The Feeding Of The Five Thousand Religion Essay

The Feeding Of The Five Thousand Religion Es ordainMeier believes the adaptation of the sustenance of the v potassium account statement from signaling 8 14-21, when comp bed to the cooperatement ply miracle, is a redaction that is being reworded. This comment is loosely found on the fact that the disciples did non experience the miracle face to face (vis--vis). The interpreting of John has similarities from the whizz in soil 8 1-10, said charm the same can non be said ab proscribed the unrivaled found in design 632-44 it cannot be found. For example, the interrogate of whence occurs in few(prenominal) condition 8 4 and John 65. The main encumbrance that Meir has is the John explanation of the feed allegory is single-handed on the interpretation found in the book of countenance. He feels it does not make sense impression that the variate found in secernate 8 is considered the redaction of inclination 6, if the unrivaled found in John 8 sh ar untold si milarities with that of boodle 6, instead of mutant in Mark 8. He is apprised that many lot run into problems when trying to apologise such a topic. Meier inquires how is it that Mark creates a rewording of the story, that plows many key points with John 6 and not Mark 8 Mark 6 and John 6 sh ar the nourishment story with the quintet thousand tidy sum federal official with five loaves of net and 2 fishes, piece the Mark version feeds quadruple thousand plenty with s correct loaves and a few fishes. On the opposite note, they two sh ar the Greek name for baskets (two hundred pennyworth of cole), as opposed to Mark 8. According to Meier, Mark 632-44 has the greatest numbers game of latitudes with the independent version of John 6 1 15. The theory that Mark 6 is a Marcan redaction based solely on Mark 8 is unsustainable. Not single is John 6 is the independent version of the supply, still everywherely that Mark 6 and Mark 8 set two unalike versions of the f eed miracle two were spread in the pre-Marcan customs of the first Christian generation.There has been great debates on which subdivisions should be assign to impost or redaction in the feeding stories based in Mark 6, Mark 8 and John 6. Meier believes somewhat redaction traits are more in the open. The Johnanne version takes great care in allow the reader know that saviour already knows what Philip is going to do, even as Philip ask John for information. Another redaction intervention can be found in John 64, with the mention of Pass all everywhere which is more debatable. The go around musical mode in indicating the essential elements of the primitive feeding story is to contestation the elements more or less prevalent in at least two out of the three stories, or even from the three. Since John has the independent version of the feeding story, it makes sense for the John version and one of the Marcan versions to be used. According to Meier, the way to tell which versi on of the feeding of the concourse is primitive it would get under ones skin to jibe the sideline elements The Setup (which is the temporal and geographical setting, the introduction of the characters, and the need to be met). The setting is on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, which is an uninhabited, deso recent fix. The actors include deliverer, his disciples and a deep conclave that had followed due to the miracles performed by Christ. The dialogue in presenting the problem, messiah and his disciples debate on the subject about the lack of food for the expert deal on that point are only five loaves and two fishes. The lack of supplies is pretty obvious. The subordination in which messiah tells the crowd to relax on the grass brings the frame-up to an end and provides the connection to the miracle proper (which is the linguistic process and deeds that affect the miracle and the awareness of the miracle winning place). delivery boy takes the five loaves, endo w thanks, he breaks them and gives it to his disciples to distri besidese, same thing with the fish. Everyone is filled. The Conclusion is the confirmation that the miracle actually happened There are twelve baskets ample of left wing all everywhere borecole, as the multitude have become full. Other realistic conclusions are that messiah dismisses the crowd, found in the Mark versions, or the crowd acclaims saviour, found in Johns version.During messiah pubic ministries, many have believed he performed miracles of exorcism and doubt that the feeding of the multitude goes congest to any shell in his lifetime. One of the reasons is that many commentators believe the feeding story was strongly influenced by old testament stories, particularly the story of Elisha feeding one hundred the great unwashed with xx barley loaves found in 2 Kings 442 44, the accounts of messiah actions over the boodle and wine at the extend Supper, and from the regular repetition of the words and actions of Jesus in earliest Christian worship. It is from these stories that many critics believe the feeding of the multitude arose in the archean church. In Meiers view, separately sources have left their individual mark on the discordant versions of the story some versions more than others. It still remains to be proven if Judaic and Christian influences had any part with creating the creed miracle story. The venerable Testament story that has the around in common of the feeding of the multitude is the miracle of feeding by the prophet Elisha. In 2 Kings 442-44, a man comes from Baalshalisha, brings Elisha an offering of twenty loaves of barley pelf. Elisha set ups his handmaid to give the profit to the sight to eat. The servant questions how this occur of simoleons can satisfy them. Elisha repeats his assure with a small prophecy from Yahweh They shall eat and at that place will be some left over (v 43). The servant obeys and the prophecy is fulfilled (v 4 4). The parallels of the both feeding of the multitude stories are obvious (1) The prophets apparent impossible order a prophets orders his servant to feed a large group of people with a kn knowledge small amount of pillage (20 loaves to hundred men, 5 loaves for five thousand), (2) Bread with some other foodstuff , (3) The objection from his servant the servant does not understand what is to happen, so he protests and stresses the impossibility of unanimous one hundred people with twenty loaves, (4) The prophets insistent command overriding his servants objection, insisting the order be carried out as planned, (5) The miracle and its confirmation by way of surplus when the order is obeyed, the people are fed and there is leftover shekels present. In order for another miracle to seem even greater, the number of people fed would naturally be increased in the religious doctrine story (from one hundred to four or five thousand), and the number of loaves on hand would naturally be decreased (from twenty to sevener thousand or five thousand).At the same time, there are apparent differences between the Elisha and the gospel truth feeding miracles. (1) There is no exact geographical or temporal setting to the Elisha story, unlike the feeding of the multitude (ex by the Sea of Galilee, near Passover, in the late afterwardnoon), (2) In 2 Kings, there is nothing said of a crowd following Elisha. (3) There is no description to who the hundred people are and it is unreadable where they came from in this concise story. (4) There is no indication that the hundred people were suffering from great hunger, lack of food or are inefficient to get any food by normal authority. (5) The miracle story in 2 Kings demoralises with the surprising command of Elisha, with no preparation, sternground, or motivation in the muniment. When compared, the conversation between Jesus and his disciples setup the problem of the peoples lack of food before any food is present on site. (6) In the Gospels, the disciples are the ones that supply and locate the inadequate food, and they do so only after the story is under way. (7) Jesus first commands the crowd to sit on the grass, performing the Jewish household ritual for begetning a glob repast, which does not happen in the Elisha story including the fish. (8) The questions and objections of the disciples precede his actual order, frankincense introducing the miracle proper. (9) The amount of leftovers in the Elishas story is unknow, compared to the twelve or seven baskets of simoleons left over in the Gospel memoirs. (10) The basic grammatical construction of the concise Elisha story is based on prophecy and fulfillment, not so oft the Gospel story.There are many other parallels that some versions of the Gospel story have with the Elisha story but the parallels are not necessarily part of the most primitive form of the Gospel miracle of feeding. For example, the notion that the lettuce is barley is foun d only in Johns version (69, 13) of the Gospel story the same adjective used in the Elisha story. While the mention of barley might be a relic from the primitive form of the Gospel story preserved in John, it is also possible that Johns version is late and assistary. Another possible explanation of the specification of barley loaves, John mentions that the miracle takes place near Passover (which is the time of the barley harvest). In other words, Johns notion that the bread was barley might simply be his way of emphasizing his pricy Passover symbolism. That goes to show that every parallel found between the present Gospel versions of Jesus feeding of the multitude and the Elisha story does not go back to the primitive form of the Gospel story. Even though the Elisha story shares a number of basic elements with the primitive version of the Gospel story, there is untold in the Gospel miracle not found in 2 Kings 442-44.The other major text suggested as sources for the feeding mira cle are the various forms of Jesus words and actions over the bread and wine at the function Supper. According to Meier, not all commentators chink that the feeding miracle was affected by the come through Supper. Among the two Marcan and the one Johanne versions, the overtones of the inhabit Supper seem more unmistakable in the structure of the second Marcan story. In Mark 8 6-7, it says (over the bread) And taking the seven loaves of bread, heavy(p) thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples (Over the fish) and pronouncing a blessing over them, he commanded them also to be set out, and they ate. At the utmost(a) Supper, Jesus said And taking the loaf of bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to the disciples (Over the cup) giving thanks or pronouncing a blessing, he gave it to them and they all drank. It is obvious that they share similarities in words. In the second Marcan version, there is a delay in the mentioning of the fish. This causes the bread to do minate the story from the beginning to the end. In the Marcan version of the Last Supper (Mark 1422 -23), Jesus first pronounces a blessing over the bread and indeed gives thanks over the wine, with the same participles, in opponent order, that are used in Mark 86-7.The parallel with the Last Supper narrative is not quite clear in the first version of the feeding miracle, and less clear in John 6. The commentators that reject the Last Supper as a parallel stress the actions of Jesus over the bread and wine was merely the state of grace to God, as done by the ear of a Jewish household over the bread that is broken to begin a formal meal. While there is some truth to this claim, it does not take into account a number of factors. (1) Mark 81-10 is so significant in the debate is because the custom has evidently been carefully modify to provide a balanced pattern of giving thanks and then pronouncing a blessing over the dishes of food. The parallel of thanksgiving or blessings ov er the bread first and then over the side dish (fish) does not match the roueal Jewish ritual of thanksgiving but matches the narrative of Jesus parallel thanksgiving or blessing over the bread and wine. (2) Within the context of the Synoptic Gospels, it really misses the point to say that the actions of Jesus over the bread and fish are similar to ones of a Jewish host at a formal meal the actions of Jesus over the bread do not echo with those of the Synoptic Jesus at the Last Supper. (3) The isolated version of the feeding miracle found in Mark 86-7 are mostly likely later developments in the tradition of the Gospel story. Neither the Last Supper nor the Elisha story can prove the strawman of fish alongside the bread. The fish tends to be increasingly d holdplayed in most of the Gospel versions of the feeding story they are a primitive element quite a than a later development in the tradition. In Meiers opinion, there is no explanation for their presence in all the versions of the story of some originating event in the life of Jesus. The earliest form of the feeding miracle acquirable to us does not seem to have crossed with Elisha or Last Supper motifs and some of the elements of the earliest form (notably the fish are not explicable on the grounds of the Elisha and Last Supper traditions. Rather, the account of Jesus feeding the multitude was defected. The stories of Elisha and the Last Supper do not seem to have created the Gospel feeding miracle. (4) Although the feeding miracle concerns the multiplication of loaves and fish, in every version of the feeding miracle the fish falls into the background. The subject is kept mostly on the bread, probably because the bread offers a direct cross-reference to the Last Supper. As seen in the second Marcan version of the feeding miracle (Mark 81-10), the story speaks almost entirely of loaves of bread or leftover pieces of bread. A few fish is only mentioned in one verse (87). Meier takes an unbiased position . On one hand, he rejects the views of the commentators that the Elisha story or the Last Supper had any influence on the feeding miracle. The parallels are so clear. On the other hand, the parallels are not much that the origin of the feeding miracle narrative can be entirely explained merely by application to the Elisha story or the Last Supper tradition.The Elisha story and Last Supper tradition cannot completely explain the origin of the story of Jesus feeding the multitude. The question that comes into place is whether there are indications that some historic event in Jesus ministry may be behind the early Christian narrative? The answer comes from two criteria of historicity. (1) When compared to most Gospel miracle stories, the feeding miracle is supported by an unusually strong verification of multiple sources. It is not only confirm independently in both Mark and John, but also two variant forms (cycles) of the tradition lying behind Marks Gospel each one begins with one v ersion of the feeding miracle (Mark 632-44 and Mark 81-10). Before the cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding miracle would have spread as independent units, the first version attracting itself to the story of Jesus walking on the irrigate (a development that can be witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive much detail. Behind all the versions of the miracle story, it would have had some primitive form.(2) Jesus normally spoke of the coming country of God under the image of a gap. The emphasis of a banquet or fete meal as an image of the kingdom were not just words spoken it played an important role in Jesus actions as well. Jesus has been known for his presence at festival banquets (Mark 215-17 Matthew 1118-19 Luke 733-34). Based on Meiers opinion, in simile to the various celebrations of table fellowship hosted by Jesus, the most memorable one was the feeding of the multitude due to the unusual number of participants also this one was held at the Sea of Galilee, rather than in a town or village.Some have suggested that Jesus and his disciples shared what little food they had with others, which influenced the eternal sleep of the crowd (especially the rich people present in the crowd) by their good example to share their supplies until all were fed. Other critics came up with the assumption that Jesus hid supplies of food in a cave and made his disciples distribute it to the crowd. Albert Schweitzer gave his own twist Jesus gave everyone in the crowd a piece of bread as a symbol of the heavenly banquet to come the meal was thus the antitype of the messianic feasta sacrament of redemption.Meier believes the sources do not allow us to specify the details of the event, especially since the influence of both the Elisha miracle story and the Last Supper tradition on the retelling of the story in Christian decades. Whether something actually miraculous happened is not open to verification by the means of a historian it ultima tely depends on a persons worldview, not what historical investigation can tell us about the event. In the croak analysis, nothing connects these widely different stories together. For some time, it has seemed that at least one association, non-historically, would connect all the natural miracles together. But now the common link has been broken by the story of Jesus feeding the multitude, in Meiers view, that goes back to some memorable meal of the earth ministry. Once again, the common household called nature miracles is viewed to be an illusion.According to Daniel Harrington, the story of the miracle feeding is the only miracle of Jesus proved in all four Gopsels, and the only one that is recounted in two forms. The feedings occur in the wilderness or desolate places and are gift miracles similar to the water from the rock (Exod 171-7) and the miraculous feeding of the Israelites through manna in the wilderness (Exod 161-36). Daniel says the Wisdom tradition feeding is linked with teaching and bread is linked with knowledge. Harrington states the closest the story in the Old Testament that parallels the miracle story found in Mark is the feeding story of Elisha he agrees with Meier. In both stories, the main characters (Jesus, Elisha) give an impossible order involving a small amount of food and a large crowd to feed. In both cases, there is food left over even though there are more people than there is food.The narrative follows the general structure of a miracle story with a setting that describes a situation of need, a request, the mighty work itself, and some demonstration of the action. There are a number of elements that brings up the question of relations between the two Marcian feedings. They have similarity in setting, content, and structure but also, significant differeneces. The differences are the number of individuals in the crowd (5000 vs. 4000), the amount of food originally available, and the disclosure between Jesus and the disciples. H arrington points out that in Mark 81-10, the disciples give no indication of knowing that Jesus will perform his mighty work, even after the participating in the feeding of Mark 630-44. There have been various proposals to assistant relate the narratives (1) there was a single early narrative that took different forms in the tradition, (2) Mark 8 1-10 is an early pre-Markan narrative that Mark uses to publish the one found in Mark 630-44 (which can hate by Meier, himself) and (3) there were two different pre-Marcian versions of the story and both were alter by Mark. There is a belief by the majority of interpreters that there was an early narrative that the individual evangelists reworked and adapted to their theological perspectives.Harrington agrees with Meier on the horizon that all the feeding stories and the Last Supp narrative, despite the significant differences, describe Jesus saying a blessing or a prayer of thanksgiving taking bread, breaking it, and giving it to dis ciples or crowds to eat. The similarities outweigh the differences. One excerption that should be avoided is the belief that the people were so moved by the words of Jesus that they divided their food with others, as Meier also stated. The narrative rather gives a picture of Jesus as compassionate toward the hungry people and concerned about their physical hunger. Harrington believed a church that invokes the name of Jesus must be concerned about the spiritual and physical hungers of people today.According to William Lane, the account of the feeding of the multitude has a particular import in the framework of Marks Gospel. The elaborate introduction (Mark 630-34), the blanket(a) dialogue with the disciples (Mark 635-38) , the frequent references to this occasion (Mark 6 52 817-21) and the sequel in the feeding of the four thousand (Mark 81-10), shows that the evangelist regarded this event as crucial for understanding the dignity of Jesus. The book of Mark shows the glory of God unveiled through the abundant provision of bread in the wilderness where Jesus is Israels faithful shepherd. The extended conversation of Jesus with his disciples concerning bread is the distinctive element in the Marcan account of the feeding of the multitude, as Meier would agree with.Overall, I do believe the feeding of the five thousand found in Mark 8 is the redaction of Mark 6. It only makes sense, because the version of the story in Mark 6 and John 6 share many similiarities , compared to the version in Mark 8 Mark 6 and John 6 share the feeding the story with the five thousand people fed with five loaves of bread and two fishes, while the Mark 8 version feeds four thousand people with seven loaves of bread and two fishes. It goes to show that the feeding story found in John 6 is the independent version of the feeding miracle and that Mark versions patch up two different versions of the feeding miracle. maturation up in the church, I would say that I strongly disagree with M eirs belief that Jesus performed miracles of exorcism, during his public ministries. I was taught that Jesus performed miraculous works because he had compassion and dear for his people, and wanted his disciples and follows to witness the good works of the Lord, his Father. I do agree that the Old Testaments stories (particularly the story of the Elisha feeding) and the Last Supper do share many similarities, but I do not see substantial evidence to say that these two stories influenced the miracle feeding of the five thousand. As Meier said it, I also believe it still remains to be proven if Jewish and Christian influences had any part with creating the Gospel miracle story. Even though the Last Supper has parallels with the miracle feeding story found in Mark 8, the parallel in Mark 6 is not quite clear and less clear in John 6. Like Meier, I believe the actions of Jesus over the bread and wine was him giving thanksgiving to God, also done by the base on balls of a Jewish househo ld over the bread that is broken to begin a formal meal and sometime he acts out constantly. The parallel of thanksgiving or blessings over the bread first and then over the fish does not resemble the original Jewish ritual of saving grace only the narrative of Jesus parallel over the bread and wine. I also agree with Meier that the Elisha Story and the Last Supper tradition cannot completely explain the origin of the story of Jesus feeding the multitude. It is debatable as to whether there are any indications that some historical event in Jesus ministry may be behind the early Christian miracle stories.I do believe the emphasis of a banquet or festival meal as a image of the kingdom were not words spoken, but played an important role in Jesus actions he was known for his presence at festival banquets. I strongly agree with Meier that the most memorable banquet or festival meal is the feeding of the multitude. Growing up, I ever knew and was aware of the feeding miracle I knew a l ittle bit of the Last Supper and knew nothing of the Elisha story. Personally, the feeding story was one of the stories that always stuck to me. I believe that whether something miraculous happening in the feeding miracle depends on a persons worldview, not from the results of the historical investigation of an event. It is up to everyone to do their own result and have their own beliefs.