We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
According to the most widely accepted theory, Luke and Matthew used the gospel of Mark as the main source for their own gospels. In so doing, Matthew reproduced almost all the contents of Mark; Luke however omitted one large block of Marcan material: Mark 6.45–8.26. Luke may have omitted this section because his copy of the gospel of Mark was lacking this section, or because, although he knew this material, he chose to omit it from his gospel.
1 Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (rev. ed.; London: Macmillan, 1930) 172–8.Google Scholar
2 For an influential statement of the theory that Luke knew this omitted material in Mark, but chose not to reproduce it, see Schümann, Heinz, Das Lukasevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 1.525–7Google Scholar and Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 279–89.Google Scholar A brief statement of the main theories of why Luke omitted this section may be found in Kümmel, Werner Georg, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed., trans. Kee, Howard Clark; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 62, 150;Google Scholar and in Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel according to Luke (I-IX) (Anchor Bible 28; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981) 770ff.Google Scholar
3 Drury, John, Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976/Atlanta: Knox, 1977) 98.Google Scholar For his argument, see the chapter ‘Using Mark’, 82–119, especially 96–102.
4 Hübner, Hans, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (Witten: Luther, 1973)Google Scholar; for his argument, see ‘Rein und Unrein’, 142–95, especially 182–91.
5 Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of Luke (trans. Buswell, Geoffrey; New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 160–1.Google Scholar
6 Hübner, 184–91.
7 Jervell, Jacob, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 145.Google Scholar
8 Sanders, Jack T., The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM, 1987).Google Scholar
9 ‘For Luke, 1. God has given certain laws for Jews and a certain few for Gentiles; 2. inasmuch as the gospel has gone to the Gentiles, the Gentile laws of the Torah are Christian laws; 3. Jews and their laws are, after the “Jerusalem springtime”, tolerated within Christianity, but they are a source of trouble’ (Sanders, 118). Quoted only this far, Sanders does not seem too far from Jervell, but: ‘Thus Luke seems to accept the notion of the basic invalidity of the Torah, as it is obeyed in the halakah of traditional Judaism…’ (Sanders, 118) and stronger still: ‘The proper basis for association of Jews and Gentiles together in the church is, for Luke, God's abrogation of the Torah (except for those laws intended specifically for Gentiles)’ (Sanders, 121).
10 Wilson, Stephen G., Luke and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983) 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 ‘Luke has the most conservative outlook within the New Testament, because of this concern for the law as Israel's law, the sign of God's people… Repeatedly Luke refers to Jews’ charging Christians with apostasy, with having abandoned the law. The sayings are worded by Luke himself, and they show the indissoluble connection between Israel and the law. The sayings are stereotyped; they have in all essentials the same content, and may safely be classified as formulas. They stand without parallels in Jewish and New Testament literature. The charges include apostasy and blasphemy against Moses, the law, Israel, and sometimes the temple (6.11, 13,14; [18.13]; 21.21, 28; 25.8 [10]; 28.27). We find “sin against the law” and “sin against the people” linked together. To speak against the law is to propagandize against Israel as the people of God, and this sin refers primarily to the ritual aspect (21.21ff., 28ff), that is, the law is conceived as character indelebilis of Israel’ (Jervell, 141).
12 As has long been pointed out by commentators, it is not indicated that all the animals are unclean, so it might be asked why Peter did not simply kill a clean animal. Luke does not allow for this possibility in the text, and has Peter protest that he has never eaten anything unclean, implying that acquiescence to the command would necessarily involve him in dietary impurity.
13 Greenberg, Moshe, Ezekiel 1–20 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983) 108.Google Scholar
14 Zimmerli, Walther, Ezechiel (trans. Clements, Ronald E.; ed. Cross, Frank Moore, Baltzer, Klaus and Greenspoon, Leonard Jay; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 171.Google Scholar
15 Hübner, Hans: ‘Zweifellos zielt sie zunächst einmal auf Reinerklärung aller Speisen’ (Hübner, 189)Google Scholar for which he cites Conzelmann, Apg, 61 in favour of this opinion, and Haenchen, Apg, 293 Anm. 5 for a differing opinion. Hübner goes on to argue that while Luke follows the tradition that this vision means that dietary impurity is abolished, for Luke the vision means that both food and people are clean (Hübner, 189–90). Jack T. Sanders holds that the vision both abrogates dietary purity and justifies the gentile mission (Sanders, 139).
16 Jewish material bracketing the New Testament period does not corroborate Luke's view that it was considered ‘unlawful for a Jew to associate with anyone of another nation’. A number of texts in the Apocrypha and the Mishnah assume common meals taken with gentiles; see, for instance, Judith 12.9; Berakoth 5.2 and 7.1; Abodah Zarah 5.5.
While the presence of gentiles at table with Jews is not necessarily a source of impurity, the Mishnah agrees that food prepared by gentiles may well impart impurity. Hullin 1.1 says, ‘What is slaughtered by a gentile is deemed carrion, and it conveys uncleanness…’ (translation of Herbert Danby).
Compare the opinion of Philip Francis Esler who reviews the evidence and comes to a very different conclusion in Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) 71–109, especially the section entitled ‘Literary and historical evidence for the Jewish ban on dining with Gentiles’, 76–86. Conclusions similar to those of this article are drawn by Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 118–22.
17 Against Wilson, who holds that Luke never distinguishes between the oral and the written law, Luke, 35. Jervell may hold that Luke could distinguish between the two, but ‘Luke… asserts that the “customs from the fathers” are in harmony with the law (Acts 6.14; 21.21; 28.17, cf. 10.14ff.; 11.3,8)’ (Jervell, 140). His logic is not convincing on this point. He admits that Luke probably knew the omitted section of Mark. In that section, hand-washing is identified as a tradition. Jesus then ignores this tradition in a later Lucan pericope, as noted in the text of this paper. Hübner divides sharply between the two subjects of Mark 7.1–23: hand-washing is dealt with in Luke 11, dietary purity in Acts 10ff.
18 Nineham entitles Mark 7.24–8.26 ‘Jesus’ “Gentile Mission”’ (Nineham, , Saint Mark [rev. ed.; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969] 197).Google Scholar With great insight, F. Belo groups together the section Mark 6.14–8.30 which starts with the feast celebrated by Herod, includes the two feeding stories, the Syrophoenician story, the discussion in the boat and culminates in Peter's declaration of Jesus' identity, and calls it ‘la grande séquence des pains’ (Belo, F., ‘Lecture matérialiste de 1'évangile de Marc et de la grande séquence des pains’, Foi et Vie 77.6 [1978] 19–33)Google Scholar.
19 Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel according to St Mark (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966) 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Juvenal Satura 3.14 ‘cophinus’ and Satura 6.542 ‘cophino’. For scholarly arguments see, for example, the analysis of van Cangh, J.-M., La multiplication des pains et l'Eucharistie (Paris: Cerf, 1975) 129–31Google Scholar (note, however, that on page 129 he cites 6.52 where it should be 6.54).
21 According to A. Richardson the five loaves symbolize the Torah, the twelve baskets the twelve tribes of Israel; in the second feeding narrative, the four thousand may symbolize the four winds and the four corners of the world, the seven baskets recall the seventy nations (cf. the mission of the seventy in Luke) and the seven deacons of Acts (Richardson, A., ‘The Feeding of the Five Thousand’, Interpretation 9 [1955] 144–9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar This theory is accepted with hesitations or some alterations by many critics, including D. E. Nineham (see his commentary on Mark), van Cangh, J.-M., La multiplication des pains et l'Eucharistie (Paris: Cerf, 1975)Google Scholar and Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark 6:52 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969).Google ScholarThiering, B. E. (‘“Breaking of Bread” and “Harvest” in Mark's Gospel’, NT 12 [1970] 1–12)Google Scholar and Farrer, A. M. (‘Loaves and Thousands’, JThS 4 [1953] 1–14)Google Scholar believe that Jews were the recipients of both feedings. On the other hand, Boobyer, G. H. (‘The Miracles of the Loaves and the Gentiles in St Mark's Gospel’, ScottJTh 6 [1953] 77–87)Google Scholar holds that the crowd was gentile for both feeding miracles, while Tagawa, K. (Miracles et évangile: la pensée personelle de l'évangéliste Marc [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966])Google Scholar refuses to accept such a distinction. For bolder speculation see Ory, G., ‘Des pains, des poissons et des hommes’, Cahier du Cercle E. Renan 18 (1971) 21–8.Google Scholar
22 ‘No doubt Mark was expressing a warm conviction in this passage, but just what it was eluded Matthew and Luke and seems to be a secret which he and his community have carried with them to their graves’ (Drury, 83).
23 Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 343.Google Scholar
