) oVra. KOL OT TTpOS TOVS TTCpl HfTpOV T)\0V (f)Tj aVTols ' AajSfTe,
^TjXafprjarare /*e, KCIL 1'Sere on OVK flp.1 daipovLov ao-co /octroi/.
3 In LXX it occurs only in Job xx. 8 (A) (v.r. 6avp,a and <ao>ia),
Is. xxviii. 7 (A) (v.r. <ao-/xa), and Wisd. xvii. 15. Goodspeed gives
it only in Tatian Contr. Graec. 7 where the context mentions "an
army of demons (at/ioi>o>i/ orparoTredoi/)."
4 See Plutarch Mor. goo F quoting from Chrysippus, ^dvraa-^a
8e ecmv e(^>' 6 f\n6p.da Kara roi> (pavracrTiKov diaKfvov eXicvcr/zoi/' raCra 8e
yiverai eVt TWV p,\ay^o\a>vTd)v KOI (UfUjvoTWfj and Plin. Epist, vii. 27
(as quoted in Steph. Thes. but the text varies) asking a friend
whether he thinks that "apparitions" "are really something (esse
aliquid)," and have "a figure of their own and some kind of divine
nature (propriam figuram numenque aliquod)," or whether they
"receive a vain and variable image [born] from our fear (inanem
et variam ex metu nostro imaginem accipere)." This shews that
"phantasma," meaning "ghost," had passed from Greek into Latin
early in the second century and probably in the first.
431 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
_ _
sent from some evil source, or portending evil, like the apparitic
of Samuel to Saul.
Luke omits the whole of the Marcan narrative of the Walking
on the Sea, including the clause "they thought that it was a
phantasm " ; but his use of a similar clause later on (with the
same rather rare word for "thought," "They thought they
beheld a spirit, D a phantasm 1 ") favours the inference that he
did not really omit this clause, but only transposed it to what
he believed to be its right place, namely, after Christ's resur-
rection. If he did transpose it he might naturally alter
"phantasm" into "spirit" in order to suggest that the word
merely meant "a bodiless spirit," without any such suggestion
of baneful influence as would often be conveyed by the Greek
and Latin word phantasma to educated readers. But the
evidence of the Lucan context, and the paraphrase of Ignatius,
indicate that the original word was not simply "spirit," but
some word meaning "demon," or some phrase suggesting
unreality or evil origin 2 .
John, in the Walking on the Sea, agrees with Mark and
1 "Thought," Mk vi. 49 e'Soaj/ (non-occurrent in Mk elsewhere
except Mk x. 42 of (WoCi/rey ap^fiv), Lk. xxiv. 37 (ftoicovv.
2 The fact that Delitzsch renders <di>ro>ia by "appearance of a
spirit" indicates that no single Hebrew word exactly represents the
Greek, and favours the view that in Lk. xxiv. 37, as well as in Mk vi.
49, the original was 1^, "demon," which has been euphemistically
translated by Mark. Comp. Megill. 3 a warning a man not to salute
" [even] his neighbour (iTHri) " at night, lest he should prove to be
"a demon (TK>)," sim. Sanhedr. 44 a.
The Mark- Appendix (xvi. 12) says that Jesus was manifested to
two of the disciples "in another form (p.op(f)fj) (Delitzsch, niDl)."
Luke says about the two disciples (xxiv. 16) "their eyes were holden
that they should not recognise (eVtyrwj/ai) him." Moptfrr) is repre-
sented in LXX by five words, but never by Delitzsch's word (which
= ojiouo/xa, or -axrif, twenty-one times). Another word for "form,"
o-x^a, occurs in LXX, only in Is. iii. 17 "the secret-parts [of the
daughters of Sion]." Luke avoids the difficult questions, What
precisely is meant by "form"? And what precisely is implied by
"other"?
432 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
Matthew that the disciples feared and that Jesus said "fear
not," but he makes no mention of a phantasma. Also he gives
us the impression that Jesus may have been walking, not
actually on the sea but by the edge of the sea on the shore,
drawing the boat toward the shore, so that He does not come
to the boat (though the disciples "were willing to receive Him
into the boat") but the boat comes to Him 1 . If that is his
meaning, he seems to regard Jesus as fulfilling the words "He
drew me out of many waters 2 ," not by drawing Peter (as
Matthew says) out of the waves but by drawing all the
disciples across the waves to .Himself.
To us, of course, the thought of a phantasma and the thought
of "drawing" seem to have nothing whatever to do with one
another. But we have to consider, not what seems to us, but
what would seem to Greeks in the first century. Now Chrysip-
pus uses, and Plutarch quotes, this word "draw," in what may
be called a definition of phantasma. "Phantasma is that to
which we are drawn in accordance with the absolutely vain
and phantastic drawing. These are the things that befall the
melancholy and the mad 3 ." In the next place, Epictetus,
accepting man as the "logical creature," that is, the creature
endowed with Logos, Reason (or Word in the Johannine sense),
declares "that he is not drawn to anything so effectively as to
that which is according to the right logos' 1 ." Elsewhere, he implies
that the strongest thing in the world of humanity "is Nature,
drawing [men] toward her will and purpose 5 ." He nowhere
mentions phantasma, but he mentions phantasy often, and once
1 Jn vi. 21. They (ib. 19) "see Jesus nearing (eyyvs. . .
just as sailors "see a coast receding" though the "coast" does not
"recede." See Joh. Gr. 2346 a (quoting Philo on Gen. iii. 8) and
27167 etc.
2 2 S. xxii. 17 eiXKuo-e, Ps. xviii. 16 7rpoo-e'Xa/3e, where the Heb.
(in both) is n^D, the word used (as Rashi remarks) about " drawing
out" Moses from the water (Exod. ii. 10).
3 Plutarch Mor. goo F quoted above, p. 431, n. 4.
4 Epict. i. 2. 4 eX/co). 5 Epict. ii. 20. 15 e\KO).
A. L. 433 (Mark vi. 45 52) 28
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
in a passage where he bids us go and look at Socrates and wei
his example against the temptations of pleasure: "By settii
these [thoughts] against [those], you will conquer the phantai
and not be drawn-and-dragged by it 1 ." Lastly, John, aloi
of the Evangelists, not only describes Jesus as the Logos bi
also represents Him as twice referring to the attractive
"drawing" of the Father and of the Son: "No man can come
unto me except the Father that sent me draw him," "I, if I
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself 2 ."
With these facts before us, it does not seem improbable
that John, in his version of the Walking on the Sea, was
influenced by the Stoic doctrine about phantasma as being the
result of "fear." He does not mention perhaps he dislikes the
very thought of mentioning a phantasma, in connection with
Jesus and His disciples, even though the context is to shew
that there was no phantasma. He prefers to shew us that the
fault rested with the disciples, not in anything outside them.
The disciples, he says, "beheld" Jesus and yet "feared"! He
leaves us to imagine what a phantasma they were creating for
themselves when they recoiled from their own Saviour. After-
wards he shews us the Saviour drawing them toward Himself.
Later on, in the Johannine narrative of Christ's last appear-
ance to the disciples, though there is no mention either of a
"phantasma" or of "drawing," there is a clear recognition of
the fact that Jesus, at first, standing on the shore of Tiberias,
appeared to be other than Himself, and that, by some means
not mentioned, He caused them to "know" that He was "the
Lord." Jesus, we are told, "stood on the beach, howbeit the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus 3 ." The day was breaking
so that they could see Him. He spoke to them and they
heard and did what He bade them. But not till after something
more than mere words had passed, not till after the disciples
1 Epict. ii. 18. 23, "drawn-and-dragged,"
2 Jn vi. 44, xii. 32 eXfcvo). Jn never uses
3 Jn xxi. 4 ov HCVTOI ySfiaav ol fjLadrjTal on 'irjcrovs eorriv.
434 (Mark vi. 4552)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
had done something in their Lord's service was it said "It is
the Lord," and then by only one of the seven, "the disciple
whom Jesus loved." Then, after a brief interval, the narrative
passes into abrupt and irregular paradox: "Jesus saith unto
them ' [Come] hither, break your fast.' Not one of the disciples
would dare to examine him [saying] ' Who art thou ? ' [all of
them] knowing that it was the Lord 1 ."
The commentary of Chrysostom and the paraphrase of
Nonnus given below indicate their feeling that the text needs
explanation. But Nonnus does not really explain it at all.
For he says that "not even" Peter ventured to say "Who art
thou?" Why should Peter wish to ask it? The beloved
disciple had told him it was the Lord, and he had swum to
1 Jn xxi. 12 Aeyfi avTols [6] 'irjcrovs Aeure dpio'Tya'are. ovdfls eroX/io
TCOV p.a6r)TS>v e'eraVai avrbv 2v ris fl; flftorfs on 6 Kvpios eVrir. For
e|eTaa> here, comp. Judith viii. 13 "And now ye would fain
cross-examine (or, search out) God and ye will know nothing to all
eternity." The Arab. Diatess. has "for they knew that it was our
Lord, but he did not appear to them in his [own] form," SS "Not one
of his disciples was daring to ask him who it was because they were
believing that it was he."
Chrysostom paraphrases thus: "For they knew on the one hand
(rjdeio-av fj.v yap) that it was the Lord, and for this cause they did not
ask (OVK rjpcaTatv) Who art thou ? But seeing His form more (or,
somewhat) altered (rr]v de p.op(pf]v aXXoiorepav opavrts) and full of awe-
inspiring majesty (KOI TroAAr/s- eWAi^ew? yepowav} they were exceedingly
amazed, and desired to ask something about it (e/3ovAoi/rd rt irep\
avrijs po)Tav). But the [feeling of] awe (TO 8eos) and the fact of their
knowing that it was no other but Himself, stopped their asking, and
they merely went on eating the food that He framed for them with
more authority" [than in the Feeding of the Five Thousand].
Nonnus paraphrases with more than his usual freedom. After
"the net was not rent" deferring the invitation "Jesus saith,
'Come and break your fast'" he proceeds, "Not then with daring
did any man of that band of companions, watching with close-
fronting eyes God present (avrcoTrols ^Ae$apotc^. 6eov TrapeovTO. doKevwv)
ask ' Who art thou ? ' And not [even] bold Simon asked [this] ,
recognising near at hand (eyyvdi yivaxruwv) that it was [the] Lord
Jesus." Thus he applies "knowing" to Peter only, and this on the
ground of his being "near at hand."
435 (Mark vi. 4552) 282
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
Him. Nonnus himself says that Peter was "near at hand"
and "recognised" Jesus. Chrysostom comes much nearer to
an explanation. The disciples (he says) knew that it was
Jesus, but Jesus in an "altered" form; and they wished to
ask Him, not really "Who art thou?" but "something about
it," i.e. about the alteration.
What was this alteration? This above all things, it would
seem, that there were no longer manifest the wounds in His
hands which He had shewn them at His first appearance after
death, and about which He had said to Thomas " See my hands."
On the present occasion, when He gave them the bread and the
fish, if the wounds had been still there, they could not have
failed to see them. In that case, they could have had no
desire to ask Him anything. But apparently the wounds
were no longer there. Their absence would seem to be one of
the points in which, as Chrysostom says, "His form was more
altered and full of awe-inspiring majesty."
Then how did they "know" Him? If the "wounds"
were not in the hands and if the "form" generally was altered,
whence came their "knowing" that it was the Lord? The
difficulty raised by this question seems to have induced the Syro-
Sinaitic translator to substitute " believed " for " knew " ; and the
substitution, though erroneous, leads us to the right meaning.
For "knew" means here "knew in their heart of hearts" not by
means of visible "proofs 1 ," such as the wounds in the hands,
but by invisible proof, by the sense of the presence of the Lord's
Spirit. This kind of " knowledge " might be described by some as
no knowledge at all but mere " belief" But others would say that
this kind of "belief" is more than mere "knowledge." It may
be illustrated by what Ignatius says to the Smyrnaeans, "I
know and believe that also after the Resurrection He existed
in the flesh ; and when He came to Peter and his companions
1 Comp. Acts i. 3
Introd. p. 115.
(Thucydidean "proofs") on which see
436 (Mark vi. 4552)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
He said unto them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not a
demon without body 1 ." By this Ignatius apparently means
" I know, yes, and I more than know, I have a belief [breathing
in me from Christ and testifying to Christ] 2 ."
Perhaps we ought not to conclude our thoughts about the
Johannine phrase "knowing that it was the Lord" without a
word of reference to the Johannine "seeing" mentioned in the
preceding manifestation, in which Jesus had said to Thomas
"Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are
those that have not seen and have believed 3 ." Thomas was
now present again. "The things that he had "seen" the
wounds in the hands and side were apparently now not to be
"seen." Visibly, it was a different Jesus. Yet it differed in
being, so to speak, more truly Jesus than before, a Jesus or
Saviour independent of mere external or logical proofs, a
Jesus not seen in the same way as in old days, but seen in the
heart and received into the soul.
1 Ign. Smyrn. 3 'Eyo> yap KOI /zero rrjv dvdo'Tao'iv cv aapK\ avrbv olda
KOI Trtcrreuo) oVrcf KCU ore irpbs TOVS irfpl Herpov r)\6fv, e(f)r) avTois Aa/3ere,
\^^Xa0jy(rare /u,e, KCU I'Sere on OVK flp.\ ftaip.6viov dcrcop-arov. On this,
Light! quotes Jerome as rendering olda, "I know," by "vidi," "I
have seen," and as inferring that Ignatius had seen our Lord in
the flesh after the Resurrection. It does not seem likely that Jerome
would have made this mistake if he had not been led to it by
feeling that there is bathos in saying "I know and believe that this
is so."
2 Comp. Rom. xiv. 14 "I know and am persuaded in the Lord
Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself (fit* eavroC)." A.V. has "by the
Lord Jesus." But "in" describes the region, so to speak, in which
the persuasion dominates the apostle. In one aspect, it is deep
down, in a man's heart of hearts, the region of absolute conviction ;
in another, it is high up, in the heaven of heavens, the region of
absolute reality. The words "in the Lord Jesus " make all the differ-
ence.
3 Jn xx. 29 on which see Joh. Gr. 2499 6.
437 (Mark vi. 4552)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
9. "But their heart was hardened," in Mark 1
There is nothing, in the parallel Matthew, like this Marcan
tradition about the "hardening of the heart," nor like the
preceding words, "they were sore amazed in themselves."
SS has "And they were wondering among themselves, for they
had not perceived from the bread, because their heart was
blind." The Arabic Diatessaron, besides resembling SS in
meaning, transposes the words to a later position, "And when
they came out of the ship to the land they marvelled greatly
and were perplexed in themselves, and they had not understood
from that bread, because their heart was gross 2 ." If Mark is
recording an early and genuine tradition, how can we explain
Matthew's conduct in not only omitting it but also substituting
a statement that they that were in the boat "worshipped"
Jesus? The probable explanation is that the Marcan tradition
although early and genuine, for no one would invent so
discouraging a recognition of the failure of Christ's miracle to
produce conviction in the minds of His disciples seemed to
Matthew ambiguous and capable of an interpretation less
harsh than the obvious one. It might mean "They had not
{previously} understood. . .but their heart had [up till now]
been hardened 3 ." This implied that the state of things was now
1 Mk vi. 51 b, 52 KCU Xi'ai/ (Tisch. Ami/ CK Trepio-crov) eV eavrols
(i(TTavTO) ov yap (rvvrjKav CTTI roTy aprois, aXX' f)v avrtov 17 nap8ia TTfTrcopco-
fjievrj. Here b, Brix., SS and Diatess. render a-wfjKav as pluperfect, so
that the meaning might be " had not understood . . . but their heart
had been hardened." Then the question would arise "But did they
understand now! And was their heart hardened still!"
On "hardening" or "being made callous," see below, p. 441, n. i.
2 Thus Diatess. places Mt. xiv. 33 ("Thou art the Son of God"),
Jn vi. 21 b, and Mk vi. 54 a, before Mk vi. 51 b, 52. In combining
"marvelled" and "were perplexed" it resembles several MSS, both
Greek and Latin. "Gross," comp. Mt. xiii. 15, Is. vi. 10.
3 On the absence of a Heb. pluperfect, and on consequent
ambiguities, see Joh. Gr. 2480 and Beginning p. 210, also above,
p. 182, n. 2, quoting Joh. Gr. 2460.
438 (Mark vi. 4552)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
changed. Now they understood and were amazed at Christ's
divine power, recognising Him to be more than man. Matthew
may be paraphrasing what he regards as Mark's implied meaning
in a sentence expressing this recognition. This sentence he
puts into the mouths of the men in the boat along with a
statement of their worship, "They worshipped him saying,
Truly thou art God's Son."
It is remarkable that even Origen who occasionally quotes
Mark while commenting on Matthew, and who comments fully
on the parallel Matthew here says not a word about this ex-
traordinary divergence of Mark from Matthew. His silence
illustrates the complaint of Victor of Antioch which the student
of the Gospels needs constantly to keep in mind concerning
the neglect from which Mark has suffered. Writing certainly
not earlier than the fifth century, Victor complains that he has
failed to discover a single commentary on Mark, and says that
he has consequently tried to collect scattered observations
about his Gospel "that it may not seem the one book that has
been overlooked in the whole of the New Testament 1 ." Quoting
this, Professor Swete observes "There was little in St Mark
which was not to be found in St Matthew, or St Luke, or in
both 2 ."
This is true if "little" means "what takes up little space."
But it would not be true if " little " meant " of little importance."
And the Marcan tradition before us gives us a glimpse into
other reasons for "overlooking" Mark reasons quite distinct
from the prestige attaching to Matthew's Gospel and the greater
fulness of both Matthew and Luke. There are many passages
in Mark where we see him revealed to us as a writer incon-
veniently prone to insert brief, obscure, abrupt, and sometimes
apparently unedifying traditions that require a great deal of
explaining. This appears to be one of them.
1 Cramer i. 263 OTTCOS ^ p.6vov OTTO T>V rfjs Kaivfjs SiadrjKrjs /3i/9Ai'coi/
2 See Mark ed. Swete p. xxix.
439 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
But these traditions are as a rule of great value, and the
present one is no exception. Victor himself apparently
explains Mark's "were hardened" as meaning "had bt
hardened." He says that the miracle of the Walking on th(
Sea was intended "for the profit of the disciples." But ii
order to shew how they were "profited," he finds it convenient
to pass into the text of the parallel Matthew: "Having been
profited, therefore, they confessed Him to be God's Son, and
He did not rebuke them when they said it. Nay, on the
contrary 1 , He confirmed what they said, by healing with greater
authority, and not [merely] as before, those who came to Him."
Turning to the Fourth Gospel for a better explanation of
the "hardening," we find that although it does not mention
the word here, it implies the spiritual thing, and it mentions
the word elsewhere not indeed as applied to the disciples,
but as applied to the Jews at large. Here, it spends nearly
forty verses in shewing how completely the Jews misunderstood
the doctrine of the living Bread 2 , and how the disciples them-
selves were in danger of being "offended" by it. This appears
to be an explanatory amplification of Mark's obscure tradition
"they understood not concerning the loaves." It shews that
the misunderstanding was radical, implying a rejection of
Christ's true personality and doctrine. Elsewhere John uses
the word "harden" in summing up the results of Christ's
preaching to the Jews, which might popularly be called a
failure: "For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah
said again, 'He hath blinded their eyes and he hardened their
heart. . .'"; and at the close, he says that this divine "hard-
ening" went hand in hand with human self-love and self-
exaltation, "for they loved the glory of men more than the
glory of God 3 ."
1 Cramer, on Mk p. 332, has txt rovvavriov pev 6 debs, but in n.,
fiv ovv (6 0os om.) P. Victor assumes that Mt. xiv. 33 "they that
were in the boat" means "the disciples."
z Jn vi. 26 65. 3 Jn xii. 39 43.
440 (Mark vi. 45 52)
JESUS WALKING ON THE SEA
In a previous treatise it was pointed out that Mark and
John are the only Evangelists that use this word, poroun,
porosis, "hardening," or "callousness," applied (either as a
noun or as a verb) to the "heart 1 ." It is to be taken here as
a key-word. It was applied by Paul, in his Epistles to the
Romans and the Corinthians, to describe the "callousness"
of Israel (all except the remnant) in rejecting the Gospel
which passed to the Gentiles 2 . Mark's original appears to
be regarded by John as having a similar meaning, overlooked
by Matthew (and not contemplated by Luke who omits the
narrative). If so, John's intervention means, in effect, "Note
how much is implied in this Marcan word 'hardening.' It was
from this moment that Jesus began to manifest His sense that
'a hardening in part had befallen Israel,' so that they could
not receive the doctrine of the living Bread."
If we regard "the loaves" as a type of the Eucharist, and
the Walking on the Sea as a type of the return of Jesus to the
disciples after His resurrection, then we may say that the
conclusion of Mark's narrative, with a slight alteration, might
have a post-resurrectional meaning: "And Jesus went up
[from Sheol] into the midst of the disciples, and the tempest
of their souls abated, and they were amazed with a great
amazement; for they had not believed that this would come
to pass, because they had not understood concerning the bread,
that the Lord was to die and give His body to be the food of
the Church; but their heart was still hardened when He went
up to them on the third day, being raised from the dead 3 ."
1 See Proclam. pp. 362 4. Jn uses only the verb, poroun.
2 Rom. xi. 7 25 "The rest of Israel were made callous... a
callousness in part hath befallen Israel," 2 Cor. iii. 14 15 "their
minds were made callous. . .a veil lieth upon their heart."
3 Something of the nature of unbelief, but not amounting to
"hardness of heart," is tacitly hinted at in Jn xx. 8 9 "Then
entered in therefore the other disciple also . . . and he saw and be-
lieved ; for as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from
the dead."
441 (Mark vi. 45 52)
CHAPTER X
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
[Mark vi. 53 vii. 23]
i. Jesus is followed at first by the multitudes
FROM this point Jesus begins a course of journeying in
northern Palestine about which Mark is diffuse while Luke is
silent and John rarely intervenes. Space will not allow of
the full discussion of these journeys (summarised above)
which begin here at Gennesaret and end at Caesarea Philippi.
Two details, in a short passage printed below, are discussed as
specimens of the way in which Matthew deals with Mark 1 .
1 Mk vi. 536 (R.V.)
(53) And when they had
crossed over, they came to the
land unto Gennesaret, (or, and
when they had crossed over to
the land, they came unto Gen-
nesaret) and moored to the shore.
(54) And when they were
come out of the boat, straight-
way [the people] knew (eiriyvovTfs}
him,
(55) And ran round about
that whole region, and began to
carry about on their beds those
that were sick, where they heard
he was.
(56) And wheresoever he
entered, into villages, or into
cities, or into the country, they
laid the sick in the market-places,
and besought him that they
might touch if it were but the
border of his garment : and as
many as touched him (or, it)
were made whole (e'o-a>oz/ro).
Mt. xiv. 346 (R.V.)
(34) And when they had
crossed over, they came to the
land, unto Gennesaret.
. (35) And when the men of
that place knew (f-myvovrcs) him,
they sent into all that region
round about, and brought unto
him all that were sick ;
(36) And they besought him
that they might only touch the
border of his garment : and as
many as touched were made
whole (dico-todrjo-av).
442 (Mark vi. 53 6)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
But the greater part is left undiscussed and is printed merely
that the reader may not feel that there is concealed from him
a large field where the rule of Johannine Intervention does not
hold good.
Matthew omits the Marcan clause " and moored to the shore."
Here it seems superfluous, but it would not be so if it were a
poetic tradition based on the Psalmist's description of the
vessel saved from the storm, "And so he bringeth them unto
the haven of their desire 1 ."
Again, Mark says indefinitely, "when they were come out
of the boat (lit.) they [i.e. people] knew him." But Matthew
supplies a definite subject, "the men of that place, knowing
him, sent.. . ." This makes all the difference in what follows,
for whereas Mark, speaking of people in general, says that they
ran about that whole region and began to carry the sick to
Jesus "wherever they [from time to time] heard (imperf.)
he was," implying that Jesus was moving from place to place,
Matthew omits all this and implies that the sick were brought
to Jesus who was Himself stationary, "They sent into all that
region round about and brought unto him all that were sick."
Possibly Matthew was impelled to condensation by the difficulty
of supposing the existence of "market-places" that were "in
hamlets" (literally "in fields" or "in farms") which has induced
many MSS and Versions to alter the text 2 . All this testifies
1 Ps. cvii. 30. The Heb. NPID (R.V. "haven"} occurs only here.
Gesen. 562 b renders it "city," and notes that the Targum word,
which is similar, means "market-place, province, Syr. small town"
This deserves attention in view of Mk vi. 56 "villages, cities. . .market-
places," all of which Matthew omits. The parall. Jn vi. 21 has "the
land whither they were going." On the return from the Feeding of
the Four Thousand the parall. Mk viii. 10, Mt. xv. 39 have severally
" Dalmanutha" and "Magadan," on which see Corrections 498 g, h.
To the instances of corruption there given add i Chr. vii. 29
" Megiddo," conflated as "Balad. . .Mageddi."
On Mk vi. 53 Trpoo-cop/xiV^crai/, omitted by many good authorities,
see above, p. 243, n. 5.
2 In Mk vi. 56 many Lat. codd., with D and SS, substitute
443 (Mark vi. 53 6)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
to the existence of "market-place" as the original word,
whicry other synonyms were added afterwards.
On this Victor of Antioch has a curious comment, implying
that the miracle of the Walking on the Sea had increased
men's faith in Jesus. He implies that "a long time" had
elapsed since Jesus had set foot in that region, but that "the
interval had not only not dissolved their faith but had even
made it greater and kept it at its height 1 ."
The Fourth Evangelist represents the multitude as seeking
Jesus immediately after the miracle, but with no worthy
object : "Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye
ate of the loaves and were filled 2 ." That is to say, they did
not understand the inner meaning of that which Jesus had
said and done; and self-will and worldliness reigned in their
hearts leaving no room for the living Bread 3 . This rejection of
Jesus as their spiritual Life and Saviour is compatible with
their acceptance of Him as a marvellously successful Healer
and with their desire to compel Him to become their king and
to lead them against Herod Antipas to avenge the death of
John the Baptist.
"streets" for "market-places," a has "in the market-place (foro)
and in streets."
* Cramer ad IOC. p. 333, Aia TroXXov xpovou eVe/3^ . . . dXX' o/xcoy o
ov p.6vov OVK e^\v(T Tr)v 7rio~Tiv dXXa Kcu [JLiova flpydcraTo /cat
2 Jn VI. 26.
3 Comp. Jn viii. 37 "My word hath no free course (or, no room)
(ov
444 (Mark vi. 53 6)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
2. Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees concerning the
washing of hands' 1
The diffuse detail in which Mark describes the various
purifications practised by the Pharisees helps us to understand
i Mk vii. 123 (R.V.)
(1) And there are gathered
together unto him the Pharisees,
and certain of the scribes, which
had come from Jerusalem,
(2) And had seen that some
of his disciples ate their bread
with denied (or, common), that
is, unwashen, hands.
(3) For the Pharisees, and all
the Jews, except they wash their
hands diligently (or, up to the
elbow, Gr. with the fist), eat not,
holding the tradition of the elders :
(4) And [when they come]
from the marketplace, except
they wash themselves (lit. bap-
tize themselves ; some anc. auth.
read sprinkle themselves), they
eat not : and many other things
there be, which they have
received to hold, washings (lit.
baptizings) of cups, and pots,
and brasen vessels (many anc.
auth. add and couches).
(5) And the Pharisees and
the scribes ask him, Why walk
not thy disciples according to
the tradition of the elders, but
eat their bread with defiled (or,
common) hands ?
(6) And he said unto them,
Well did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoureth me with their
lips, but their heart is far from
me.
(7) But in vain do they wor-
ship me, teaching [as their]
doctrines the precepts of men.
(8) Ye leave the command-
ment of God, and hold fast the
tradition of men.
(9) And he said unto them,
Full well do ye reject the com-
Mt. xv. i 20 (R.V.)
(i) Then there come to Jesus
from Jerusalem Pharisees and
scribes, saying,
(2) Why do thy disciples
transgress the tradition of the
elders ? For they wash not their
hands when they eat bread.
(7) Ye hypocrites, well did
Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
(8) This people honoureth me
with their lips ; but their heart
is far from me.
(9) But in vain do they
worship me, teaching [as their]
doctrines the precepts of men.
(3) And he answered and
said unto them, Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of
God because of your tradition?
(4) For God said, Honour thy
father and thy mother : and, He
445 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
that during the life of Christ a section of the Pharisees attached
to some of these lustrations a sanctity almost like that of daily
Mk vii. 123 (R.V.) contd.
mandment of God, that ye may
keep your tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honour
thy father and thy mother;
and, He that speaketh evil of
father or mother, let him die the
death (or, surely die) :
(n) But ye say, If a man
shall say to his father or his
mother, That wherewith thou
mightest have been profited by
me is Corban, that is to say,
Given [to God] ;
(12) Ye no longer suffer him
to do aught for his father or his
mother ;
(13) Making void the word of
God by your tradition, which ye
have delivered : and many such
like things ye do.
(14) And he called to him the
multitude again, and said unto
them, Hear me all of you, and
understand :
(15) There is nothing from
without the man, that going into
him can defile him: but the
things which proceed out of the
man are those that defile the
man.
[(16) Many anc. auth. insert
If any man hath ears to hear,
let him hear.]
(17) And when he was entered
into the house from the multi-
tude, his disciples asked of him
the parable.
Mt. xv. i20 (R.V.) contd.
that speaketh evil of father or
mother, let him die the death
(or, surely die).
(5) But ye say, Whosoever
shall say to his father or his
mother, That wherewith thou
mightest have been profited by
me is given [to God] ;
(6) He shall not honour his
father (some anc. auth. add or his
mother) . And ye have made void
the word (some anc. auth. law)
of God because of vour tradition.
(10) And he called to him
the multitude, and said unto
them, Hear, and understand :
(u) Not that which entereth
into the mouth defileth the man ;
but that which proceedeth out
of the mouth, this defileth the
(12) Then came the disciples,
and said unto him, Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were
offended (lit. caused to stumble),
when they heard this saying ?
(13) But he answered and
said, Every plant (lit. planting)
which my heavenly Father
planted not, shall be rooted up.
(14) Let them alone : they are
blind guides. And if the blind
guide the blind, both shall fall
into a pit.
(15) And Peter answered and
said unto him, Declare unto us
the parable.
446 (Mark vii. I 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
baptism 1 . In particular, the importance attached early in the
first century to the washing of hands before a meal may be
inferred from a Talmudic tradition that it was instituted as a
rite by the two famous Rabbis often opposed to one another
Hillel and Shammai 2 . R. Eleazar Ben Hazar is said to have
been excommunicated because he "undervalued the purification
of hands," and when he was dead, by the command of the
Sanhedrin, a great stone was laid on his bier 3 .
Examining Mark's text we find several terms that may be
almost called technical, (i) Some of the disciples are said to
Mk vii. i 23 (R.V.) contd. Mt. xv. 120 (R.V.) contd.
(18) And he saith unto them, (16) And he said, Are ye also
Are ye so without understanding even yet without understanding ?
also? Perceive ye not, that (17) Perceive ye not, that
whatsoever from without goeth whatsoever goeth into the mouth
into the man, [it] cannot defile passeth into the belly, and is cast
him ; out into the draught ?
(19) Because it goeth not into (18) But the things which
his heart, but into his belly, and proceed out of the mouth come
goeth out into the draught ? forth out of the heart ; and they
[This he said], making all meats defile the man.
clean. (19) For out of the mouth
(20) And he said, That which come forth evil thoughts, murders,
proceedeth out of the man, that adulteries, fornications, thefts,
defileth the man. false witness, railings :
(21) For from within, out of (20) These are the things
the heart of men, evil thoughts which defile the man: but to
proceed, fornications, eat with unwashen hands de-
(22) Thefts, murders, adul- fileth not the man.
teries, covetings, wickednesses,
deceit, lasciviousness, an evil
eye, railing, pride, foolishness :
(23) All these evil things
proceed from within, and defile
the man.
1 On the Hemerobaptists, see Schiirer n. ii. 210, Levy iv. 538 a,
and Lightf. Coloss. p. 402.
2 See HOY, Heb. on Mt. xv. 2 quoting /. Sabb. fol. 3. 4. Others
said that Hillel and Shammai merely revived and emphasized the
ancient rite.
3 B. Berach. 19 a mentioning n^B3, and see Levy iv. 93 b, quoting
the same tradition from Edij. 5, 6 but with niilD- Wetstein on
Mt. xv. 2 quotes from Mischle ix. 2 a story how R. Akiba in prison
refused to refrain from the washing of hands even though he might
have died of thirst.
447 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
eat their bread "with common hands, that is, unwashed 1 ."
(2) It is said that the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash
their hands with the fist, or diligently, where R.V. marg. gives
as an alternative "up to the elbow 2 ." (3) It is said that the
Pharisees from the market-place will not eat "unless they
sprinkle themselves (so W.H.)," but with a various reading
"baptize themselves*." To discuss this passage adequately
would require a treatise. We must select what is of most
importance, namely, the adjective "common," subsequently
taken up as a verb (in Matthew as well as Mark) by Jesus
Himself declaring that " there is nothing from without the
man that going into him can make him common*."
The Hebrew word "common" is applied in the Bible to
food where Ahimelech says to David "There is no common
bread under mine hand, but there is holy bread 5 ." It is natural
to connect with this the Marcan use of " common" as if it meant
simply "unconsecrated." But the Greek koinos has no such
1 Mk vii. 2 Koivais ^epo-iV, rovr' e<rrti/ aviirrois.
2 Mk vii. 3 eai/ p.fj -rrvyfifj vtycovrai ras ^etpap, Tisch. TTVKVO. for
3 Mk vii. 4 e'ai/ p.r) pavrio-avTM, but W.H. marg. and Tisch. txt
have /SaTrriVcoirat.
4 Mk vii. 15, Mt. xv. n, rep. Mk vii. 20, 23, Mt. xv. 18, 20.
6 i S. xxi. 4, lit. "bread of commonness." The same word occurs
in Lev. x. 10 "that ye may put a difference between the holy and
the (R.V.) common (A.V. unholy)." R.V. also has "common, " where
A.V. has "profane," in Ezek. xxii. 26, xliv. 23 (comp. Ezek. xlii. 20).
The Talmudic treatise Chullin meant a "common, or unconsecrated,
food." Comp. Chag. ii. 5 (Mishna) "For [the partaking of] chullin. . .
the hands must be washed (lit. poured upon) ; for [the partaking of]
holy things the hands must be immersed." In this sense, "common,"
Vn is derived (Gesen. 320) from ^>n "pollute, defile, profane."
It does not however mean "polluted" or "desecrated" but simply
" unconsecrated."
Hor. Heb. on Mt. xv. 2 speaks of a "definition of a Pharisee"
in the words "The Pharisees eat their common food (chullin) in
cleanness (mno)," apparently meaning that they "immerse" where
less strict Jews would simply "wash."
448 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
meaning. Koinos occurs but thrice in LXX as representing a
Hebrew word, and then only as a paraphrase meaning com-
munity of property 1 . It may mean "popular" and possibly
"vulgar" but it never conveys, in non-hebraic Greek, a
notion of defilement.
We must therefore seek elsewhere some explanation of the
Marcan koinos. The most probable is one springing from a
use of the word, such as we find in Josephus, applied to the
Gentile way of life regarded as the "common " life of the Roman
Empire, somew T hat as the koine dialectos, or vernacular Greek,
was its "common" language. Jews would probably describe
apostates from Judaism as turning to "the life of dogs" or
"the life of defilement"; but Josephus speaks of them as
"revolting from their national customs and preferring the
common life*." Elsewhere Josephus describes some as going
over from Judaism to the Samaritans because they were
accused of "common eating (or, community of eating) or sabbath-
breaking, or any other such fault 3 ." This appears to be a
polite way of expressing what the Fourth Book of Maccabees
repeatedly calls "foul (or, polluted) eating 4 ."
In the Marcan passage under consideration, Mark apparently
intends to throw on the Pharisees the responsibility of using
the word "common" without explanation ("eat their bread
with common hands") whereas he himself has previously
explained the sense in which he supposes Jews to have used
1 See Prov. i. 14 LXX "a common purse, one pouch," a conflation
for Heb. "one purse," xxi. 9 O'LKCO KOIVCO, Heb. "domo societatis" (see
R.V. marg.) rep. xxv. 24 01*19 <oivfj.
* Joseph. Ant. xiii. I. I ra>i> 'TovSai'cov rovs anocrravTas TTJS irarpiov
(rvvrjdeias KOL rov KOIVOV ftiov TrporjprjfjLfvovs.
* Joseph. Ant. xi. 8. 7 f t &* TIS alriav ecr^ei/ rrapa rots 'lepocroAf/ztYaty
Koivotyayias, rj rrjs ev (rafBfiaTois Trap avoids, fj TWOS aXXov TOIOVTOV ap.aprr)-
/zaroy.
4 4 MaCC. vii.6 "Thou didst not defile (eVoii/coi/rjcray, V.r. fKoivaxras)
with polluted-eating (p.iapo<payiq) ..." (of a martyr). Miapo<payia recurs
in 4 Mace. v. 27, vi. 19, xi. 25. Miapo(payflv also occurs in 4 Mace,
v. 3, 19 etc. (about ten times).
A. L. 449 (Mark vii. 1-23) 29
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
it ("with common, that is, unwashen, hands"). But no instance
is alleged where "common" is thus applied 1 . The versions
mostly omit or paraphrase it 2 . No doubt Paul says that
"nothing is common of itself" meaning "denied" except
through the mind of him who thinks it to be "common 3 ."
But he applies it to that which is eaten, not to the hand of
the eater. So also does Peter at first, though afterwards he
says that he has learned to apply to human beings what God
taught him about food 4 . Moreover, when Peter says "I have
never eaten anything common or unclean," he clearly uses
"common" to mean, not "unconsecrated," but what might be
called "desecrated," in the sense of being forbidden by the
Levitical Law.
It is not surprising that Luke has put all these details aside
in the one brief reference that he makes to the Pharisaean
habit of "immersing." He tells us that, when Jesus was
invited by a Pharisee to breakfast, the host "marvelled that
he (lit.) was not immersed before the breakfast 5 ." Probably
"immersed" refers, not to the whole body but to the hands,
which a strict Pharisee might "immerse" before a meal instead
of merely "washing," i.e. having water poured over them 6 .
But even Luke's phrase might give rise to misunderstanding,
as though the Pharisee expected Jesus to have immersed His
1 Wetstein, on Mt. xv. n /coti/ot, quotes Joseph. Ant. xi. 8. 7
Koivofayias and says "non autem ista appellatio ex stylo Hellenistico,
sed ex re ipsa ortum videtur habuisse." No commentator, as far
as I know, gives an instance of "common" applied to "hands"
by Jews or Greeks.
2 In Mk vii. 2 the Syr. versions omit "common," a has "im-
mundis," b om. ; Delitzsch has "with uncleanness of hands."
3 Rom. xiv. 14.
4 Acts x. 14, 28. Delitzsch renders KOIVOS in x. 14 ^UQ, but in
x. 28 ^n.
5 Lk. xi. 38 "was immersed," /3am'<r0j;, SS ''baptized himself,"
Lat. codd. "baptizatus est (or esset)," e " baptizavit," Tertull. ad loc.
" tinctus esset."
6 See the distinction in the Mishna quoted above, p. 448, n. 5.
450 (Mark vii. I 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
whole body. In these circumstances we might fairly expect
John to intervene in order to teach the spiritual doctrine of
washing, and it will be maintained that he does so ; but this will
be more conveniently discussed after considering the Mark-
Matthew account of the reply of Jesus to the Pharisees, and
also a Matthew-Luke account of a similar reply.
3. The reply of Jesus to the Pharisees, in Mark and
Matthew
The reply of Jesus goes far beyond the doctrine of impure
hands, and passes into a doctrine of impure food. This is not un-
natural, since the charge of the Pharisees mentioned "hands,"
not in a general way, but in connection with the act of touching
food. Jesus first attacks the Pharisees for laying so much stress
on the washing of hands, an act not enjoined by the Law, and so
little stress on the duty of children to parents, a duty enjoined
by the Law but relaxed by some Pharisees if a child could put
in a plea of Corban 1 . In this connection there occurs the only
mention of "hypocrites" in Mark's Gospel: "But he said
1 This charge, as against all Pharisees, is not proved by Horae
Hebraicae, Wetstein, or Schottgen, and it is contrary to the spirit
of the Talmud. Nedarim ix. i shews that "the sages" agreed with
R. Eliezer, against R. Zadok, that a vow injurious to parents might
be retracted. It has been suggested that the real attack of Jesus
must have been directed against the Priests (who often derived profit
from rash vows). The same suggestion would apply to Mt. xxiii. 16
"whosoever shall swear by the gold of the Temple" a passage not
illustrated from the Talmud by Horae Hebraicae, which says " The
gold here meant is that which was offered up in the Corban." While
the Temple was standing, there may have been a section of Pharisees,
especially in Jerusalem, who supported the Priests, as R. Zadok did,
in such views as Jesus condemned. Luke, writing after the fall of the
Temple, would refrain from recording discussions about things that
were becoming obsolete.
R. Eliezer (Aboth ii. 10 n) was a strong conservative, adhering
to tradition, and this confirms the view that the charge brought by
Jesus did not include the Pharisees as a whole.
451 (Mark vii. i 23) 29 2
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you the [great"] hy\
crites This people honoureth me with their lips, but the
heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teachii
[as divine] teachings commandments of men 1 ."
This is intelligible. But it is added "And having called
the multitude to him again, he said unto them, Hear me all of
you and understand. There is nothing from without the man
that going into him can defile him (lit. make him common) ;
but the things that proceed out of the man are those that
defile (lit. make common) the man 2 ." These words may have
referred, at the moment, not to food absolutely forbidden by
the Law, e.g. the flesh of swine, but to food condemned as
defiling by Jewish tradition owing to defects in the prepara-
tion of it, or in the partaking of it ; and this view is confirmed
by the context, which does not set aside the Law of Moses
but only the traditions of the Elders. Thus we can understand
that Jesus might have Himself condemned, at this time, any
disciple venturing to eat swine's flesh. Not that it was defiling
in itself, but it was forbidden by the Law, and to eat it was
also an offence to the national feeling, being sometimes a sign
of apostasy. Many Jews had died as martyrs rather than eat
it under constraint 3 . Thus, too, we can understand that there
was need of a special vision for Peter, before he could believe
1 Mk vii. 6 7 where Trepi t>/zo>i/ TO>V v-rroKpiT&v is parall. to Mt. xv. 7
ai . . .Trepi t/zi/. See Proclam. p. 368 (on Christ's application
of the term chdneph to the Pharisees) quoting Bacon's Essays xvi. 60
"The great atheists indeed are hypocrites." "[As] teachings" (Son
3347 (vi)) appears better interpreted " [as] teachings [of the Law,
or of God]" than (R.V.) "[as their] doctrines." But the duplica-
tion might possibly imply mere emphasis, "teaching [as solemn]
teachings."
2 Mk vii. 14 KCLL 7rpoarKa\e<rdfji(vos irakiv TOV o^Xoi/. Mt. XV. IO
omits TraXiv. There is no previously mentioned "calling" of the
multitude in Mark to which "again" could refer.
3 On the attempts to compel Jews to sacrifice, or eat, the flesh
of swine see i Mace. i. 47, 2 Mace. vi. 18, vii. i, 4 Mace. v. 2 etc.
452 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
that even "the creeping things of the earth" might be killed
for food by a disciple of Christ 1 .
Nevertheless Mark (or the writer followed by Mark) indicates
his own belief that, in effect, neither swine's flesh nor any other
food could, in itself, defile a man, because such meat (Jesus
said) " goeth not into his heart but into his belly 2 ." It would be
the self-will of the eater, or perhaps his fear of torture and love
of life, that would "defile the man" by "going into his heart."
Accordingly, to the statement of what Jesus said, Mark adds,
from himself, the words "[This he said] making all meats
clean 3 ." That is to say, this universal and permanent rule
("all food is pure") was to be reasonably inferred from, or was
involved in, Christ's utterance.
Stated as it is, without limitation, this utterance might well
offend any pious follower of Jesus who had hitherto believed
that He had not come "to destroy the Law or the Prophets but
to fulfil 4 ." A comment recorded by Victor of Antioch recog-
nises the epoch-making character of the utterance: "From this
point," it says, "begins the New Law, the [Law] according to
the Spirit, the [Law] that no longer seeks [its object] in bodily
purifications nor in distinction of foods but in the virtue of the
Spirit 5 ." The commentator admits that the Law and the
Gospel now diverged: "For the [teaching] of the Law looked
rather to the outer man, but the [teaching] of the Lord to the
inner; .since indeed the season was now present when the
Cross was destined to put an end to the [dispensation of]
1 Acts x. 12 "all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping
things of the earth."
2 Mk vii. 19.
3 KaOapifav iravra TO. /3p&>^ara, not in the parall. Mt. xv. 17.
4 Mt. v. 17.
6 Cramer p. 335, where read &TWV cv cra>/xarifcal? [for -ols] Kaddpo-to-i.
Victor (ib. p. 263) records the scattered comments of others, not
being able to find any ancient continuous commentary on Mark.
This commentator is therefore earlier (and from internal evidence
probably very much earlier) than Victor himself.
453 (Mark vii. 123)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
bodily things." This frankly admits, not only the novelty of
Christ's doctrine, but also its anticipatory nature. It was n(
to be fulfilled till "the Cross" came to fulfil it 1 .
1 See Son 3493;, "Jesus protests that 'nothing that [thus]
goeth into the mouth' defileth the man," where "thus" means "in
the manner and circumstances assumed by the rabbinical traditions."
It is added "The implied 'thus' . . .might easily be forgotten when
the sentence was taken out of its context. Mark appears to have
forgotten it."
The fact that the saying is called "a parable" by the disciples
and Peter indicates that, even at the time, they did not believe it
was to be taken in a literal sense. For this Jerome blames Peter:
"Quod aperte dictum fuerat, et patebat auditui, Apostolus Petrus
per parabolam dictum putat, et in re manifesta mysticam quaerit
intelligentiam. Corripiturque a Domino. ..." Jerome goes on to
draw a moral from this practice of "seeking a mystical meaning in
a plain matter." He says that it betokens "a faulty hearer" when
a man desires "either to understand dark sayings as if they were
clear or clear as if they were dark."
Perhaps Jerome is referring to Origen, who says that here, as
in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus again spoke to the multitude
in parables (Comm. Matth. xi. 13 ad fin.) "But here [also] He
[virtually] stretches out His hand to the multitude calling it to
Him and detaching [it] from the verbal acceptation of the questionings
that relate to the Law when He in the first place began to say to
them ' Hear ye and understand ' (though they did not yet understand
what they heard) and in the next place, as [if speaking] in parables,
began to say to them, ' Not that which entereth into the mouth. ..."
Origen has previously said (Comm. Matth. xi. 12, Lomm. iii. 97) that
we learn from the Gospels that the "obvious (irpoxfipos)" .meaning
of the Levitical precepts is not to be regarded as " the scope appointed
for the Scripture (rbv O-KOTTOV clvai TTJ ypafpfi)."
These two ancient interpretations are in direct opposition.
According to Origen all the Levitical precepts were of the nature
of parables, and Jesus interpreted them in His parable. According to
Jerome, Leviticus enjoined plain precepts and Jesus plainly revoked
them, so that there was no parable at all. Neither interpretation
appears to represent the exact truth.
Chrysostom (on Matthew) sides with Jerome, but is even less
respectful to Peter, who, he says, was afraid to say to Jesus "Why
hast thou spoken against the Law (diari Trapdvop-ov euros-;) ? " Peter
pleaded "obscurity," but "there was no obscurity." He concludes
his comment by quoting Mark: "But Mark says that He uttered
454 (Mark vii. I 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
4. The doctrine of Jesus on "purifying," in Matthew
and Luke 1
The doctrine of Jesus, as given by Luke, on purifying, or
cleansing 2 in connection with the metaphor of a vessel
differs from the form of it given by Matthew. Luke mentions
the literal giving of "alms," Matthew adheres to metaphor,
these words 'purifying [all] foods.' However, He did not make this
clear (ov rfv evefavev), nor did He say 'But to eat such foods defileth
not the man (TO de /3po>juara roiade (frayflv ov KOIVO! rbv avdpa>7rov). For
they could not yet [read ovira> for ovVf] endure to hear that clearly
[stated] [or, to hear Him clearly speaking thus] (<ra<o>y ovrcos avrov
d<ovo-ai). Wherefore also He added [in Matthew], 'But to eat with
unwashen hands doth not defile the man.' " This comment, though
(doubtless) wrong in attributing reticence to Jesus, is useful because
it shews us how easy it would have been to say " A man may eat
anything," if that had been the meaning, and because it leads con-
sequently to the inference "That was not the meaning."
1 Mt. xxiii. 25 6 (R.V.) Lk. xi. 3941 (R.V.)
(25) Woe unto you, scribes (39) Now do ye Pharisees
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye cleanse the outside (ro eo>0ei/) of
cleanse the outside (TO eo>0ei>) of the cup and of the platter; but
the cup and of the platter, but your inward part (ro eVcotfei/ vp.a>v}
within (eo-todev) they are full from is full of extortion and wicked-
extortion and excess. ness.
(26) Thou blind Pharisee, (40) Ye foolish ones, did not
cleanse first the inside (ro eWos-) he that made the outside (ro e'<o-
of the cup and of the platter, that 6ev) make the inside (ro eo-o>$e v)
the outside (ro CKTOS] thereof may also ?
become clean also. (41) Howbeit give for alms
those things which are within
(or, which ye can) (ra eVdWa) ; and
behold, all things are clean unto
you.
A.V. has, in Mt. xxiii. 26, "Cleanse first that [which is] within the
cup and platter," and in Lk. xi. 40 i "Did not he that made that
which is without make that which is within also ? But rather give
alms of such things as ye have (marg. as you are able) ; and, behold,
all things are clean unto you."
2 R.V. follows A.V. in rendering <adap6s by "clean" in this
tradition; but there is an advantage in rendering it by "pure," so
as to connect it with passages where R.V. and A.V. render it by
"pure," e.g. Mt. v. 8 "blessed are the pure in heart," Tit. i. 15 "to
the pure all things are pure" etc.
455 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
and makes no mention of alms. The Greek text in Matthew
is ambiguous since it might denote (i) "the inside [surface],
or interior, of a vessel," (2) "the contents of a vessel." Luke
seems to oscillate between the two meanings. He also inter-
mixes metaphor ("cup and platter") with non-metaphor
("you"). Hence he writes first "the outside [surface] of t]
cup and of the platter ... but the inside [surface] of you."
Then, after repeating an antithesis between "the outside" am
"the inside," he proceeds to paraphrase freely. And now he
takes "the inside" as meaning "that which is inside," i.e. "the
contents." And, in the same sentence, as if answering the
question "How are the 'contents' to be 'cleansed'?" he replies
"By giving the contents as alms" ("alms" being, in Jewish
thought, often interchangeable with "righteousness"). This is
equivalent to "Give the contents as alms" The next step is to
find a corresponding antithetical meaning for "the outside."
And this forces him, again mixing metaphor, to depart still
further from Matthew. For the antithesis to "that which is
within the human vessel" is "that which is outside the human
vessel" namely, the whole external world of outward action
("all things") as opposed to the internal source of action 1 .
So he concludes "and behold all things are pure to you." The
thought is clear enough ("to the pure all things are pure 2 ").
But it departs from Matthew in form. And Matthew seems
closer to the original 3 .
1 If "the vessel" is taken literally, then "that which is inside"
is the food, part of which is given to the poor, and "all things"
would seem to mean all kinds of food. But the confusion of the
literal and the metaphorical makes it impossible to interpret each
detail with confidence.
2 Tit. i. 15.
3 It is possible that Luke, on occasions where Matthew's Greek
presented difficulties, may have corrected it by recourse to other
traditions based on a Semitic original. In this particular original
the same word might mean "give alms" and "cleanse." But Luke
may have started from the Greek text (see Dalman's Words p. 63).
456 (Mark vii. i 23)
THE NEW LAW OF PURIFICATION
We may be quite sure that Jesus did not enjoin, as a means
of self-purification, the literal giving of the contents of a vessel
in the for 
