The Feeding of the Four Thousand

Catholic Answers ^ | July 7, 2014 | Jimmy Akin

[NYer]

Ping!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“That may be why Luke and John chose not to record it: Given the space limitations on ancient books, “

A low view of the inspiration of Scripture...

[JoeFromSidney]

In his book Miracles, C. S. Lewis comments on the miracle of multiplication of the loaves. He notes it's really an extension of something God does regularly. You plant a seed and it multiplies. We don't consider that to be a miracle. It's simply part of Nature. What Lewis is saying is that Nature is itself as much a miracle as are the miracles that in some way bypass Nature. The Laws of Nature are God's laws, built into Creation.

[NYer]

“That may be why Luke and John chose not to record it: Given the space limitations on ancient books, “

A low view of the inspiration of Scripture...

Not really. Ancient authors had to be much more conscious than we do of how much space they were consuming. Paper (papyrus or parchment) was much more expensive, and scrolls were difficult to work with once they get beyond a certain size.

The 3rd century B.C. Greek poet Callimachus famously said, "A large scroll is a large evil."

Luke's Gospel is already the longest book of the New Testament, and this forced him to omit material he might otherwise have included.

He had tons of special material not yet recorded in Gospel form that he wanted to put down (e.g., his Infancy Narrative), and he knew that the Feeding of the Four Thousand was already recorded in one of the other Gospels (Matthew or Mark, depending on which you think he used in composing his).

Also, The Feeding of the Four Thousand occurs in a part of Mark that is referred to as "the Great Omission" (from around Mark 6:47 to around Mark 8:27). It's a whole block of text that Luke basically leapt over--if he was using Mark--likely for space-saving reasons.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[HarleyD]

John was quick to point out that Christ did so many miracles that not all the books could hold them. John selected his miracles for a purpose. Here is an interesting article on MIRACLES: Miracles of Christ Recorded in John's Gospel. The author believes the miracles John selected were to illustrate the qualities of God. Thus John gave one miracle per one quality.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Your response is an equally low view of the inspiration of Scripture.

[vladimir998]

Maybe your understanding of inspiration is low.

[cloudmountain]

In his book Miracles, C. S. Lewis comments on the miracle of multiplication of the loaves. He notes it's really an extension of something God does regularly. You plant a seed and it multiplies. We don't consider that to be a miracle. It's simply part of Nature. What Lewis is saying is that Nature is itself as much a miracle as are the miracles that in some way bypass Nature. The Laws of Nature are God's laws, built into Creation.

GOOD words.
Thanks for posting them.

[narses]

Your response puts one in mind of the fabled manger animal.

Woof, woof.

[Salvation]

John wrote AFTER all the other evangelists, and most of his writing is theology, although other things are included.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Vlad,
No, it is as high as revealed in Sacred Scripture. The article is pathetically low.

Thanks.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Narses,
Perhaps if you posted one of your pics it would help...?

[vladimir998]

“No, it is as high as revealed in Sacred Scripture. The article is pathetically low.”

No, your opinion is simply skewed.

[Mr Rogers]

We’ve had our differences in theological discussions, but I enjoyed your post and agree with the article. Thanks!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Vlad- the article portrays Luke as unguided or inspired , but as simply working on a term paper. It is an extremely low view of what inspiration means in Scripture.

[vladimir998]

No, the Akin article simply talks about the feeding of the 4,000. Inspiration is not the focus.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Inspiration is not the focus”

No, it is the pathetic, limp-wristed, subtext that is revealed by the explanations put forth in the article. I’m pointing out what a low view of inspiration Akin holds - and is defended by posters here.

[vladimir998]

Actually all you’re doing is posting your opinion (which is erroneous) and claiming it is Akin’s. That’s “pathetic, limp-wristed”. Akin, on the other hand, is just fine.