Did Jesus really feed more than 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish?
The multiplication of loaves is the most prominent miracle of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is the only miracle–other than his Resurrection–mentioned in all four gospels.
This even ranks the raising of Lazarus.
But despite this, we’re subjected to countless homilies in which the priest seems bent on explaining away this grand miracle, in which Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children) with just five loaves and two fish. Instead, we’re told, it was just a “miracle of sharing” whereby Jesus encouraged people to share the food they had in secret selfish stashes.
That’s certainly the impression you would get from some discussing a recent decree issued by the German bishops’ conference.
It’s being characterized as a “pay to pray” policy, whereby the Church will deny you the sacraments if you don’t give it money.
One news source headlined the story “German Bishops To Catholics: Pay Up Or Die Without Absolution.”
That seems to be about as misleading a headline as you could want, because the decree in question expressly refers to the possibility of people receiving the final sacraments.
Did the authors of the New Testament know they were writing Scripture or did they think they were writing something else?
You’d think that the answer would be an easy, “yes,” but a startling number of people–including New Testament scholars–say “no.”
I’m always taken aback when I’m reading along and suddenly encounter a statement like, “Of course, the authors of the New Testament didn’t know that they were writing Scripture. Their writings only came to have this status later.”
Huh?
How do you know that?
Let’s take a look at the issue . . .
What Scripture Is
Today we often think of a particular book as Scripture based on whether it is in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it’s Scripture. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not Scripture.
This may be a practical test for us today, but it’s not the way the New Testament authors thought of Scripture. Back when they lived, there was no book called “the Bible.” Instead, there were a collection of books, which were originally written on scrolls, that they thought of as Scripture.
Only the invention of new forms of publishing technology allowed these to be put together as the single volume that we now call “the Bible.”
Also back in the day–their day–the canon of Scripture was not yet completed, which means that it was still open. There was no closed canon, and so they also couldn’t use the test “Is it one of the books of the (closed) canon?”
If you can’t define what Scripture is by relating it to “what’s in the Bible?” or “what’s in the canon?” how can you define it?
The answer that the first Christians would have given if they had been asked “What is Scripture?” would probably have involved these concepts:
A book of Scripture is a sacred book.
A book of Scripture is an divinely authoritative book.
A book of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
These provide important clues to whether the authors of the New Testament thought they were writing Scripture. Before we apply them, though, we should look at another way of approaching the issue . . .
What Scriptures Did the New Testament Authors Recognize?
When the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they overwhelmingly (around 80-90% of the time) quote from a particular version of it: the Septuagint. This was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used internationally by the Jewish community.
When we look at the particular books that belonged to the Septuagint, we find that there are a number of different types, including:
Foundational books: These tell about the founding of the Hebrew community (Genesis-Deuteronomy).
Historical books: These tell the ongoing story of Israel’s history under God’s providence (Joshua-2 Chronicles, plus 1-2 Maccabees).
Prophetic books: These contain oracles and visions given through the prophets (Isaiah-Malachi).
Wisdom books: These contain divine wisdom on a variety of topics, written in several different forms including poetry (Job), songs (Psalms, Song of Songs), short sayings (Proverbs), meditations (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), etc.
It’s not unreasonable to think that if we find the New Testament authors writing books of these types then they would have seen themselves as writing Scripture.
So if we apply that test, what results do we find?
The Book of Revelation
This one is so obvious that it’s blinding. The book of Revelation present itself as a prophetic revelation like the prophetic books of the Old Testament, whose imagery and language it frequently uses.
How could John not think he was writing Scripture?
The only ways I could see a person writing a book of this sort and not think he was writing Scripture would be if he was a fraud who was writing to deceive people into thinking he was writing Scripture–or if he was some kind of fiction author who thought he was writing fiction in the form of a prophecy.
There is no evidence that John was doing either one of these things.
He comes across as straightforward and sincere–even ardent.
So Revelation is an easy “gimmie.” Its author thought he was writing Scripture.
The Gospels
Also easy are the Gospels. They belong to the class of foundational books, just like the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) does in the Old Testament. They tell the story of how the New Israel (the Church) was born through the ministry of Christ, just like the Pentateuch tells the story of how the Original Israel was born through the ministry of Moses.
In fact, the Gospel authors directly parallel Jesus with Moses (Matthew does this in particular) and the Twelve Apostles with the Twelve Patriarchs of Israel.
Furthermore, the Gospel authors portray Jesus as greater than Moses. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ was regarded as the greatest event in God’s plan of the ages–ever.
So anyone writing a Gospel to be read in the churches had to have the idea that he was writing Scripture.
As John Paul II said on one occasion:
Another “consolation” of the Holy Spirit for the Church was the spread of the Gospel as the text of the new covenant. If the books of the Old Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were already a source of consolation and comfort for the Church, as St. Paul says to the Romans (Rom 15:4), how much more so were the books which related “all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning” (Acts 1:1). Of these we can even more truly say that they were written “for our instruction, that by endurance and by the consolation of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4) [General Audience, March 13, 1991].
We also have evidence in the epistles that the Gospels were regarded as Scripture.
The Brother Whose Praise Is “In the Gospel”
In 2 Corinthians 8:18-19, St. Paul writes:
18 And we have sent with [Titus also] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;
19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind [KJV].
I’ve quoted this from the King James Version because most modern translations render what verse 18 says dynamically rather than literally.
What Paul literally says is a brother “whose praise is in the gospel” and who, as revealed in verse 19, was a travelling companion of Paul.
Do we know any travelling companions of Paul who wrote a Gospel?
Sure! Luke!
And perhaps that’s what he’s referring to here. He’s sending Luke along with Titus to visit the Corinthians.
Or maybe not.
The verse is ambiguous, and it could mean something else. It could mean, in keeping with modern, dynamic translations, “the brother whose praise is in the service of the gospel” or “in preaching the gospel.”
Whether you think it means this kind of thing or whether you think it is a reference to Luke will depend on when you think Luke’s Gospel was written.
Note that St. Paul speaks of “the brother” (singular), as if there is only one of his companions whose praise is “in the gospel.” That would fit Luke well if we are talking about a written gospel, but it would be hard to see who he’s talking about if we’re not. Lots of Paul’s companions (e.g., Timothy, Titus), could be said to have their praise in thepreaching of the gospel, and all of them could have their praise in the service of the gospel.
(Note that Mark was also a companion of Paul who wrote a Gospel, but he is better known as a companion of Peter, and at one point Paul and Mark had a falling out, so Luke is the more likely choice.)
“The Worker Is Worth His Wages”
Less ambiguous is 1 Timothy 5:17-19, where we read:
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
The command about not muzzling an ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the statement that the worker deserves his wages is Luke 10:7–the only other place in the Bible this statement appears.
So here we have a direct New Testament reference to Luke as Scripture.
We thus have a consciousness being displayed, in the New Testament age, that Luke–and, by extension, the other Gospels–were Scripture.
Acts of the Apostles
If Luke thought he was writing Scripture when he wrote his Gospel then he would have thought the same thing when he was writing Acts.
Acts is the direct sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it picks up where the Gospel left off, and it fits the same mold as the Old Testament historical books, which continued the story of Israel from where the Pentateuch left off.
Acts is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament historical books, filling in the history of the New Israel down to his own day (c. A.D. 62) from the point where the foundational document (the Gospel) stopped.
So we have good evidence that the authors of Revelation, the Gospels, and Acts knew they were writing Scripture. That leaves us with the epistles, which we will look at soon.
As my vision began to improve, this is what I was seeing.
Since I got a cataract in my left eye some time ago, my eyes have not tracked together properly.
In fact, my left eye turned outward, which you can see in some of my YouTube videos, though I’ve been filming them at an angle which somewhat masks the problem.
Before my second eye surgery, the surgeon informed me that because of this I was likely to have double-vision, which would take further corrective measures, either corrective lenses or even surgery on the muscles around the eye.
The Problem
The problem, he explained more recently, is that because the eyes weren’t tracking together, once the vision improved in my left eye, I was likely to have two crystal-clear images and my brain wouldn’t know what to do with them.
He also indicated that I was unlikely to ever have stereoscopic (3-D) vision again, even with surgery.
I had been looking forward to seeing in 3-D again, but it apparently was not to be.
I was still very grateful to have my vision substantially back, though it was disappointing to think that I’d never see one of the new 3-D movies with actual 3-D.
The Prediction Begins to Be Fulfilled
As I mentioned yesterday, my vision in the left eye has been improving markedly in the last few days. It’s still a little blurry, but through the left eye by itself I can almost read the words I’m typing, so there is dramatic improvement.
As the vision improved, I began to notice more and more “stuff” distracting me through the left eye, because it wasn’t matching up with what I was seeing–clearly–through the right eye.
It looked like everything was shifted to the right and tilted at an odd angle (1 o’clock being vertical instead of 12 o’clock), and skewed!
And I began to see a second, superimposed fuzzy image on top of the good image.
The prediction was being fulfilled. I was getting double vision.
To give you an idea of what it was like, I’ve done a photoshop of an Indian blanket that I bought when I moved out to California and stopped for the night in New Mexico. It currently hangs on the wall of my bedroom. (As you might imagine, I have a Texas/Southwestern theme going in my house.)
Fight The Future!
I decided to do what I could, though, to head off the problem.
Part of the problem would be getting my eyes to line up again properly, and since the left eye was turned out, that would mean something kind of like crossing my eyes.
Even before the second surgery, I was practicing crossing my eyes, though I couldn’t tell how successful I was since I didn’t have hardly any vision in the left one.
As my vision began to improve, I intensified the efforts. I would practice “crossing” my eyes in different circumstances–looking at the blanket on my wall, when I happened to be in front of a mirror, looking at a computer screen, etc.
“Drag and Hold”
What I would try to do was a “drag and hold” method whereby, through “crossing” my eyes, I would drag the bad, blurry image on top of the good image and hold it there, and think about the fact that it’s the same object I’m seeing through the two images.
Early this morning I did it in front of a mirror and got a really scary vision of two intense-looking eyes staring at me from the middle of a blurry face.
It was like something from a Bela Lugosi movie!
(Except, you know, that I’m not a vampire. I was, after all, seeing myself in a mirror.)
A bit later I was looking at the blanket on my wall, using the same technique, and my brain suddenly said, “Okay! This is the same object!”
The patterns on the blanket lined up and locked in so that I was seeing a single object, not two superimposed images.
And so the first thing I saw this way was the blanket:
The first thing I saw with restored, 3-D vision.
I held the image that way for a few moments, then tried shifting my gaze to nearby objects, and I was able to keep the proper “lock” on them.
I held my hand up and looked at it, and realized I was seeing it in 3-D!
I discovered that, although I’m not used to using my eye muscles this way yet, I can hold the “lock” for sustained periods of time.
It feels a little weird–a little like I’m crossing my eyes–but it works.
I may have some muscle strain and/or headaches as I get used to it, but based on my current experience I am very optimistic that this will become the new/old norm–without corrective lenses or surgery on the muscles around my eye!
And I no longer have my left eye turned out all the time! When I look in a mirror, I see myself looking straight back.
As a result, I am totally jazzed.
The first excursion I made was to a local church to go before the Blessed Sacrament and offer prayers of thanksgiving–including for God to bless all those who have been praying for my vision.
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks again, and ask your continued prayers as my vision now, hopefully, returns to true normal, including the stereoscopic vision they said I’d likely never have again. I will continue to keep you in my prayers as well!
I also plan to celebrate. I’m going to give myself a few days to get further used to holding my eyes this way. Then I’m going to go see Finding Nemo in 3-D.
"I see men; but they look like trees, walking." (Mark 8:24)
Here’s a quick update for folks who may be wondering how my recent eye surgery went.
First, thank you for your prayers! They’ve been a huge help!
The second eye surgery did not go as well as the first.
I could tell, while the surgery was in progress, that the emotional temperature of the room went up, and the surgical staff was showing signs of concern.
The surgeon was even stomping (repeatedly) on what I assume was a metallic foot pedal trying to get the equipment to work properly.
I was even concerned that they were going to abort the surgery part way through, but they didn’t.
They got it done.
The problem, it turned out, was that my second cataract was much larger than the first and, since I am not elderly, it was not brittle and did not shatter when they applied ultrasound to it.
Instead, the surgeon said the next day, it was like using a jackhammer to chip away at hardened leather.
The pieces of the cataract were also sticky, they said, and they kept clogging up the tube used to remove them. It clogged three times, which they said has never happened before.
As a result of the amount of energy they had to pump into my eye to get the job done, the surface of the eye became inflamed, and so even though they got the original lens out and the new one put in, I didn’t have 20/20 vision the next day the way I did with the first eye.
Instead, my vision has continued to be blurry as the eye heals and the inflammation goes down.
I have often thought of the line from the Gospels where Jesus heals a blind man partially and he says that he now sees people, but they look like trees walking around. Then Jesus heals him fully.
The good news in my case is that the eye is healing. Although for the first few days I wasn’t sure how much my vision was improving, it has now begun to improve more rapidly. In fact, in the last 24 hours it has improved markedly, to the point that I can now see lines of text and even read very large words (like the JimmyAkin.com at the top of my web site).
The bad news is that if it heals to the point that the images coming through it are as crystal-clear as those from the first eye then I am very likely to have double vision, which would require additional measures (possibly including surgery).
Still, my vision situation is vastly better than it was a month ago.
I continue to marvel at how clear and sharp and colorful everything is (at least out of the first eye). Often I just look around and marvel at the world and how gorgeous it is.
So I am very thankful to God that my vision has improved so dramatically, and I am very thankful to all who have prayed for my vision.
Please keep me in your prayers as the healing continues!
Was this all there was? Or was there a "miracle of sharing"?
Of all the many miracles Jesus performed during his earthly ministry (that is, before his passion, death, and Resurrection), there is one that stands out: the feeding of the five thousands.
Unlike any other miracle from his ministry, this one is recorded in all four gospels is the feeding of the five thousand.
You would think that people would have a handle on the fact that this was a miracle–an unmistakable supernatural intervention in the order of nature.
Yet every year we are subjected to homilies that try to explain it away as a natural event, suggesting that all Jesus really did was motivate people to share the food that they had with them, so it was really a “miracle of sharing” rather than a miraculous multiplication of loaves.
I’ve written about the subject before, but let’s see what Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II have to say about the matter . . .
Does this piece of papyrus prove that Jesus had a wife?
The New York Times is carrying a story of a scholar who has a piece of papyrus which refers to Jesus having a wife.
She’s even dubbed it “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”
Isn’t that “special.”
Does this mean that Dan Brown was right all along? That Jesus was married? To Mary Magdalen even?
Are we going to have to deal with all that nonsense again?
Before things get too far out of hand, let’s take a look at this issue and what it means . . .
The Basic Facts
According to the NYT:
A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’ ”
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”
The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.
The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous [Source].
Okay, let’s stop right there. That leads to the very first question . . .
I just wanted to put up a note letting people know the status of my vision issues.
As you may know, I had cataract surgery on my right eye a month ago, and the results were excellent. I went from legally blind to 20/20 vision (i.e., normal vision, not perfect vision) in less than a day. (In fact, as soon as they put in my new lens, as far as I can tell.)
Now it is time for surgery on my left eye.
I will be having that done Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. Pacific.
The procedure is expected to take about 20-30 minutes.
I very much appreciate all the prayers people have said for me and my vision, and I would like to request them once again.
The surgery itself should go fine. Cataract surgery is very safe and effective today.
But because of factors particular to my case, there is a non-trivial chance that I will end up with double vision.
When I asked the surgeon what the odds are, he said he couldn’t tell and assigned the odds at “fifty-fifty,” though I hope that he was being medically cautious in that.
If I do end up with double vision, it may be temporary or permanent.
If permanent, it may require treatment by wearing special glasses or by surgery on the muscles around my eye, which would require a different kind of specialist.
On the other hand, when the left eye comes back online, my brain may say, “Hey! New data! Great! Let’s match this up in 3-D!”
In that case I’ll have the wonders of depth perception again.
I’m very much hoping for the latter outcome, and so I would very much appreciate your prayers.
The ancient world was very far from being politically correct by modern standards, and as a result, the Bible contains passages that seem politically incorrect today.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, St. Paul seems to suggest that women should be totally silent in church.
Is this true?
If so, how do we square it with the practice of the Church today?
I would appreciate your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is difficult to address in front of a group of women.
I understand the difficulty.
Reading the Passage Itself
Let’s begin by looking at what the passage says, with a bit of the immediate context:
1 Corinthians 14
[33b] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
[37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
[38] If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
The immediate context does not, in this case, make things easier. It actually seems to make them harder.
St. Paul appears to “up the ante” by saying that this is a commandment from the Lord (Jesus himself), and that anyone who rejects this view should have his view rejected.
But perhaps the broader context of St. Paul’s thought may put things in a different light.
And, in fact, it does. Even just a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul indicates that women do not have to remain literally silent in church . . .
How did ancient Rome influence the Bible and the gospel story itself? The essential facts every Christian needs to know!The Bible records a number of ancient civilizations. Perhaps the most famous of these is ancient Rome.
By the time of the New Testament, Rome was the major world power, and it was in control of the Holy Land during the entire earthly life of Jesus and during the lives of his immediate followers.
Jesus was born during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus. He was crucified during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius. The book of Acts records the Roman emperor Claudius by name. And both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred at Rome by the Emperor Nero.
It is clear that the Romans were extraordinarily important to the world in which the New Testament was written.
All that makes it worth asking: Who were the Romans, and where did their civilization come from?
The Legendary Founding
The answer is shrouded in the mists of time, and ancient legends get in the way of an exact knowledge of the facts.
According to the Romans’ own account, the city of Rome was founded in the wake of the famous Trojan War.
Specifically, it was founded on April 21st in 753 B.C. by two twins named Romulus and Remus.
These two twins were supposedly the grandsons of an earlier king—Numitor—but they were raised by a she-wolf, and so they were feral children.
When they founded the city of Rome they had a quarrel, and Romulus killed Remus. Romulus thus became the sole and original king of Rome.
The Roman Kingdom
This led to a period known as “the Roman kindom,” in which Rome was ruled by a series of kings.
This period is supposed to have lasted from the founding in 753 B.C. until about 509 B.C.
It is characterized by the fact that Rome was ruled by kings, just like other peoples were. During this time seven kings supposedly reigned over Rome, beginning with Romulus and ending with Tarquinius Superbus, or “Tarquin the Proud.”
Eventually, however, the people of Rome were fed up with their kings and overthrew them, leading to a new period in the history of Rome.
The Roman Republic
This led to the “Roman Republic,” a period in which Rome lacked a monarch.
The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica,which means “public thing”—a reference to the fact that how the state was governed was now a public thing rather than a matter for just the kings.
To replace the kings, power was divided between two men, known as consuls, who were elected every year and had significant checks on their powers, including term limits.
The Roman Republic lasted from the overthrow of the kings around 509 B.C. until the first century B.C.
The Roman Empire
The Romans found that their system of divided government, with power split up among the consuls and other government officials, was at times unwieldy.
As a result, in times of crisis, they sometimes appointed dictators—men who could run the state as single individuals, but only for a limited period prescribed by law, to keep the dictator from turning into a tyrant.
Eventually this system broke down, when one particular dictator—Julius Caesar—engineered a situation in which he was proclaimed “dictator in perpetuity.”
That was too close to the idea of kingship, and the situation didn’t last long. He was quickly assassinated by a conspiracy in the Senate.
His heir was a man named Octavian, and he eventually accumulated as much power as Julius Caesar had possessed—and more.
Some wanted him to be given the title “king,” but Octavian knew that would be dangerous, so he allowed the Roman Senate to vote him different titles.
One title became the name he is known by today: Augustus.
The other was a military title that meant “commander.” In Latin this word is imperator, and from it we get the English word emperor.
Augustus this became the first of the Roman emperors, and the Roman empire was born.
Rome and the Life of Jesus
Rome had been accumulating power through conquest even since the time of the Roman kings, and by the reign of Augustus Caesar it had become the dominant power in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
They were in political control of the Holy Land at the time Jesus was born, and it was they who had appointed Herod as “king of the Jews.” It was also Augustus Caesar who called for the enrollment that led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
The impact of the Romans on the gospel story is thus apparent right from the beginning.
Their impact was still present at the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, when other members of the Herod family were ruling parts of his kingdom, and when the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, agreed to have Jesus crucified.
“We Have No King But Caesar”
It is ironic that, at the time of Jesus’ Passion, the crowds cried, “We have no king but Caesar!”
The Roman ruler of the day was Augustus’s successor, Tiberius Caesar, and he did not technically have the title “king.” The Romans were too proud of having overthrown their kings for that. But the emperors were functioning as kings, and it was obvious to everyone.
The Empire Strikes Back
The power of the emperors continued to have an impact on the early Church. Just a few decades later it was the Emperor Nero who put St. Peter and St. Paul to death at Rome.
Later emperors launched the persecutions that martyred so many early Christians—and paradoxically caused the Church to grow, until the Roman empire itself was converted to Christ.
The Roman empire was something that the first Christians had to deal with constantly. It loomed over their lives and tried to destroy them and their faith.
It will help us all understand and appreciate our faith better if we know something about the Roman empire and the impact it had on the Bible and the early Church.
Learning More
The persecution by the Roman authorities is a big part of what the book of Revelation is about.
If you’d like to learn more about that, I’d like to invite you to join my my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
