CHAPTER VII

AFTER THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. LITERARY AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS

1. The Voyage on the Lake after the Return of the Twelve.

It is exceedingly difficult to gather from the Synoptic accounts a clear picture of the events which happened after the mission of the Twelve. When did the Disciples return? Where did Jesus betake himself during their absence? What sort of success did the Disciples have? What events happened between their return and the departure for the north? Were these events of a sort to account for Jesus’ determination to withdraw with them into solitude?

The accounts supply no answer to these questions. Moreover they confront us with another, a purely literary problem. The connection between the several scenes is here extraordinarily broken. It seems almost as if the thread of the narration were here completely lost. Only at the moment of departure for the journey to Jerusalem do the [pg 165] scenes begin to stand again in a clear and natural relationship.

First of all we have to do with two obvious doublettes: the feeding of the multitude and the subsequent journey on the lake (Mk 6:31, 56 = Mk 8:1, 21). In both instances Jesus is overtaken by the multitude as he lands on a lonely shore after a journey across the lake. Then he returns again to the Galilean village on the west shore. Here in his accustomed field of activity he encounters the Pharisaic emissaries from Jerusalem. They call him to account. In the series which contains the first account of the feeding of the multitude the question at issue is about hand-washing (Mk 7:1-23), in the second case it is the requirement of a sign (Mk 8:11-13). The first series concludes with the departure for the north, where in the neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon he meets the Canaanitish woman (Mk 7:24-30). In the second series the journey to Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 8:27) follows upon his encounter with the Pharisees.

We have here therefore two independent accounts of the same epoch in Jesus’s life. In their plan they match one another perfectly, differing only in the choice of the events to be related. These two narrative series are as it were predestinated to be [pg 166] united instead of being placed side by side. It happens that each of the northern journeys, according to the narrative, begins and ends with a sojourn in Galilee. Mk 7:31: After leaving the region of Tyre he came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Mk 9:30, 33: And they went forth from thence (i. e. from Cæsarea Philippi) and wandered through Galilee and came to Capernaum. At the end of one narrative series one finds oneself again at the beginning of the other. Hence if one connect the one return from the north with the beginning of the other narrative series, one has, superficially viewed, a perfectly natural continuation,—only that Jesus must now, incomprehensibly enough, start back immediately for the north, instead of the return to Galilee being a stage on the journey to Jerusalem! This is the order that was finally followed, but it is only in the second return that the narrative finds a point of attachment for the journey to Jerusalem.

This return movement in both series accounts for the fact that the two narratives, though they are really parallel cycles, are yet attached to one another in chronological sequence. The present text has completed the process of harmonising them. It is not simply that the story of the second feeding of [pg 167] the multitude makes reference to the first in the word “again” (Mk 8:1): the reconciliation is in fact carried so far that Jesus in one word addressed to the Disciples assumes both miracles (Mk 8:19-21)! How far this process was already accomplished in the oral tradition, and how much is to be charged to the account of the final literary composition, is a question which we are no longer in a position to answer.

Only the first cycle is complete. Jesus and his Disciples travel by boat north-east along the coast and return then again to the country of Genezareth (Mk 6:32, 45, 53).

The second cycle is incomplete and fallen somewhat into disorder. Jesus is back on the west coast after his voyage. Mk 8:10 ff. corresponds with Mk 6:53 ff. and Mk 7:1 ff. Dalmanutha lies on the west coast. But instead of his departing now directly for the north, there comes first another voyage to the east coast (Mk 8:13). It is not till they reach Bethsaida that he starts with his Disciples northward (Mk 8:27). The first cycle on the other hand relates _this voyage to Bethsaida as an episode of the famous coasting voyage and places it immediately after the feeding of the multitude_ (Mk 6:45 ff[.]). And as a matter of fact the second narrative series also shows [pg 168] that this was the original connection. For here, too, as in the first series, the conversation upon landing deals with the foregoing miracle. Mk 6:52: “For they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.” Mk 8:19-21: “When I brake the five loaves—when the seven—do ye not yet understand?” It is therefore impossible that between this voyage and the feeding of the multitude all the events were crowded which were enacted upon the west shore. The minds of all are still full of the great event. The new sea journey of the second cycle is nothing else but the original continuation of the voyage to Bethsaida from the scene of the feeding of the multitude.

Therewith the parallelism of the two series is proven. The events follow one another in this order: coasting voyage from the west shore, feeding of the multitude, continuation of the voyage to the north-east, “walking upon the sea” and conversation in the boat, arrival at Bethsaida, return to the region of Genezareth, discussion with the Pharisees, departure with the Disciples to the north.

2. The Supper by the Seashore.

The Disciples’ proclamation of the immediate approach of the Kingdom must have [pg 169] had a great success. A mighty multitude of such as believed the message crowded around Jesus. He had about him a community inspired by the most lively eschatological expectation. They would not let go of him. In order to be alone with his Disciples he embarks in a boat. He meant to withdraw to the north-east shore. But the people, when they learned that he would take himself away, streamed together from all sides and followed him along the beach. Mk 6:32, 33: “For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. And they went away in a boat to a desert place apart. And the people saw them going, and many knew them, and they ran there together on foot from all the cities and outwent them.”

They meet him in a lonely region and immediately surround him. The hour comes for the daily meal. In the accounts of the following miracle the meal which they celebrated is preserved to us. _The occasion was a solemn cultus-meal!_ After the loaves which he had broken were consecrated by a prayer of thanksgiving Jesus has them distributed to the multitude by his Disciples. Except for the addition of the two parables [“My body—my blood”] we have absolutely the same solemn ceremony at the Last Supper. [pg 170] There he personally distributed the food to his table-companions. The description of the distribution of the bread in the two cases corresponds perfectly. Mk 6:41: He took the loaves, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and he gave to the Disciples to set before them. Mk 14:22: He took a loaf, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them.

Hence the _solemn act of distribution_ constitutes the essence, as well of that meal by the seashore, as of the last meal with his Disciples. The “Lord’s Supper” is a name appropriate to both, for that meal by the sea also took place at the evening hour. Mk 6:35: And when the day was now far spent his Disciples came to him, etc. Here the table-company is composed of the great multitude of believers in the Kingdom: at the Last Supper it was limited to the circle of the Disciples. _The celebration, however, was the same._

The story of this event has been distorted into a miracle: the cultus-meal which Jesus improvised by the seashore has been represented as a hearty and filling supper. That the scanty provision which was at hand, the food designed for himself and his Disciples, was solemnly distributed to the people is historic. [pg 171] That this meal took the place of the evening repast likewise corresponds with the fact. But that through a supernatural process the multitude was _filled_ by it,—that belongs to the miraculous character which the later age ascribed to the celebration because its significance could not be apprehended.

The historical procedure is the following: The Disciples ask Jesus to send the people away that they may be fed. For him, however, it is not an appropriate moment to think of an earthly meal and so to disperse, for the hour is near when they shall all be gathered about him at the messianic banquet. Hence he would not have them go yet, but before he dismisses them he commands them to recline as at table. In place of the full meal he introduces a ceremonial meal, in which the satisfaction of earthly appetite has no part, so that the food intended for himself and his Disciples sufficed for all.

Neither the Disciples nor the multitude understand what goes on. As Jesus afterwards in the boat directs the conversation to the significance of the meal—this alone can be the historical meaning of the obscure intimations of Mk 6:52 and Mk 8:14-21, it appears that the Disciples have understood nothing.

He celebrated, therefore, a sacred cultus-meal [pg 172] the meaning of which was clear to him alone. He did not count it necessary to explain to them the meaning of the ceremony. The memory, however, of that mysterious supper on the lonely seashore lived on vividly in the tradition and grew to the account of the miraculous feeding. Wherein did the solemnity of this distribution consist for Jesus? The gathering at the feast is of an eschatological character. The people that gathered about him by the seaside were awaiting with him the dawn of the Kingdom. In replacing now the customary full meal with a sacred ceremonial meal, at which he distributed food with thanksgiving to God, he acted at the prompting of his messianic consciousness. _As one who knew himself to be the Messiah, and would be manifested to them as such at the imminent dawn of the Kingdom, he distributes, to those whom he expects soon to join him at the messianic banquet, sacred food, as though he would give them therewith an earnest of their participation in that future solemnity._ The time for earthly meals is passed: hence he celebrates with them a foretaste of the messianic banquet. They, however, understood it not, for they could not guess that he who distributed to them such consecrated eucharistic [pg 173] food was conscious of being the Messiah and acted as such.

In this connection there falls a light upon the nature of the Last Supper at Jerusalem. There the Disciples represented the community of believers in the Kingdom. In the course of that last meal Jesus distributed to them with a word of thanksgiving food and drink. But now they know what he assumes to be: he had disclosed to them the secret of his messiahship. From this they are able to divine in his distribution the reference to the messianic banquet. He himself gave this significance to his action in the fact that he concluded the ceremony with a hint of their proximate reunion when he should drink the wine new with them in his Father’s Kingdom!

The supper by the seaside and the supper at Jerusalem therefore correspond completely, except that in the latter Jesus signified to his Disciples the nature of the ceremony and at the same time expresses the thought of the Passion in the two parables [“My body— my blood”]. The cultus-meal was the same: a foretaste of the messianic banquet in the circle of the fellowship of the believers in the Kingdom. _Now for the first time one is able to understand how the nature [pg 174] of the Last Supper can be independent of the two parables._

3. The Week at Bethsaida.

During the ceremony Jesus was deeply moved. For this reason he urged immediate departure and dismissed the people. He himself withdrew to a mountain in order to be alone in prayer. On the beach at Bethsaida, whither he had charged them to row, he again met his Disciples. They, battling with wind and wave, had the illusion that a supernatural apparition approached them as they descried his figure on the beach. They still were so much under the influence of the impression lately made upon them by the mighty personality who with mysterious majesty had distributed to the multitude sacred food and then had suddenly broken off the ceremony (Mk 6:45-52).

Whither had he sent away the multitude? What did they do at Bethsaida? How long did they stay there? Our text merely recounts that they returned again to Genezareth.

At this point, however, we encounter a difficult literary problem, in the Synoptical narrative of the period immediately preceding the departure for Jerusalem (Mk 9:30). [pg 175] According to Mk 8:27-33, Jesus is now alone with his Disciples far away in the north, in heathen territory,—from which point also he sets out on the rapid march through Galilee to Jerusalem (Mk 9:30 ff.): “And they went forth from thence and passed through Galilee, and he would not that any man should know it.” Between the disclosure of his messiahship and this departure there intervenes only one scene (Mk 8:34- 9:29), where he appears surrounded by a great multitude of people. In company with the three intimate Disciples he leaves the multitude, only to return to them shortly again. It is nowhere recounted how this multitude suddenly gets to him in heathen territory. And just as little are we informed how it leaves him again, so that (according to Mk 9:30 ff.) he can march through Galilee alone with his Disciples and unrecognised.

But it is not only the multitude that appears unexpectedly: the whole scenery also is altered. One finds oneself in a familiar region, for Jesus enters with his Disciples “into the house,” while the people stay without (Mk 9:28)!

The literary context in which the section stands is absolutely impossible, for this cannot have been enacted in _heathen territory,_ [pg 176] but only in _Galilee!_ But as Jesus subsequently had only a fleeting contact with Galilee, passing through it incognito, this piece belongs in the Galilean period _before the departure for the north, and more precisely, at the time of the return of the Disciples,_ for it is then that he was constantly surrounded by a throng of people and was seeking to be in solitude with his Disciples!

The situation, however may confidently be defined with still greater exactness. Jesus dwelt in a village (Mk 9:28) in the neighbourhood of which there was a mountain to which he betook himself with the three Disciples (Mk 9:2). All this agrees, however, most certainly with the sojourn in _Bethsaida._ The mountain which he seeks with the Three is _the mountain on the north shore of the lake where he prayed in the night when he came to Bethsaida!_

The passage Mk 8:34- 9:29 belongs therefore in the days at Bethsaida! It is no longer possible to make out by what process it came into the present impossible context. The adoption of the present order may have been prompted in part by the consideration that the impressive word about the obligation of following Jesus in suffering (Mk 8:34- 9:1) seemed to form a most natural conclusion to [pg 177] the prediction of the Passion at Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 8:31-33).

Moreover the transformation of the account of Jesus meeting his Disciples at their landing into a miracle made it difficult to effect a natural connection with the events which occurred the following morning. And yet Mk 8:34 ff. may fairly be said to imply such measures as were adopted the evening before (Mk 6:45-47). Jesus had dismissed the people, had himself retired to solitude, and while it was yet night had overtaken his Disciples at Bethsaida, where they found lodging in a house (Mk 9:28). The next day he calls the people about him with the Disciples (Mk 8:34) and speaks to them about the requirement of self-denial on the part of his followers, readiness to endure shame, scorn, ridicule, rather than prove untrue to him. This conduct is justified by the nearness of the coming of the Son of Man, who will perform judgment in the person of Jesus.

This admonition concludes with a word about “the coming of the Kingdom of God with power,” i. e. the eschatological realisation of it. In its present form it is toned down: some of them that stand by shall not taste of death till that moment arrive. As the conclusion of this address, however, it [pg 178] must have run: Ye who stand here shall soon experience the great moment of the mighty dawn of the Kingdom of God! Thus this earnest address at Bethsaida reflects the expectations which stirred Jesus and the throng about him.

Six days after that address at Bethsaida Jesus took with him the Three and led them to the mountain where he had prayed in solitude at evening after the great cultus-meal in common. At their return they find the other Disciples surrounded by the people. In spite of the authority over demons of which they had made proof during their progress through the cities of Israel, they were now not able to master a demoniac boy who was brought to them. Jesus takes the father and boy apart. The very moment that the people come running together (Mk 9:25-27) the crisis begins, after which Jesus takes by the hand the lad, who was lying as dead, and raises him up.

This passage, therefore, which has been wrested so strangely out of its connection, contains a striking account of the first and last days of the week which Jesus passed in Bethsaida between the return of the Disciples and the departure for the north.

It will now be perfectly clear how unhistoric [pg 179] is the view that Jesus left Galilee in consequence of growing opposition and spreading defection. On the contrary, this is the period of his highest triumph. A multitude of people with faith in the Kingdom thronged him and pursued him everywhere. Hardly has he landed upon the west coast but they are already there. Their number has grown still greater and increases more and more (Mk 6:53-56). That they deserted him, that they even showed the least motion of doubt or defection, the texts give no intimation. _It was not the people that deserted Jesus but Jesus that deserted the people._

This he did, not out of any fear of the emissaries from Jerusalem, but only as carrying out what he already had in mind since the return of the Disciples. He wishes to be alone. The people had defeated this aim by following him along the shore as he sailed. When he had returned to the west coast he found himself again surrounded. Because he felt it absolutely necessary to be alone with the Disciples, and because he was not able to effect this purpose in Galilee, for this cause he suddenly vanished and betook himself into heathen territory. _The journey into the north country is not a flight, rather it has the same motive as the voyage on the lake._

[pg 180]