Feeding of the Thousands

[darinhouston]

I was listening to a very interesting radio show ("Unbelievable" program on the UK's Premiere Radio Network) - http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

8 May 2010 - Philip Pullman on the historical Jesus - "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ"
Atheist author Philip Pullman discusses Jesus' life with Christian journalist Martin Saunders & Bible Scholar Anthony McRoy

"The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" is the latest book from the pen of prominent atheist author Philip Pullman. It re-imagines the story of Jesus as the story of two twins - one called Jesus, the other Christ. It is the twin Christ who writes the history of Jesus, turning him into the God-man of the Gospels.

Philip Pullman joins Justin Brierley to discuss whether we should believe the Biblical stories of Jesus as historical fact or whether myth and invention are inevitable in the 2000 year old Gospel accounts.

Christian journalist Martin Saunders engages Pullman on his view of the Church and his scepticism of the miraculous while Bible Scholar Anthony McRoy challenges Pullman's view that the Gospels are the product of the mythologising and interpretation of its historical core. He particularly takes issue with Pullman's recasting of the resurrection as a fabricated trick to create the foundation of the future church.

The guest was Phillip Pullman (author of the His Dark Materials Trilogy, including the recent "Golden Compass"). The topic was his new book where he distinguishes the man Jesus from His Messiahship.

It was an interesting discussion, but one thing they discussed might be of particular interest to this forum. One of his goals in the book was to provide non-miraculous retellings of Christ's miracles. Clearly, he had some deficiencies in his understandings of the transmission history of the biblical texts and the leading arguments as to their reliability, but one of the retellings was interesting to me, primarily as it highlights where tradition can skew our understanding of very familiar texts/stories.

In his retelling of the miracle of Christ's feeding of the ten thousand, he suggests that it may not have been a miraculous multiplication of food exactly, but an example by Christ to share what had been brought that encouraged those with little to share even what they had with each other, thereby feeding all who had none by the love extended by those who had little (but still a surplus of actual "need").

I need to go back and re-read and study this for myself to see if the text actually allows for his interpretation, but when I'm faced with a challenge like this, I have to ask myself what's at stake - I clearly believe in miracles, and most of the stories have no rational non-miraculous explanations and his attempts to remove the miraculous elements seem silly in those cases (even if the texts were embellished or re-focused, which I don't believe happened), but this one might be more rational depending on the text. Perhaps more important, though, - if we hold fast to the miraculous view and we're wrong, perhaps we're missing the main teaching that Christ would have us learn from it. I'll post again after I go and re-read the texts. Meanwhile...

Thoughts?

[steve7150]

In his retelling of the miracle of Christ's feeding of the ten thousand, he suggests that it may not have been a miraculous multiplication of food exactly, but an example by Christ to share what had been brought that encouraged those with little to share even what they had with each other, thereby feeding all who had none by the love extended by those who had little (but still a surplus of actual "need").





One problem with this idea is that after this miracle Jesus would not repeat it which suggests he had a different kind of lesson in mind then sharing.
"Truly truly i say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs , but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes , but for the food which endures to eternal life which the Son of Man will give to you." John 6.26-27

So here they chased him down to repeat it, which suggests it was a miracle otherwise they could share without him, yet he refuses because they did'nt grasp the symbolism of it.

[steve]

I agree with Steve7150's argument, and I have heard Pullman's thesis from liberal scholars for decades (the same people who say that when Jesus walked on the water, he was really walking on a barely-submerged reef—one which fortunately ran directly from the shore to the place on the lake where the boat was bobbing about. We are asked to believe that He knew about this reef, but the career fishermen in the boat had never discovered it).

It would be a fine thing in itself if an act of generosity on the part of a boy with his lunch were to melt the selfish hearts of others who were until then hoarding the food they had secretly brought with them. Changing hearts is a grand thing—probably even better than feeding stomachs. But if this were the true explanation, then it was not anything Jesus did, but something a generous lad did, that changed people's attitudes. Why would they be astonished at Jesus (and try to force Him to become their king—John 6:15), if they knew that no miracle had been performed and that, in fact, nothing at all had been done by Jesus? If inspiring selfish hearts to become generous was the thing they wanted their king to do, why not make the boy king instead?

As Steve7150 points out, the people were not looking for a king who would make them more generous, but one who could put "a chicken in every pot," so to speak. Thus, the next day, when they came requesting a repeat performance, Jesus said they were seeking him because He had filled their stomachs—not because their hearts had been touched to be more sharing with others.

[darinhouston]

I think that's the most likely, especially in light of the John scripture (thanks Steve7150). I find it inconceivable that the crowds seeing a couple of loaves and fishes supernaturally multiplied to feed thousands of people would come back for a mere free snack bar instead of the awe of the supernatural, but this seems to happen over and over. Personally, I'd have come back asking "let's see what else he can do" -- I just can't get my head into their mentality. Perhaps, I've never been that hungry...