All Gospels record the feeding of the 5000; the authors of Matthew and Mark record two feedings. A doublet or two separate events? The context of the narratives, similarities and differences, whether one event or two, historical or myth and the significance for each writer will be discussed.
In the Synoptic gospels the event follows the death of John the Baptist and the return of the disciples from preaching and teaching. Mark6:39 writes, ‘the people sat on the green grass,’ suggesting spring-time, possibly April. John does not mention either event; John6:4, ‘the Passover was near.’ Passover, an important C1st Jewish feast, although not a family meal it involved going to the Temple and offering sacrifices. Therefore, the disciples would have returned, expecting to accompany Jesus to Jerusalem. ‘After this,’ John6:1, a Johannine term used to indicate passage of time.
Do Matthew and Mark record two events or is it a doublet? Scholars generally agree Mark’s gospel was first and Matthew and Luke used, it with ‘Q’ ‘M’ & ‘L’, as their source. Mark was not an eye-witness but relied on oral and other sources. Matthew is generally seen as an update of Mark; so, perhaps, not surprising Matthew also records the second feeding. Luke and John may have had access to Mark’s Gospel, but neither record two separate events.
Looking at Mark may help. In Mark6 Jesus feeds 5,000; in Mark8, 4000. The crowds have been with him all day; then three days. Five loaves and two fishes, twelve baskets of food remain; seven loaves and a few small fish, seven baskets remain. Scholars have attempted to attach Jewish/Gentile significance to these differences in numbers - too various to discuss here.
Mark8:1, ‘…….there was again a great crowd.’ I...
... middle of paper ...
...presentation of the meaning of the Christ-event, suggesting the Eucharist and the eschatological picture of fellowship and plenty. (Boring:P.326).
Josephus, a non-Christian contemporary writer of the apostles, attests that, ‘at that time there was a wise man named Jesus, a teacher, who performed wonderful works among the Jews and Gentiles.’ (Powell/Attridge:P.492). The Jewish Talmud, C5thC.E., attributes Jesus' miracles to sorcery. Opponents of the Gospels do not deny Jesus performed miracles, they just give different explanations. (Twelftree:P.50).
However, if any explanation other than historically accurate is accepted the disciples non- understanding might be explained. Overall, it is fair to say that scholarly opinion is divided on an explanation for the differences in the accounts; perhaps best explained by the writing perspective of the individual authors.
Jesus wished to feed the crowd of five thousand who was following him, watching him perform miracles. However, there were only 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. Jesus turned the food into a bountiful feast, feeding everyone.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Bible. Eds. Dom Bernand Orchard, Rev. R. V. Fuller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966. Print.
Mt 14:18 He said, Bring them hither to me. 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
The Gospel of John, the last of the four gospels in the Bible, is a radical departure from the simple style of the synoptic gospels. It is the only one that does not use parables as a way of showing how Jesus taught, and is the only account of several events, including the raising of Lazarus and Jesus turning water into wine. While essentially the gospel is written anonymously, many scholars believe that it was written by the apostle John sometime between the years 85 and 95 CE in Ephesus. The basic story is that of a testimonial of one of the Apostles and his version of Jesus' ministry. It begins by telling of the divine origins of the birth of Jesus, then goes on to prove that He is the Son of God because of the miracles he performs and finally describes Jesus' death and resurrection.
Although the New Testament is the main source of information regarding Jesus’ life, Jews often disregard it as a reliable source of information. It was not written until two to three generations after Jesus, hence it cannot be considered a primary source. Also, from a Jewish perspective, the aim of the Gospels is not to give an accurate account of Jesus’ life and teachings; the Gospels served as missionary documents containing accounts recorded by biased evangelists. They reflect the aims of the church rather than actual facts, and their writers were more concerned with the advancement of Christianity than the transmission of factual historical information. For these reasons, it is impossible to separate the historical Jesus from the divine Christ presented in the Gospels, and Judaism regards the Gospels as unreliable and irrational.
Speaking in terms of history, there are similar yet differences in the historical events and the gospels. One of the similarities is the historical documents of Jesus ' existence. Yet, there are differences in fact-finding. In historical research there is often sources that are provided for the audience. The gospels do not provide this source. However, the gospels are written by four different individuals which allows the reader to see the story through four different views.
The Gospel of Matthew is an eyewitness story written for an audience of believers, under great stress, and persecution. Matthew develops a theological plot incorporating genealogy, speeches, parables, inter and intra textual references, common vocabulary, and fulfillment quotations, with a tension that builds as we are invited into the story. The crucifixion and resurrection bring us to a Christological climax that symbolically points beyond its conclusion to God’s Kingdom, bringing atonement, salvation and the ushering in the Eschaton. The extraordinary events surrounding the crucifixion act as commentary, adding important details concerning the death of Jesus.1
One of the main characteristics of the gospel of Mark is it’s length. Mark is much shorter than Matthew and Luke, but what it lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. The author of Mark does not slow down the gospel story and makes sure that only important and relevant details are included. When Mark is compared with Matthew and Luke, it becomes obvious to see what Mark has eliminated. The author’s omission of Jesus’ birth, lineage, resurrection, and ascension denote careful planning and purpose in the gospel of Mark.
Mark’s gospel and John’s gospel contain many differences from the beginning, but both end with Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The gospels of John and Mark represent Jesus as two different people. The disparity is that Mark represents Jesus as a servant while John portrays Jesus as a divine being. However, one must realize the two texts are meant to read by different audiences during different time periods. Each description presents a particular aspect of the life of Historical Jesus.
In the gospel of Mark, there is a miracle called The Feeding of the Five Thousand. In chapter 6:34-44 and is located in the Galilean Ministry of Jesus, in Mark. The Galilean Ministry of Jesus is when, after John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:14-15)." The Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only miracle of Jesus that is recounted in all four gospels. In the miracle Jesus is taking, breaking, and giving to the disciples. This corresponds to the actions of Jesus over the Last Supper and the Eucharist.
Senior, Donald. 1998. "The Gospel of Matthew and the Passion of Jesus : Theological and Pastoral Perspectives." Word & World 18, no. 4: 372-379. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 13, 2014).
...rning the declination of invitations, whereas Luke goes further into detail. Also, the Gospel of Matthew offers a shorter summary in comparison to Luke and includes the second part of the parable, Mt 22:11-14. (Lester 308)
Mitch & Sri suggest that early in biblical history, everyone from Irenaeus in the second century to Origen and Tertullian in the third century, through to Augustine in the fifth century declared that Matthew the apostle was the author. However, by the nineteenth century this theory was less supported. The theory behind this shift was that the author of Matthew extensively used material from the earlier gospel of Mark and if the author of Matthew had been an apostle and eye witness to Jesus work, why did he rely on Mark’s material.
Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.
During the year of Jesus death and resurrection, the disciples all gathered for Pentecost, which ...