By Alfred E. Garvie
Part X
X. EVENTS IN GALILEE.
(1) It is probable that a.
transposition has taken place
in the Gospel; and that. chapter
vi. should precede chapter v.
for the following reasons: —The
fifty-fourth verse of chapter
iv. suggests that Jesus had left
Judea. to exercise His
ministry for a. time at least
in Galilee; but the first verse
of chapter v., without giving an
adequate reason, takes Him away
again to Judea. In iv. 46 He is
in Cana. in Galilee, and is
appealed to by a nobleman from
Capemaum. In
vi. l He is represented as going
over the sea of Galilee; a more
appropriate description if He
was already on the
one side of the sea, than if He
was in Jerusalem where v. 4 7
leaves Him. The first verse of
chapter vii. also follows more
appropriately after the account
of the visit to Jerusalem in
chapter v., and the reference
there in verses 16 and 18 to the
extreme hostility of the Jews.
We should probably also restore,
as Dr. Moffatt has done in his
New Translation of the New
Testament, the passage vii.
15-24 to its original position
in1the Gospel after v. 4 7, as
the reference throughout is to
the cure on the Sabbath. The
order of events, then, would be
that Jesus, after the miracle at Cana (iv. 46-54) for a time
continued His ministry in
Galilee (chap. vi.); that after
the crisis there He went alone
to Jerusalem, probably at the
Pentecost (v. 1), following the
Passover mentioned in vi. 4;
that He was compelled by Jewish
hostility (v. 1-47 and vii.
15-24) to return to Galilee
(vii. 1), but visited Jerusalem
again at the feast of
Tabernacles (ver. 10). A
confirmation of this order of
events is suggested by the
indefinite reference in v. I to"
a feast of the Jews," or as
"many ancient authorities read,
the feast" (R.V. marg.). If in
the original Pentecost was
mentioned, and chaps.
v. and vi. were transposed, the
Passover would be mentioned
between Pentecost and the Feast
of Tabernacles, and the
indefinite reference might be an
attempt to get out of a
chronological difficulty. The
evangelist was too familiar
himself with Jewish affairs not
to be able to name this feast.
(2) Fixing our attention now on
chapter vi. we are compelled to
ask why the evangelist, contrary
to his usual custom, covers the
same ground as the synoptic
records?
(a)
As will be shown in the next
section, it is not likely that
the evangelist was himself
present at the events recorded
in this chapter; but the
narrative came to him at
secondhand. While, as was
assumed in the previous article,
it is probable that he was with
Jesus in Galilee till the
Galilean disciples were called
(according to the synoptic
account), it is not necessary
to assume this even, and this
account (iv. 43-54) too may have
come to him at second hand. As
ii. 1 suggests, Mary the mother
of Jesus, who at the Cross was
entrusted to the beloved
disciple's care, had some connexion with Cana; and she
may have been his informant
about the second sign, as it is
to be noted no mention is made
of any disciples as having
accompanied Jesus. His
informants, regarding the events
in chapter vi. are not far to
seek. Philip and Andrew, who
play a part in the story,
belonged to the circle of early
companions of Jesus (i. 40-44);
and Andrew was the evangelist's
comrade in first following
Jesus.
(b) But why did the evangelist
give this second-hand narrative
about Galilee, when he otherwise
confines himself to Judea? Several reasons can be
suggested. (i) Verses fourteen
and fifteen are peculiar to the
Fourth Gospel; but it is not at
all improbable that the popular
enthusiasm was by the miracle
raised to danger point; and
that some attempt was made to
get Jesus to head a popular
movement of revolt. There
appears a confirmation of the
situation presented in the
Fourth Gospel in the statement
of Matthew xiv. 22 (Mark vi.
45), that "straightway He
constrained His disciples to
enter into the boat, and to go
before Him unto the other side,
till He should send the
multitudes away." On the word
ἠνάγκασεν Bruce
comments: "A strong word needing
an explanation not here given,
supplied in John vi. 15. Of
course there was no physical
compulsion, but there must have
been urgency on Christ's part,
and unwillingness on the part of
the disciples " (The Expositor's
Greek Testament, vol. i., p.
209). If the disciples, sharing
the popular enthusiasm, also
desired the people's purpose,
their disappointment and
irritation even may account for their panic in the storm; and,
as Jesus worked no miracle
for mere display, His walking on
the water may be regarded as an
appeal for their renewed
confidence, an appeal which, at
the moment at least, seems to
have been vain. "Their heart was
hardened" (Mark vi. 52). As the
keynote of the Gospel of John is
struck in i. 11, it is entirely
congruous with his purpose that
he should record the first step
in the rejection of Jesus even
in Galilee, where at first He
had received a welcome such as
Judea had failed to give. The
intention· may also be to
contrast the enthusiasm of
Galilee, however mistaken in its
aims, with the hostility of
Judea. (ii) For the second
reason we must combine a number
of details in the narrative. In
verse two the evangelist speaks
of a great multitude, in verse
fourteen of the people; in
verse twenty-two the multitude
is again mentioned; but in
verses forty-one and fifty-two
the Jews appear on the scene. It
is usually taken for granted
that the same persons are referred to, and that the
namative is continuous; but
verse twenty-four indicates
that the multitude was addressed
on the sea-shore, and verse
fiftynine that the controversy
with the Jews took place in the
synagogue in Capernaum; and any
interval may be assumed. What
happened meanwhile may be
gathered from Mark vii. l. " And
there are gathered together
unto Him the Pharisees, and
certain of the scribes, which
had come from Jerusalem." The
opponents described as Jews, we
may infer, were not Galileans
but Judeans. The evangelist's
interest in the controversy of
Jesus with the Jews in Jerusalem
led him in his narrative to
follow the enemies of the Master
into Galilee, in order to show
that they, too, were
responsible, in some measure at
least, for the loss of
popularity even in Galilee. If
we can thus regard the two
references to Jews in John vi.,
and the one reference in Mark
vii. 3 as not to Galileans, but
to Judeans, then we are
warranted in affirming that the
term Jews is not applied to
Galileans anywhere in the
Gospels, but is always used
either of Judeans in contrast
with Galileans, or of the
Jewish nation as a whole. The
writer does not profess an
adequate knowledge of the
contemporary Jewish literature
to affirm whether this is in
accord with a more general
practice, or may be regarded as
a peculiarity of the Gospels.
The problem of the contrast
between the subjects and manner
of controversy between Jesus and
His opponents as recorded in the synoptics and the Fourth Gospel
may not be solved; but its
difficulty is somewhat mitigated
if in John vi. Jesus is
confronting in Galilee His
Judean opponents. Otherwise we
cannot appeal to the difference
of place, Galilee in the one
case, Judea in the other, for
an explanation of the contrast
between the synoptics and the
Fourth Gospel. How far the
report of the conversations in
this chapter with even the
Galileans are tinged with the
dominant hues of the Judean
controversy we must afterwards
consider. Meanwhile these two
reasons for the evangelist's
turning from the Judean to the
Galilean ministry may be
offered for the sympathetic
consideration of scholars.
(3) We must now try to establish
the conclusion that the
narrative in this chapter is
second-hand, derived possibly
from Andrew or Philip. (i) The
story in Mark vi. 30-44 offers
an altogether probable
explanation of the occasion for
the miracle. Jesus, absorbed in
His teaching, moved thereto by
His compassion, needs to be
reminded by His disciples that
the people have been all day
without food, and that it will
be desirable to dismiss them
before nightfall. The record in
John bears far less the marks of
historical probability, and
shows clearly the evangelist's
pragmatism. Is it probable that
as soon as Jesus saw the
multitude coming to Him, He
began to be concerned about how
they should be fed (verse 5)? Is not this situation more
artificial and less natural than
that presented in Mark? Again,
verse six is written from the
standpoint of the evangelist's
Christology, and accords with
other passages in emphasising
the super-naturalness of Jesus'
knowledge beyond what seem the
necessary limitations of a real
incarnation. That after the
disciples had brought the
perilous position before Jesus
He addressed Himself to Philip
with such a question is not
improbable, nor that Andrew
offered the information about
the five barley loaves and two
fishes; especially if one of
them was the evangelist's
informant, or both were; but
the Fourth Evangelist gives the
information, however, obtained
in a doctrinal rather than a
historical setting. The
comparison of the synoptic and
the Johannine records need not
be carried into further detail
as regards vv· 1-21. (ii) It is
not at all improbable that the
multitude did follow Jesus to
the other side of the lake, and
that a conversation bearing on
the miracle did take place,
although it is strange that the synoptics, Mark and Matthew,
have no record of it. Luke does
not come into consideration
here, for he passes at once from
the feeding of the four thousand
to the Confession at Caesarea
Philippi (ix. 17-18). Does not
the summary of the ministry in
Gennesaret (Mark vi. 53-56)
suggest that possibly, in their
disappointment, some of the
disciples; at least for a time,
withdrew from their Master, and
were not with Him when the event
John records took place? It is
difficult to suppose, however,
that the Fourth Evangelist has
given us a verbatim report of
what Jesus did say. He had the
report second-hand; the
language and thought,
distinctive of his Gospel, and
not of the synoptic account of
the teaching of Jesus appear;
the conversation at the
seashore, and the controversy in
the synagogue are combined, and
it is too easy a solution of the
last difficulty to suppose that
the conversation ends with
verse 40, and
the controversy begins at verse
41. "The unexpected
ἐνσυναγωγῇ of vi. 59 coming
after vi. 25, and vi. 30 after
vi. 14, suggest a conflation of
two traditions." (Moffatt's
Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament, p. 554.)
"Chastand," according to
Moffatt, "distinguishes a speech
in the synagogue (vi. 28-30,
36-40, 43-46) from one by the
sea side" (vi. 26-27, 31-35,
41-42, 47-58). We may now
examine this suggestion more
closely as the basis of our
analysis.
(4) Verses 26 and 27 were very
probably spoken at the lake
shore, as they are quite
appropriate tp the occasion.
Verses 28 and 29 also seem
suitable; but they lead on to
the demand for a sign, and is it
likely that the multitude who
had just been fed, and who had
been roused to enthusiasm by
the miracle, would at once have
made such a request? We might
refer vv. 28-30 with Chastand to
the subsequent controversy in
the synagogue. Or for an
alternative explanation we
might recall Mark viii. 11,
where a similar demand is
recorded after the feeding of
the four thousand. If the
narrative in Mark viii. 1-10 is
a variant tradition of vi.
30-44, then possibly the
evangelist, having some
knowledge of the Galilean
ministry only at secondhand,
may have introduced this
incident at what seemed by
association of ideas the proper
place.
Recognising that reminiscence
may have been coloured by
reflection, vv. 31-35 may
continue the conversation at the
sea-shore, as Jesus, after
feeding the multitude, may have
spoken of Himself under the
figure of bread. But verses
36-40 seem to contain teaching
far too advanced for the
multitude at the sea-shore. If
Jesus in Jerusalem, as there was
no danger of a mistaken
Messianic revolt, exercised less
reserve with His opponents than
He did with the excitable
Galilean multitude, and pressed
His personal claims more plainly
where there was most resistance; and if, as has been suggested,
He had been followed into
Galilee by some of these Judean
opponents, it is not
inconceivable that in the
controversy in the synagogue He
did in substance at least assert
what the evangelist reports. So
plain a reference to His power
in raising from the dead at the
last day (verse 40) must,
however, seem extremely
improbable, and appears to go
beyond the claim which, from His
other teaching, we conclude He
ever made for Himself. The
Christology of the evangelist
seems, here at least, to affect
his report.
Chastand ascribes vv. 41 and 42
to the multitude at the seaside.
But this is unlikely for three
reasons. Firstly, does the
evangelist not intend to make a
distinction between the Galilean multitude and the Jews? This has already been shown.
The Judean opponents in the
synagogue, having heard of the
claim Jesus had made before the
multitude, would make it a
ground of controversy on the
first convenient occasion.
Secondly, would the multitude,
after having been fed, murmur at
such. a claim? Lastly, does
not verse forty-two recall at
once Mark vi. 3; and was not
the synagogue in Nazareth a much
more likely place for such an
objection to be made than the
synagogue in Capernaum even? Here, again, there seems to be a
displaced second-hand report.
Verses 43-46 may belong to the
controversy in the synagogue,
and what has been said above in
reference to vv. 36-40 applies
here also.
In verses 47 to 51 we probably
return to the sea-shore as the
thought is continuous with verse
35; but the last clause of
verse 51 makes us pause. At this
time would Jesus refer to His
giving His flesh for the life of
the world? Is it likely that He
would make even an obscure
allusion to His death, when
dealing with the multitude,
before He had made any
announcement of His coming
passion to His own disciples? As
has already been noted, the
evangelist,
looking back after a lapse of so
many years, overlooked
altogether the gradual
development in the teaching of
Jesus corresponding to the
capacity of His disciples to
receive it.. The allusion to
the flesh is developed in vv.
52-57, but the thought of vv.
32-35 is resumed in verse 58.
Chastand assigns verses 47 to
58 to the conversation at the
seashore; but here we cannot
follow him. We may admit as
possible that vv. 47-51 except
the last clause(" yea, and the
bread which I will give is My
flesh, for the life of the world
"), and verse 58 were spoken to
the multitude, although the
difference between both the
matter and the manner here and
the synoptic discourses is a
very serious difficulty, unless
we frankly admit that report has
been modified to a considerable
extent by meditation upon it.
The last clause of v. 51 and vv.
52-57 seem quite out of place in
Galilee at this stage of Jesus'
ministry. Possibly in the Upper
Room Jesus may to some, if not
to all His disciples, have
expanded the thought implied in
the words of institution of the
Supper, or we may here have the
evangelist's own reflections
gathering around his
reminiscences of that utterance.
The association of ideas may
have attracted either
reminiscences or reflections to
the present
context.
(5) The claim of Jesus before
the multitude to be the bread
from Heaven (vv. 31-35), made a
subject of controversy
subsequently in the synagogue
with the Jews
(v.
41), may have been the hard
saying which helped to turn the
tide of popularity, and need not
refer to the immediately
preceding passage. Some crisis
there was in Galilee, of which
vv. 60-65 give an account. But
is Jesus likely to have spoken
to disciples even of ascending
to heaven
(v.
62) at this stage of His
ministry? The use of the term
Son of Man inclines the judgment
to the conclusion that this is a
genuine logion (even as ill.
13-15) which has drifted
from its proper moorings in much
later teaching of Jesus to an
inner circle of disciples. Verse
63 appears at least in verbal
contradiction to the thought
developed in vv. 52-57, and the
relevance of the saying to the
situation described is not
apparent. In verse 64 the
evangelist's comment again
betrays his Christology in its
constant emphasis on the
super-naturalness of Jesus'
knowledge. If the situation here
referred to is previous to the
scene at Caesarea Philippi, as
will next be shewn to be
probable, it is not likely that
any thought of betrayal had yet
entered into the mind of Judas;
or that Jesus, whose foresight
rested on insight, would as yet
have any suspicion of Judas'
loyalty, although He may have
detected evidence of his
discontent. If it was the
announcement of the passion
(Mark viii. 31) which decided
Judas to betray, Jesus' insight
may soon have discovered this
change of attitude, and His
discovery may account for the
probable reference to betrayal
(πραδίδοται) in the second
announcement (Mark
ix. 31). Not from some timeless
beginning, as the evangelist may
mean, but from the first signs
of treachery in Judas, Jesus, by
His insight, may have known "who
it was that should betray Him."
If such a sifting of disciples
was taking place, verse 65
contains a thought appropriate
to the occasion, and it has a
partial, if not complete
resemblance to Matthew xi.
25-27. An assertion of such
entire dependence on God in His
work is entirely congruous with
the attitude of Jesus as
presented in the synoptics.
(6) The last paragraph in this
chapter (vv. 66-71) seems to the
writer to be a Johannine
version of the scene at Caesarea
Philippi. Having his report of
that scene at second-hand, the
evangelist would have no vivid
personal reminiscence of it, and
so it would be easy for him,
after the lapse of years, to
misunderstand its import. As he
ascribes to the first disciples
at their first contact with
Jesus an already advanced
confession of faith (i. 41, 45,
49), he could not think of the
Galilean disciples as for the
first time confessing Jesus'
Messiahship. For him they had
already come eo far, that such a
crisis could not involve advance
to a fuller confession, but only
withdrawal from a position
already gained. Verses 67, 68,
69 are the Johannine
equivalents of Mark viii. 29.
But verses 70 to 71, if
containing a genuine saying of
Jesus, belong to a much later
occasion than this. " Thou hast
the words of eternal life " is a
characteristically Johannine
phrase, and sounds strange on
the lips of Peter, as "Thou art
the Christ.," does not.
(7) This minute analysis of the
contents of this chapter has
brought to clearer light several
characteristics of the Gospel,
which may in closing be noted.
The passage from reminiscence to
reflection, and the colouring of
the language in which even the
reminiscence is expressed by the
reflection has appeared from
time to time. The disregard of
any development in the teaching
of Jesus, so that sayings which
might be appropriate at a later
stage are placed in an
improbable context, has also
been noted. A tendency to be
guided by the association of
ideas rather than the
chronological sequence has also
been illustrated. The most
important conclusion, which the
writer had reached by a general
study of the chapter, has been
amply confirmed by the minute
scrutiny which has been here
pursued. It is that the
evangelist was not an
eye-witness of the Galilean ministry, of which he here
offers a summary in which a
series of events all significant
for the great interest of the
Gospel, the reception only by
the few, and the rejection by
the many of Jesus, is, as it
were, run together with no
attention to intervals of time,
so as to allow for a historical
development. It is evident that
he was dependent on another or
others for the report, and that,
consequently, there is here
absent the vivid reminiscence
which, in other parts, so
impresses the reader with the
historical character of so much
of the Gospel, in spite of its
doctrinal purpose. The
difference between the synoptics
and the Fourth Gospel is the
most serious problem it
presents; and here the
difficulty must be felt to be
most acute, as the ground here
is common. Jesus may have spoken
differently to learned opponents
in Judea than to the unlearned
multitude in Galilee, and the
Johannine method may have been
just as appropriate in the one
case as we feel the synoptic to
be in the other. But in this
chapter the evangelist transfers
to Galilee what is intelligible
and credible only in Judea. The
difficulty is partly relieved by
the suggestions already made,
that in parts of the record
Jesus is dealing with Judean
opponents who had followed Him
into Galilee, and that sayings
of another occasion and a later
date have been attracted by the
association of ideas into the
present context; but it can be
removed only by the candid
admission that here the
evangelist is dealing with
events which he knew
imperfectly, and the import of
which he did not understand, as
the conditions in Judea were so
different from those in Galilee.
Does not this confirm the
contention
that the evangelist was not John
the son of Zebedee, but a
Judean disciple?
|
|