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]