Debbie Patton
February 29, 2000
Critical Review #1

Nolland, John. "Feeding the Multitude" in Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 35A. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

John Nolland's commentary on Luke's Feeding of the Multitude account (9:1017) is a thorough examination of the form, structure and setting of the pericope in light of the work of other scholars and his own. Throughout his analysis of these three points, he continuously returns to the themes of the story, which are Eucharistic elements and a call to discipleship.

For Nolland, the story in Luke was definitely derived from Mark, but there is not conclusive evidence that the story was influenced by any other written source. Any "overlapping minor agreements" between Matthew, Luke and John could be from an oral tradition, but Nolland does not feel this passage supports any existence of Q (435). His analysis of Luke is focused on the additions or omissions of Mark. As for the historic event in Jesus' life that this story came from, the general consensus of scholars is that, because there is so much symbolism in the story, it would be nearly impossible to link this story to a particular event in the life of Jesus. They feel that so much of the story has been influenced by the Last Supper narrative tradition and the eucharistic practices of the early church that it no longer reflects any single historical moment in the life of Jesus.

There is some debate over whether this feeding of the multitude account is decidedly eucharistic. Boobyer argues that the elements that most scholars take as being eucharistic symbolism is nothing more than the normal pattern of a Jewish meal. Van Iersel claims that the eucharistic overtones were a later addition to the text because of the awkward eucharistic language in Mark. He concludes that the account is nothing more

than a miracle story based on 2 Kings 4:42-44. Nolland resists these interpretations: The eucharistic illusion would seem to have always been a feature of the account; the awkwardness simply reflects the fact that one does not break fish as one does bread and perhaps flows also from a desire not to detract from the eucharistic focus by supplying an elaboration for the fish which would find no parallel in the eucharistic tradition. (437)

Nolland feels that the placement of the feeding story is intentionally placed after the Mission of the Twelve. Jesus had sent his disciples out on their own and upon there return he gathered them together to discuss the work they had done. A large crowd followed them and as it was getting late the disciples wanted Jesus to send the people away so that they could care for themselves. Jesus' directive was that the disciples ought to give the crowd something to eat themselves. Nolland supports his argument about the placement of the story by saying that the disciples had "been sent out to deal with the people and [had] received from them hospitality; [when they were] to be confronted with the people who [had] taken the initiative to come and [the disciples were] challenged to extend hospitality" (439).

1. Mark is only necessary source for Luke
2. Because of the amount of symbolism in the story, it is difficult to say exactly where/how/if it occurred in the life of the historical Jesus
3. The present form of the feeding narratives is clearly influenced by the Last Supper narrative tradition and the eucharistic practices of the early church
4. The eucharistic elements were part of Luke's original text and not a later addition
5. The placement of the story after the Mission of the Twelve is significant
6. The story is ultimately a call for discipleship

What is most interesting about the author's style is that when he is explaining the positions of other scholars he names them and then gives their argument. However, when he gives his own position he does not say "this author feels..." or "I understand this to mean..." Instead he speaks authoritatively by saying "Luke stresses..." or "Luke does..." He presents his own position as if he is inside the mind of Luke himself.

Nolland's literary criticism includes context, form criticism, structure, source criticism and redaction criticism. The first is the context of where the passage is located, as I have already discussed. Next is form criticism, where he discusses the complexity of knowing which form it is; some scholars say it is just a miracle account while others see it as having eucharistic elements. He discusses the structure of the pericope in light of its parallels to 2 Kings 4:42-44 and Last Supper accounts. His discussion of source criticism brings him to the conclusion that Luke only used Mark, with possibly a few elements coming from an oral tradition that he was familiar with. And finally, redaction criticism is exemplified in his argument against Van Iersel. Van Iersel claimed the eucharistic language was a later addition because of the awkwardness of the language and Nolland refutes that in his argument that the eucharistic elements were always apart of Luke's account.