Where Did Jesus Feed The 5,000 Map

Where did Jesus feed the 5000

Where didJesus feed the 5000?

NearBethsaida Galilee / Near Bethsaida Julias?

MobileFriendly: m.messiahstudy.netAlternative: Use Transcode on iPhone(Safari) or Android (Chrome)THEBAKER OF CAPERNAUMNOW AVAILABLE The baker of Capernaum meets thecarpenter of Nazareth.NASA Photo. Markers and names inserted by author. The feeding of the 5000 is the only miracle of Jesus described by all four gospels (Matt. 14, Mark6, Luke 9, and John 6). It signaled the end of Jesus’Galilean ministrythatlasted about two years. When he refused to be their earthly king, they lostinterest and deserted him (John 6:66). After the feeding of the 5000 Jesusvisited Phoenicia, Decapolis, Caesarea-Philippi, Judea and Perea.For centuries, the locality ofthe miraculous feeding of 5000 has been clouded in uncertainty.Great scholars have disagreed. William Hendriksen decided on a spot near Bethsaida Julias, but conceded that according to Mark 6:45 theremust have been a second Bethsaida on the western shore of the lake. John Calvin thought that a place near Bethsaida Galilee (John 12:21) was more acceptable. This spot,known as Tabgha, was already accepted in the Byzantine era as locality forthis miracle.Sea of Galilee, Western Shore (photo by JacobM. Van Zyl)Tabgha, Byzantine Church (photo by Jacob M.Van Zyl)Tabgha, mosaic of bread and fish (photo byJacob M. Van Zyl)The localityof thisevent does not affect its meaning and importance in the ministryof Jesus. However, for historical and geographical purposes it is alwaysa plus if the location of an important event can be pinpointed. Touristslike to know they stand on the very spot where something great happened. The apostle Johngrew up in that region. He knew the name of every small place. He wrote his gospel about twenty years after Mark,Matthew, and Luke had completed theirs. John sometimes gives extrainformation to eliminate uncertainties. His remark in John 6:23 may hold thekey to the Bethsaida controversy.Tiberias, Sea of Galilee (photo by Jacob M.Van Zyl)Sea of Galilee, western shore, looking south (photo by H. Isahar).Source:Sea of Galilee, north-west shore, looking north(Source: ) It was alreadyevening (John 6:16, Mark 6:45-47) when Jesus sent the disciples by boat tothe nearby Bethsaida Galilee, south-west of Tabgha (they later landed atGennesaret, still farther south in the direction of Tiberias). If Jesus had fed the 5000 near Bethsaida Julias, the news about themiracle could not have reached Tiberias overnight.Because of the strongwind the disciples exerted themselves to row a few kilometers from sunset todaybreak. It is highly unlikely that people would have rowed the15 km from Bethsaida Julias to Tiberias in the dark and in that kind ofweather. However, going on foot from Tabgha or Gennesaret to Tiberias overnight would be easier.The discipleswanted to return to Capernaum (John 6:16) but the strong wind against them(Mark 6:48) drove them to Gennesaret. When the wind died down they returnedto Capernaum. Because Tabghawas close to Tiberias, peoplein Tiberias learned the next morning about the miracle and decided toinvestigate. John says,”they came in SMALL boats (ploiaria) fromTiberias near the place where they ate the bread” (literal translation).It is doubtful if theywould have dared to row (after a stormy night) with small boats for 15 kmover the open lake to Bethsaida Julias. It is much more feasible that theywould have kept close to the western shore, first reaching the spot of themiracle, and then proceeding to Capernaum where Jesus later addressed themin the synagogue (John 6:24, 59).A few otherpractical considerations argue against Bethsaida Julias as the site of themiracle.

	The River Jordan entersthe north side of the lake through a marshy delta. The people who followedJesus and the Twelve on foot along the shore (Mark 6:33) would have foundthe route from Capernaum to Bethsaida Julias very difficult. If there were abridge, it would be north of the delta, causing a long detour.
	Furthermore, John saysthat it was shortly before the Passover (John 6:4). Many people weretraveling south to Jerusalem, so Bethsaida Galilee would be on their waywhile Bethsaida Julias would be totally out of their way.

The main reasonfor the controversy is probably the phrase”crossed over.”It wasnot only used for West/East trips but also for North/South ones.They had only two ways tomove from one spot on the shore to another: either going around the lake onfoot orcrossing overa part of the lake byboat. Those who prefer Bethsaida Julias as the site of the feeding of the5000 have misinterpreted the phrase “crossed over.” Because itrefers to East/West crossing in Mat. 9:1, Mark 5:21, and 8:13, scholarserroneously concluded that it must have the same meaning in Mat. 14:34, Mark6:53, and John 6:1 and 23, which actually refer to North/South crossings.Have a good lookat the map again, read the four gospels, keep the scenario explained abovein mind, and the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. For morepictures of Capernaum clickhere. ~~~~~

Was Mark Confused Pertaining to the Location of the Feeding of the 5,000?

22nd of August, 2016; updated on 23rd of August, 2016 My next book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017—available December 1, 2016), will be published in December. It will be about why there are differences in the gospels. When it comes to telling the same tale, the Gospels often differ from one another in their specifics, which led to the completion of this book, which was the result of seven and a half years of research that aimed to get a new understanding of why this happened.

(This is more obvious in Greek than in English, but it is still noticeable.) The list extended to almost 50 pages in length.
What Is the Issue?
Yes, it is correct.
In most cases, though, I believe the author had a legitimate purpose for narrating the incident in such a particular way; that is, he employed a literary device that I was not aware of.
Specifically, in this post, I will discuss the one that I consider to be the most difficult to resolve, and for which the employment of a compositional technique is not immediately apparent: The area where the 5,000 people were fed.
If you image the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a vast lake, as a clock, Bethsaida is about 12:30, Capernaum is around 11:00, and Gennesaret is around 10:00.
It is said in Luke 9:10 that the meal took place in or near Bethsaida.

But it appears that the gospels of Matthew and John were writing together, as their accounts of the meal indicate that Jesus and his followers crossed Lake Gennesaret shortly thereafter and landed on the northwest side (Matthew 14:34—Gennesaret; John 6:16-17, 21—Capernaum).

Consequently, according to the accounts in the gospels of Luke, Matthew, and John, Jesus fed the throng in or around Bethsaida (12:30), and then the disciples crossed the lake shortly afterward and landed in the area of Gennesaret/Capernaum (10-11:00).

In light of Luke’s allegation that the meal took place in or near Bethsaida, it appears that this is impossible to reconcile.

Solutions that could be considered Scholars have battled with this issue for decades, positing a variety of solutions that have come nothing close to reaching a unanimous decision.

A Bethsaida was located on the northeastern shore of the lake, which we know of.

While the two-town concept is a possibility, it is simply hypothetical and does not have any empirical evidence to support it.

However, this interpretation does not accord with John’s narrative that the disciples arrived in Capernaum, where they had meant to stay (John 6:17, 21).

Because it would have been a “simple trip” from the place of the meal, Matthew and John remove the name of Bethsaida from their accounts.

However, this does not alleviate the tension because it is the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” rather than the phrase “to the other side” that starts the conflict.

They believe this is the case (Mark 8:22-26).

This resulted in the formation of a Markan sandwich.

The majority of experts, however, believe that John was following Mark as his source, which is contrary to the majority of scholars.

Lenski and James White, the Greek pros Bethsaidan in Mark 6:45 should be rendered “toward Bethsaida” rather than “to Bethsaida” in the New International Version.

Although they arrived in the vicinity of Gennesaret, according to Mark, they did not stay there for long.

Furthermore, there are a number of reasons why “toward Bethsaida” may not be the most accurate translation forpros Bethsaidan in this context.

White asserts that the meal took place in the plains of Bethsaida (between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.), that Jesus told his followers to cross the lake, and that they would travel “by” or “toward” Bethsaida in the course of their journey.

While proscan can indicate “by” or “toward,” if that were the intended meaning in this context, inserting the phrase would be superfluous to include.

Wouldn’t some of you have wanted to say something like, “All right, Lord.

It’s a large body of water.

Consequently, it would be analogous to my telling my wife Debbie, “Please get in the car and go toward/by Buckhead,” as an example.

You’ve provided me with a clear path to follow moving forward.

As an example, if you’re traveling from 1:00-2:00 to 10:00-11:00, the term “toward/by Bethsaida” would be completely superfluous to include if you’re traveling across the lake.

We’re commercial fisherman who rely on this lake for our livelihood.

Is he under the impression that we were going to go all the way down to 6:00 and then back up to 10:00?” Indeed, there is an even stronger argument in favor of using “to” rather than “toward” or “by” in this context.

It nearly always comes in the accusative case throughout the Gospels, with the exception of when it appears as an infinitive (Mark 13:22; Luke 18:1; Matt.

5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12; Mark 13:22).

When pros is associated to nouns that occur in different situations (for example, pros+ genitive; pros+ dative; pros+ accusative), the meaning of pros might become more sophisticated.

There are some exceptions to this rule.

And when we study the exact grammatical construction in Mark 6:45, we may narrow our attention even more in search of a more clear meaning: In the midst of this, Jesus ordered his followers to board the boat and proceed to Bethsaida (pros+ accusative) on the other side of the lake.

Ten times in the New Testament, seven times in the Gospels, one time in Acts, and twice in Paul’s writings, this grammatical structure is used to express a noun phrase.

– Mark 11:1 (New International Version) This exact identical structure appears in the comparable paragraph in Luke as follows: As soon as he finished saying these things, he continued on his way up to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative).

In Luke 19:28-29, the Bible says Bethphage and Bethany are two towns on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives that are worth seeing.

Let us consider another illustration.

– Mark 5:19 (NIV) The dwelling of the guy (eis+ accusative) is described further in the pros+ accusative.

– Mark 6:51 (NIV) Thepros+ accusative and theeis+ accusative are both descriptions of the same location, just as they were in the preceding cases.

The two prepositional phrases offering descriptions of the same location are always followed by a verb of going, which is followed by two accusatives of location (eis+ accusative andpros+ accusative).

Another reason to choose the translation “to Bethsaida” over “toward Bethsaida” is that Mark 6:45 appears to be stating that Jesus told his followers to proceed “to Bethsaida.” The majority of translators agree.

Alternatively, one may argue that the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45 was a scribal error that was later corrected, but which did not appear in the “original” Mark.

Finally, we may speculate that Mark was perplexed.

However, according to Mark, they are planning to cross over to Bethsaida and land on the northwest side of the city.

Matthew may have been aware of this and purposefully removed the phrase “to Bethsaida” (see Matt.

It is probable, however, that some simplification is taking place in the case of Matthew and John.

Considering that Bethsaida is located on the east bank of the Jordan River, it’s possible that Jesus and his disciples had retreated to the western bank of the river, which would explain why the feeding had taken place there.

The story was simplified by Matthew and John in this instance, as the brief stop in Bethsaida was omitted.

Conclusion There are a variety of remedies to the tension caused by the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45, which we have discussed.

Some instances in my research on how Plutarch narrates the same tales in various ways have left me perplexed, and I’m not sure what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the variances.

In fact, the challenge is more difficult to solve than I had anticipated.

Ancient authors had no idea that modern readers would be scrutinizing their texts under a microscope in the same way that we do now.

As a result, I am satisfied to continue to live with an unresolved question.

AYBC,Mark(Joel Marcus), Black’s NTC,Mark(Morna D.

See UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide for Translators.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Meyer); Expositor’s Greek NT,Mark (William Robertson Nicoll); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III (William Robertson Nicoll); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III (Willi “Peter” is a euphemism for “Peter and the Wolf” (Bob Utley).

Mark (James A.

Have Archaeologists Found Where Jesus Fed the 5,000?

22nd of August, 2016; updated on 23rd of August, 2016. My next book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017—available December 1, 2016), is scheduled to be released this December. When it comes to reporting the same story, the Gospels often differ from one another in their details, which led to the completion of this book, which was the result of seven and a half years of research that sought to gain a new understanding of why.

(The differences are more noticeable in Greek than they are in English.) a.
When one considers the Gospels in light of their biographical nature, I’ve come to the conclusion that more than 90 percent of the differences between them can be reconciled without resorting to the sort of hermeneutical gymnastics that are sometimes employed in harmonization initiatives.
I believe there are no such differences.
Only a few come to mind right away.
In my book, I provide specific examples of this.
Imagine that the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a large lake, is a clock and Bethsaida is at 12:30, Capernaum is at 11:00, and Gennesaret is at 10:00.
This event happened at or near Bethsaida, according to Luke 9:10.

But it appears that the gospels of Matthew and John were writing together, as their accounts of the feeding indicate that Jesus and his disciples crossed Lake Gennesaret immediately afterward and landed on the northwest shore (Matthew 14:34—Gennesaret; John 6:16-17, 21—Capernaum).

The disciples crossed Lake Tiber immediately after Jesus fed the crowd at or near Bethsaida (12:30), landing in the area of Gennesaret/Capernaum, according to the accounts of Luke, Matthew, and John (10-11:00).

In light of Luke’s report that the feeding took place at or near Bethsaida, this appears to be a difficult situation to reconcile with.

Alternate Proposals The issue of tension has long been debated among scholars, who have proposed a variety of solutions without reaching a consensus.

A Bethsaida was located on the northeastern shore of the lake, as we are aware of at this time.

The two-town hypothesis is theoretically feasible; however, it is purely speculative and does not have any empirical evidence to back it up.” Rather than accepting the two-towns hypothesis, R.

France suggests that Luke is mistaken about the location of the feeding being in or near Bethsaida, and that the disciples were blown off course and ended up in Gennesaret as a result.

A location northwest of the lake and west of Bethsaida, according to James Edward, may have been the site of the feeding event.

Following a different manuscript tradition, William Lane decides to omit the phrase “to the other side” in Mark 6:45.

Researchers Robert Guelich, Paul Achtemeier, and Adella Yarbro Collins propose that Jesus sent his disciples to Bethsaida, where he would immediately heal a blind man after the feeding.

But before the arrival of Mark, a pre-Markan redactor interrupted the original chronological progression and interjected a number of other stories, including the story of Jesus walking on water.

In light of everything that transpires in chapters 7:1-8:21, this would be a very awkward move on Mark’s part.

According to R.

Because the town was a suburb of Capernaum, Lenski believes this would be a good fit.

Although Gennesaret and Capernaum could be considered part of the same geographical region, including Bethsaida would be an overreach.

Here are a few examples: As White argues, the feeding took place on the plains of Bethsaida (between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.), that Jesus instructed his disciples to cross the lake, and that they would pass “by” or “toward” Bethsaida in the course of their journey.

When used in this context, the word proscan mean either “by” or “toward,” so including the phrase would be redundant.

Was it not possible for some of you to say, “All right, Lord.

A large lake can be found here.

Consequently, it would be analogous to me telling my wife Debbie, “Please get in the car and drive toward/by Buckhead.” “All right,” she’d say.

I’m curious though, where would you like me to go?” To this point, one might speculate that Jesus may have instructed them to travel toward/by Bethsaida on their way to Gennesaret (literally, to cross over by/toward or passing Bethsaida and arrive in Gennesaret), and that Mark omitted the part about Gennesaret from his account.

to 10:00-11:00 p.m., the phrase “toward/by Bethsaida” would be completely superfluous, as Bethsaida is directly across the lake from where you’re going.

Fishing is our livelihood, and we rely on this lake to make it.

Is he under the impression that we were going to go all the way down to 6:00 and then all the way back up?” It’s true that there’s an even stronger argument for using “to” rather than the words “towards” or “by.” The word pros appears 65 times in Mark, 42 times in Matthew, 166 times during the book of Luke, and twice in the book of John, according to the NIV.

5:28, 6:1, 13:30, 23:5, and 26:12) and when it appears in the dative case (Matt.

When pros is connected to nouns that appear in different cases (for example, pros+ genitive; pros+ dative; pros+ accusative), the meaning of the word can become more nuanced.

One can make an argument for the existence of exceptions.

In addition, when we look at the specific grammatical construction in Mark 6:45, we can narrow our focus even further in order to find a more precise meaning: Instantaneously after, he insisted on his disciples getting into the boat and proceeding to the other side (eis+ accusative) to Bethsaida (pros+ accusative).

Ten times in the New Testament, seven times in the Gospels, one time in Acts, and twice in Paul’s letters, this grammatical construction is used to express the idea of “and” or “and.” Examine a few examples: So, as they got closer to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative), Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), and the Mount of Olives(pros+ accusative), he dispatched two of his disciples to accompany them.

Exactly the same structure appears in the parallel text in Luke: Then, having said all of that, he proceeded on his way up to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative).
In Luke 19:28-29, the Bible states that It is located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, close to Bethphage and Bethany.
Let’s take another example to illustrate this point: Once a demoniac was healed by Jesus, the man was instructed to return home (eis+ accusative) and to his people (pros+ accusative) and tell them about the wonderful things the Lord had done for him and how he had received mercy.
An additional illustration: Furthermore, Jesus approached them (pros+ accusative) and entered the boat (eis+ accusative) after them.
Matt.
The two prepositional phrases providing descriptions of the same location are always followed by a verb of going, which is followed by two accusatives of location (eis+ accusative and pros+ accusative).
In Mark 6:45, Jesus’ disciples are reported to have been instructed to go “to Bethsaida,” which is another reason why “to Bethsaida” should be preferred over “toward Bethsaida” in translation.
Three renderpros Bethsaidanas “near Bethsaida” or “toward Bethsaida” out of 28 English translations, making it the only one that is not a homonym (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Common English Bible).
Because there are no manuscripts that omit the phrase, such a change would be entirely ad hoc.

This is first suggested by the fact that Luke places the feeding in Bethsaida, on the northeastern side of the lake, and that Matthew and John then inform us that the disciples crossed over to the northwest side of the lake and landed, with John adding that they landed in Capernaum, where they had intended to stay.

In addition, if Mark had simply stated, “And immediately, he urged his disciples to get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side,” without including the words “to Bethsaida,” the tension would have been eliminated (6:45).
14:22 suggests that Matthew was aware of this and chose to omit the phrase “to Bethsaida” in order to avoid the resulting tension.
The disciples asked Jesus to send the people away to the surrounding villages and countryside for lodging and food because they were in a desolate place, despite the fact that Luke 9:10 states that Jesus and his disciples went to Bethsaida.
Considering that Bethsaida is located on the east bank of the Jordan River, it’s possible that Jesus and his disciples had retreated to the western bank of the river, which would have been the location of the feeding.
The story was simplified by Matthew and John in that case, as the brief stop in Bethsaida was skipped over.
Conclusion To resolve the conflict produced by the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45, we have considered a variety of alternative possibilities.
Some occasions in my research into how Plutarch narrates the same tales in various ways have left me perplexed, and I’m not sure what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the variations.

In reality, the problem is more difficult to solve than I had first anticipated.

Ancient authors had no idea that modern readers would be scrutinizing their writings under a microscope in the same way that we are now doing with our own work.

In order to live with an unanswered question, I’ve decided to accept the situation.

Black’s NTC, Mark(Morna D.

Consult UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to the Craft of Translation.

BratcherEugene A.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Meyer); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III(W.

Robertson Nicoll Peter is a man who loves to read and write.

See Mark(John Peter Lang): The notion of two Bethsaidas on the Lake “appears to be completely without foundation”; Mark(Henry Barclay Swete): “There is no direct evidence supporting the presence of two Bethsaidas on the Lake” There is no solution to the strain offered by either Lang or Swete.

Brooks), who proposes the two-town idea.

Consider IVP NTC as an alternative.

Kernaghan and Robert H.

Mark, the Pillar (James R.

Mark NICNT, NICNT, NICNT, NICNT (William Lane).

Achtemeier in JBL8.9, no.

3; “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae” by Paul J.

Lenski).

On only 11 occasions (about 3 percent) do we find the word pros in the Gospels that isn’t accompanied by the accusative.

Consult the BDAG and Liddell-Scott Greek lexicons, which are considered the most authoritative Greek lexicons in use today by academics.

As an example of how the terms may be used interchangeably, Matthew substituteseisforpros.

is devoted to this question: See the third chapter of Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? for more information.

Videos & Resources About The Holy Land by HolyLandSite.com

22nd of August, 2016; updated 23rd of August, 2016 My next book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, will be published by Oxford University Press in December and will be available on December 1, 2016. In this book, the author presents the results of seven and a half years of research into why the Gospels often differ from one another in their details when reporting the same story. As part of my research, I read through the Gospels eight times in their original languages, noting the differences that I noticed.

When one considers the Gospels in light of their biographical nature, I’ve come to the conclusion that more than 90 percent of the differences between them can be resolved without resorting to the sort of hermeneutical gymnastics that are sometimes employed in harmonization efforts.
If there are any differences in the Gospels that I do not believe can be resolved by reading them in light of the compositional devices I observe being used by other ancient historians and biographers, I am frequently asked this question.
There are only a few of them.
These are some of the examples that I use in my book.
In order to follow this story, it is helpful to have a sense of how close certain locations mentioned in it are to one another.
If the Sea of Galilee is a clock, Bethsaida is at 12:30, Capernaum is at 11:00, and Gennesaret is at 10:00.
The other three Gospels do not provide us with any information about where it took place.

John also points out that they arrived at their destination on time.

In Mark 6:45, we read that Jesus instructed his disciples to cross the lake to Bethsaida, which presents a problem.

What exactly is going on here?

Many conservative commentators believe that there were two towns named “Bethsaida” in ancient Israel.

These scholars believe that “Bethsaidaof Galilee” in John 12:21 refers to a different Bethsaida, one that was located on the northwest shore of Lake Galilee.

Rather than accepting the two-towns hypothesis, R.

France suggests that Luke is mistaken about the location of the feeding being in or near Bethsaida, and that the disciples were blown off course and ended up in Gennesaret.

According to James Edwards, the feeding took place somewhere northwest of the lake and west of Bethsaida.

In Mark 6:45, William Lane chooses to omit the phrase “to the other side,” citing a different manuscript tradition.

Researchers Robert Guelich, Paul Achtemeier, and Adella Yarbro Collins propose that Jesus sent his disciples to Bethsaida, where he would immediately heal a blind man after the feeding (Mark 8:22-26).

This resulted in the creation of a Markan sandwich.

The majority of scholars, however, believe that John was following Mark as a source, which contradicts the majority of scholars.

Lenski and James White, the Greek pros Bethsaidan in Mark 6:45 should be translated “toward Bethsaida” rather than “to Bethsaida” in order to avoid confusion.

Mark, on the other hand, claims that they arrived in the region of Gennesaret.

Furthermore, there are a number of reasons why “toward Bethsaida” may not be the most accurate translation forpros Bethsaidan in this situation.

White asserts that the feeding took place on the plains of Bethsaida (between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.), that Jesus instructed his disciples to cross the lake, and that they would pass “by” or “toward” Bethsaida as they did so.

While proscan can mean “by” or “toward,” if that were the intended meaning in this context, including the phrase would be superfluous and unnecessary.

Wouldn’t some of you have wanted to say, “All right, Lord.

It’s a very large lake.

As a result, it would be analogous to me saying to my wife Debbie, “Please get in the car and drive toward/by Buckhead.” She would respond with, “All right.

“But where do you want me to go?” I inquired.

When traveling from 1:00-2:00 p.m.

Surely some of the disciples were thinking to themselves, “Does he think we’re stupid?

Of course, we’ll be passing through Bethsaida on the way!

Pros occurs 65 times in Mark, 42 times in Matthew, 166 times in Luke, and 102 times in John.

5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12) and when it appears in the dative case (Matt.

(Luke 19:37; John 20:11, 12).

When used in conjunction with an accusative that refers to a location, as we see in Mark 6:45, it usually refers to traveling to that location.

However, this is by far the most commonly used interpretation.

The sixth chapter of Mark (6:45) We see a verb of going, “to go ahead” (proagein), combined with a location described by two prepositions followed by accusatives: to the other side (eis+ accusative), and to Bethsaida (pros+ accusative).

Let us take a look at a few examples: And as they got closer to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative), Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), and the Mount of Olives(pros+ accusative), he dispatched two of his disciples.

So, as he got closer to Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), to the mount known as “Olives,” he dispatched two of his disciples to accompany him.

As a result, the pros+ accusative is used to provide a more detailed description of the location mentioned in relation to the eis+ accusative in this instance.

Following the healing of a demoniac, Jesus instructed the man to return to his home (eis+ accusative) and to his people (pros+ accusative) and tell them about the wonderful things the Lord had done for him and how he had been shown mercy.

Here’s an additional illustration: Furthermore, Jesus approached them (pros+ accusative) and entered the boat (eis+ accusative) with them.

Matthew 26:18, Luke 4:26, Acts 20:6, Galatians 1:17, and Titus 3:12 are some of the last examples in the New Testament.

These texts are heavily skewed in favor of comprehension.

The majority of translators are in agreement.

Alternatively, one could argue that the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45 was a scribal error that was later corrected, but was not present in the “original” Mark.

Finally, we can speculate that Mark was perplexed.

However, according to Mark, they intend to cross over to Bethsaida and land on the northwest side of the city.

Matthew may have been aware of this and purposefully omitted the phrase “to Bethsaida” (see Matt.

It is possible, however, that Matthew and John are being simplified in some way.

Because Bethsaida is located on the east bank of the Jordan River, it is possible that Jesus and his disciples had retreated to the western bank of the river, which is where the feeding had taken place.

The story was simplified by Matthew and John in that case, as the brief stop in Bethsaida was omitted.

Conclusion A number of solutions to the tension created by the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45 have been considered.

During my research into how Plutarch tells the same stories in different ways, there are a few instances in which I am perplexed and have no idea what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the variations.

In reality, the puzzle is more difficult to solve than I had anticipated.

Ancient authors were completely unaware that modern readers would be scrutinizing their writings under a microscope in the same way that we are.

As a result, I am content to continue living with an unanswered question.

The AYBC, Mark(Joel Marcus), Black’s NTC, Mark(Morna D.

See UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to the Craft of Translation.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Meyer); Expositor’s Greek NT,Mark (William Robertson Nicoll); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III (William Robertson Nicoll); “Peter” is a euphemism for “Peter’s son” (Bob Utley).

Mark (James A.

Also see IVP NTC.

Kernaghan) and Mark (Robert H.

Mark Pillar is a pillar of strength in the community (James R.

NICNT, Mark NICNT, Mark (William Lane).

Achtemeier, “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae” in JBL8.9, no.

Lenski).

Only 11 (about 3 percent) of the 375 instances of pros in the Gospels are not associated with an accusative.

See the BDAG and Liddell-Scott Greek lexicons, which are the most authoritative Greek dictionaries used by today’s researchers.

21:1 is a parallel passage to Luke 19:28-29 in terms of content.

As a result, the NASB’s translation of Mark 11:1, “As they reached Jerusalem, He dispatched two of His disciples to Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives,” is incorrect.

for more information. See chapter three of Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? for more information.

Historical Background

August 22, 2016; updated August 23, 2016 My next book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017—available December 1, 2016), will be published in December. This book is the culmination of seven and a half years of research that sought to gain a new understanding of why the Gospels often differ from one another in their details when reporting the same story. During my research, I read through the Gospels eight times in their original language and made a list of the differences I noticed.

I’m now convinced that when one reads the Gospels in light of their biographical nature, more than 90 percent of the differences disappear without the need to resort to the sort of hermeneutical gymnastics that are sometimes employed in harmonization efforts.
I’m frequently asked if there are any differences between the Gospels that I don’t believe can be resolved by reading them in light of the compositional devices I’ve observed being used by other ancient historians and biographers.
There are a couple of them.
These are some of the examples I provide in my book.
In order to follow this story, it is helpful to have a sense of how close certain locations mentioned in it are to each other.
The feeding took place at or near Bethsaida, according to Luke 9:10.
Matthew and John, on the other hand, appear to be in agreement with Luke because they both report that Jesus and his disciples crossed the lake immediately after the feeding and landed on the northwest side (Matt.

John adds that they arrived at their destination as planned.

The difficulty appears after the feeding, when we read in Mark 6:45 that Jesus instructed his disciples to cross the lake to Bethsaida.

So, what exactly is going on here?

Many conservative commentators believe that there were two towns named “Bethsaida.” We know there was a Bethsaida on the northeastern shore of the lake.

While the two-town hypothesis is a possibility, it is purely speculative and does not have any empirical evidence to back it up.

However, this interpretation conflicts with John’s report that the disciples had arrived in Capernaum, where they had intended to stay (John 6:17, 21).

Because Bethsaida was only a “trivial voyage” away from the site of the feeding, Matthew and John do not mention it.

However, this does not alleviate the tension because it is the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” rather than the phrase “to the other side” that introduces it.

However, a pre-Markan redactor broke up the original chronological progression and inserted a number of other stories into the gap, including the story of Jesus walking on water.

Given the events of 7:1-8:21, this would be a highly awkward move on Mark’s part.

According to R.

Mark, on the other hand, goes on to say that they landed in the region of Gennesaret.

Furthermore, there are several reasons to believe that “toward Bethsaida” is not the best translation forpros Bethsaidan in this context.

White asserts that the feeding took place on the plains of Bethsaida (between 1:00 and 2:00), that Jesus instructed his disciples to cross the lake, and that they would pass “by” or “toward” Bethsaida as they did so.

While proscan can mean “by” or “toward,” if that were the intended meaning in this context, including the phrase would be superfluous.

Wouldn’t some of you have wanted to say, “All right, Lord.

It’s a significant body of water.

As a result, it would be analogous to me telling my wife Debbie, “Please get in the car and drive toward/by Buckhead.” “All right,” she would respond.

“However, where do you want me to go?” “Jesus may have told them to go toward/by Bethsaida on their way to Gennesaret,” one might speculate (literally, “Cross over to the other side by/toward/passing Bethsaida and arrive in Gennesaret”), and Mark may have omitted the part about Gennesaret.

Surely some of the disciples were thinking to themselves, “Does he think we’re stupid?” We’re a family of fishermen who make our living on this lake.

“Does he think we’re going to go all the way down to 6:00 and then back up to 10:00?” Indeed, there is an even stronger argument for using “to” rather than “toward” or “by.” Pros appears 65 times in Mark, 42 times in Matthew, 166 times in Luke, and 102 times in John.

5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12) and when it appears in the dative case (Matt.

(Luke 19:37; John 20:11, 12).

When the verb is used in conjunction with an accusative that refers to a location, as we see in Mark 6:45, it usually refers to traveling to that location.

However, this is by far the most frequently used interpretation.

– Mark 6:45 Here we see a verb of going, “to go ahead” (proagein), combined with a location described by two prepositions followed by accusatives: to the other side (eis+ accusative), and to Bethsaida (pros+ accusative).

Take a look at a few examples: And when they got close to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative), Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), and the Mount of Olives(pros+ accusative), he dispatched two of his disciples.

And it happened as he got closer to Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), to the mount known as ‘Olives'(pros+ accusative), that he dispatched two of his disciples.

As a result, the pros+ accusative is used to provide an additional description of the location mentioned in relation to the eis+ accusative.

After Jesus healed a demoniac, he told the man to go to his home (eis+ accusative) and to his people (pros+ accusative) and tell them about the wonderful things the Lord has done for you and how he has shown mercy to you.

Here’s another example: And Jesus walked up to them (pros+ accusative) and into the boat (eis+ accusative).

The remaining occurrences in the New Testament are found in Matthew 26:18, Luke 4:26, Acts 20:6, Galatians 1:17, and Titus 3:12.

These passages tally significantly in favor of comprehension.

The vast majority of translators agree.

One might argue that the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45 was a scribal error that was later corrected but was not there in the “original” Mark.

Finally, one may speculate that Mark felt perplexed.

However, according to Mark, they are planning to cross across to Bethsaida and land on the northwest side.

Matthew may have been aware of this and purposefully removed the phrase “to Bethsaida” (see Matt.

However, it’s probable that some simplification is taking place with Matthew and John.

Because Bethsaida is located on the east side of the Jordan River, it is plausible that Jesus and his followers had fled to the western bank of the river, and that this was where the feeding had taken place.

In that scenario, Matthew and John condensed the account by eliminating the brief stay in Bethsaida.

Conclusion We’ve looked at a variety of approaches to resolving the tension generated by the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45.

In my research on how Plutarch narrates the same story in different ways, there are a few cases in which I am perplexed and have no idea what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the discrepancies.

In fact, the challenge is more difficult than I had anticipated.

Ancient authors had no idea that modern readers would be scrutinizing their texts under a microscope in the same way that we are.

As a result, I’m satisfied to continue living with an unresolved question.

The AYBC,Mark(Joel Marcus), Black’s NTC,Mark(Morna D.

See UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to Getting Started in Translation.

BratcherEugene A.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Meyer); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III(W.

See Mark (John Peter Lang): “The two Bethsaidas idea appears to be completely without foundation.” Mark (Henry Barclay Swete): “There is no direct evidence for the presence of two Bethsaidas on the Lake.” Neither Lang nor Swete provide a solution to the conflict.

Brooks) proposes the two-town idea, but acknowledges that “no solution is attainable on the basis of current information.” NIGTC, Mark (R.

France).

Mark (Ronald J.

Gundry), who believe that the disciples set out towards Bethsaida but were blown off course and ended up in Gennesaret.

Edwards).

WBC,Mark (Robert Guelich); Paul J.

3; Hermeneia,Mark (Adela Yarbro Collins); Mark (R.

See the 48:00 mark for White.

For individuals who do not know Greek, the dative case is frequently equivalent to the English indirect object, whereas the accusative case is frequently equal to the English direct object.

Matthew 21:1 is a mirror passage to Luke 19:28-29.

As a result, the NASB’s translation of Mark 11:1 is incorrect: “As they reached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He dispatched two of His followers.” Several other English versions render the phrase as “to Bethsaida” (ASV, BBE, HCSB, Darby, Douay-Rheims, ERV, ESV, GWN, Magiera NT Peshitta Translation, McDonald Idiomatic Translation, NASB, NET, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, Revised Patriarchal Greek Orthodox NT, RSV, Revised Webster, Webster) and “un See chapter four of my book Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

for more information. See, for example, chapter three of Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

Places of Interest(Please See Maps Above)

(This is more obvious in Greek than in English, but it is still noticeable.) The list extended to almost 50 pages in length.
What Is the Issue?
Yes, it is correct.
In most cases, though, I believe the author had a legitimate purpose for narrating the incident in such a particular way; that is, he employed a literary device that I was not aware of.
Specifically, in this post, I will discuss the one that I consider to be the most difficult to resolve, and for which the employment of a compositional technique is not immediately apparent: The area where the 5,000 people were fed.
If you image the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a vast lake, as a clock, Bethsaida is about 12:30, Capernaum is around 11:00, and Gennesaret is around 10:00.
It is said in Luke 9:10 that the meal took place in or near Bethsaida.

In light of Luke’s allegation that the meal took place in or near Bethsaida, it appears that this is impossible to reconcile.

Solutions that could be considered Scholars have battled with this issue for decades, positing a variety of solutions that have come nothing close to reaching a unanimous decision.

A Bethsaida was located on the northeastern shore of the lake, which we know of.

While the two-town concept is a possibility, it is simply hypothetical and does not have any empirical evidence to support it.

However, this interpretation does not accord with John’s narrative that the disciples arrived in Capernaum, where they had meant to stay (John 6:17, 21).

Because it would have been a “simple trip” from the place of the meal, Matthew and John remove the name of Bethsaida from their accounts.

However, this does not alleviate the tension because it is the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” rather than the phrase “to the other side” that starts the conflict.

They believe this is the case (Mark 8:22-26).

This resulted in the formation of a Markan sandwich.

The majority of experts, however, believe that John was following Mark as his source, which is contrary to the majority of scholars.

Lenski and James White, the Greek pros Bethsaidan in Mark 6:45 should be rendered “toward Bethsaida” rather than “to Bethsaida” in the New International Version.

Although they arrived in the vicinity of Gennesaret, according to Mark, they did not stay there for long.

Furthermore, there are a number of reasons why “toward Bethsaida” may not be the most accurate translation forpros Bethsaidan in this context.

While proscan can indicate “by” or “toward,” if that were the intended meaning in this context, inserting the phrase would be superfluous to include.

Wouldn’t some of you have wanted to say something like, “All right, Lord.

It’s a large body of water.

Consequently, it would be analogous to my telling my wife Debbie, “Please get in the car and go toward/by Buckhead,” as an example.

You’ve provided me with a clear path to follow moving forward.

As an example, if you’re traveling from 1:00-2:00 to 10:00-11:00, the term “toward/by Bethsaida” would be completely superfluous to include if you’re traveling across the lake.

We’re commercial fisherman who rely on this lake for our livelihood.

It nearly always comes in the accusative case throughout the Gospels, with the exception of when it appears as an infinitive (Mark 13:22; Luke 18:1; Matt.

5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12; Mark 13:22).

When pros is associated to nouns that occur in different situations (for example, pros+ genitive; pros+ dative; pros+ accusative), the meaning of pros might become more sophisticated.

There are some exceptions to this rule.

Ten times in the New Testament, seven times in the Gospels, one time in Acts, and twice in Paul’s writings, this grammatical structure is used to express a noun phrase.

In Luke 19:28-29, the Bible says Bethphage and Bethany are two towns on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives that are worth seeing.

Let us consider another illustration.

– Mark 5:19 (NIV) The dwelling of the guy (eis+ accusative) is described further in the pros+ accusative.

– Mark 6:51 (NIV) Thepros+ accusative and theeis+ accusative are both descriptions of the same location, just as they were in the preceding cases.

Alternatively, one may argue that the prepositional phrase “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45 was a scribal error that was later corrected, but which did not appear in the “original” Mark.

Finally, we may speculate that Mark was perplexed.

However, according to Mark, they are planning to cross over to Bethsaida and land on the northwest side of the city.

Matthew may have been aware of this and purposefully removed the phrase “to Bethsaida” (see Matt.

It is probable, however, that some simplification is taking place in the case of Matthew and John.

Considering that Bethsaida is located on the east bank of the Jordan River, it’s plausible that Jesus and his followers had withdrawn to the western bank of the river, which would explain why the feeding had taken place there.

The account was reduced by Matthew and John in this instance, as the brief halt in Bethsaida was omitted.

Conclusion There are a variety of remedies to the tension caused by the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45, which we have discussed.

Some instances in my research on how Plutarch narrates the same tales in various ways have left me perplexed, and I’m not sure what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the variances.

In fact, the challenge is more difficult to solve than I had anticipated.

Ancient authors had no idea that modern readers would be scrutinizing their texts under a microscope in the same way that we do now.

As a result, I am satisfied to continue to live with an unresolved question.

AYBC,Mark(Joel Marcus), Black’s NTC,Mark(Morna D.

See UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide for Translators.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Mark (James A.

Feeding of the 5,000 in the Bible

22nd of August, 2016; updated on 23rd of August, 2016. My next book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017—available December 1, 2016), is planned to be released in December. When it comes to recounting the same tale, the Gospels often differ from one another in their specifics, which led to the completion of this book, which was the result of seven and a half years of study that aimed to get a new understanding of why.

(The changes are more noticeable in Greek than they are in English.) a.

When one considers the Gospels in light of their biographical nature, I’ve come to the conclusion that more than 90 percent of the contradictions between them may be reconciled without resorting to the type of hermeneutical acrobatics that are occasionally employed in harmonization initiatives.

I believe there are no such differences.
Only a handful come to mind right away.
In my book, I provide specific examples of this.
Imagine that the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a vast lake, is a clock and Bethsaida is at 12:30, Capernaum is at 11:00, and Gennesaret is at 10:00.
This event happened in or around Bethsaida, according to Luke 9:10.
But it appears that the gospels of Matthew and John were writing together, as their accounts of the meal indicate that Jesus and his followers crossed Lake Gennesaret shortly thereafter and landed on the northwest shore (Matthew 14:34—Gennesaret; John 6:16-17, 21—Capernaum).
The disciples crossed Lake Tiber soon after Jesus fed the throng at or near Bethsaida (12:30), landing in the neighborhood of Gennesaret/Capernaum, according to the accounts of Luke, Matthew, and John (10-11:00).

In light of Luke’s allegation that the meal took place in or near Bethsaida, this appears to be a tough situation to reconcile with.

Alternate Proposals The issue of tension has long been debated among scholars, who have proposed a variety of remedies without reaching an agreement.

A Bethsaida was located on the northeastern shore of the lake, as we are aware of at this time.

The two-town idea is theoretically feasible; nevertheless, it is totally hypothetical and does not have any empirical evidence to back it up.” Rather than accepting the two-towns scenario, R.

France proposes that Luke is erroneous about the site of the feeding being in or near Bethsaida, and that the disciples were blown off course and ended up at Gennesaret as a result.

A location northwest of the lake and west of Bethsaida, according to James Edward, may have been the site of the feeding event.

Following a separate manuscript tradition, William Lane decides to delete the phrase “to the other side” in Mark 6:45.

Researchers Robert Guelich, Paul Achtemeier, and Adella Yarbro Collins propose that Jesus sent his followers to Bethsaida, where he would promptly heal a blind man following the feeding.

But before the arrival of Mark, a pre-Markan redactor interrupted the original chronological flow and interjected a number of additional events, including the account of Jesus walking on water.

In light of all that follows in chapters 7:1-8:21, this would be a rather uncomfortable action on Mark’s side.

According to R.

Because the town was a suburb of Capernaum, Lenski believes this would be a good fit.

Although Gennesaret and Capernaum may be considered part of the same geographical territory, incorporating Bethsaida would be an overreach.

Here are a few examples: As White argues, the feeding took place on the plains of Bethsaida (between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.), that Jesus told his followers to cross the lake, and that they would travel “by” or “toward” Bethsaida in the course of their journey.

When used in this context, the word proscan signify either “by” or “toward,” therefore inserting the sentence would be redundant.

Was it not possible for some of you to respond, “All right, Lord.

A large lake may be found here.

Consequently, it would be analogous to my telling my wife Debbie, “Please get in the vehicle and drive toward/by Buckhead.” “All OK,” she’d say.

I’m curious though, where would you like me to go?” To this point, one can speculate that Jesus may have instructed them to go toward/by Bethsaida on their way to Gennesaret (literally, to cross over by/toward or past Bethsaida and arrive in Gennesaret), and that Mark deleted the part about Gennesaret from his account.

to 10:00-11:00 p.m., the term “toward/by Bethsaida” would be completely superfluous, as Bethsaida is immediately across the lake from where you’re heading.

Fishing is our livelihood, and we rely on this lake to make it.

Is he under the impression that we were going to go all the way down to 6:00 and then all the way back up?” It’s true that there’s an even greater argument for using “to” rather than the words “towards” or “by.” The word pros appears 65 times in Mark, 42 times in Matthew, 166 times during the book of Luke, and thrice in the book of John, according to the NIV.

5:28, 6:1, 13:30, 23:5, and 26:12) and when it is in the dative form (Matt.

When pros is coupled to nouns that appear in distinct cases (for example, pros+ genitive; pros+ dative; pros+ accusative), the meaning of the word might become more complicated.

One can make an argument for the existence of exceptions.

In addition, when we look at the specific grammatical structure in Mark 6:45, we may narrow our emphasis even further in order to get a more exact meaning: Instantaneously after, he insisted on his disciples getting into the boat and proceeding to the opposite side (eis+ accusative) to Bethsaida (pros+ accusative).

Ten times in the New Testament, seven times in the Gospels, one time in Acts, and twice in Paul’s writings, this grammatical form is used to express the idea of “and” or “and.” Examine a few examples: So, when they got closer to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative), Bethphage and Bethany(eis+ accusative), and the Mount of Olives(pros+ accusative), he dispatched two of his followers to accompany them.

Exactly the same structure exists in the equivalent paragraph in Luke: Then, having spoken all of that, he proceeded on his way up to Jerusalem(eis+ accusative).
In Luke 19:28-29, the Bible states that It is located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, close to Bethphage and Bethany.
Let’s use another example to illustrate this point: Once a demoniac was healed by Jesus, the man was instructed to return home (eis+ accusative) and to his people (pros+ accusative) and tell them about the wonderful things the Lord had done for him and how he had received compassion.
An additional illustration: Furthermore, Jesus approached them (pros+ accusative) and entered the boat (eis+ accusative) after them.
Matt.
The two prepositional phrases offering descriptions of the same location are always followed by a verb of going, which is followed by two accusatives of location (eis+ accusative and pros+ accusative).
In Mark 6:45, Jesus’ followers are reported to have been told to proceed “to Bethsaida,” which is another reason why “to Bethsaida” should be preferred over “toward Bethsaida” in translation.
Three renderpros Bethsaidanas “near Bethsaida” or “toward Bethsaida” of of 28 English translations, making it the only one that is not a homonym (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Common English Bible).
Because there are no manuscripts that remove the sentence, such a change would be wholly ad hoc.

In addition, if Mark had simply stated, “And immediately, he pushed his followers to get into the boat and proceed ahead of him to the other side,” without using the words “to Bethsaida,” the tension would have been eliminated (6:45).
14:22 suggests that Matthew was aware of this and chose to remove the phrase “to Bethsaida” in order to avoid the resulting conflict.
The disciples asked Jesus to send the people away to the surrounding villages and countryside for lodging and food because they were in a desolate place, despite the fact that Luke 9:10 states that Jesus and his disciples went to Bethsaida.
Considering that Bethsaida is located on the east bank of the Jordan River, it’s probable that Jesus and his followers had withdrawn to the western bank of the river, which would have been the location of the feeding.
The account was condensed by Matthew and John in that case, as the brief halt in Bethsaida was skipped through.
Conclusion To resolve the conflict produced by the prepositional word “to Bethsaida” in Mark 6:45, we have considered a variety of alternative possibilities.
Some occasions in my research into how Plutarch narrates the same tales in various ways have left me perplexed, and I’m not sure what Plutarch had in mind that resulted in the variations.

In reality, the problem is more difficult to solve than I had first anticipated.

Ancient authors had no idea that modern readers would be scrutinizing their writings under a microscope in the same way that we are now doing with our own work.

In order to live with an unanswered question, I’ve decided to accept the situation.

Black’s NTC, Mark(Morna D.

Consult UBS’s A Translator’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to the Craft of Translation.

BratcherEugene A.

Brooks); ICC,Mark(Ezra P.

Meyer); The Gospel According to Peter: Mark and III(W.

Robertson Nicoll Peter is a man who loves to read and write.

Brooks), who proposes the two-town idea.

Consider IVP NTC as an alternative.

Kernaghan and Robert H.

Mark, the Pillar (James R.

Mark NICNT, NICNT, NICNT, NICNT (William Lane).

Achtemeier in JBL8.9, no.

3; “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae” by Paul J.

Lenski).

On only 11 occasions (about 3 percent) do we find the word pros in the Gospels that isn’t accompanied by the accusative.

Consult the BDAG and Liddell-Scott Greek lexicons, which are considered the most authoritative Greek lexicons in use today by academics.

As an example of how the terms may be used interchangeably, Matthew substituteseisforpros.

is devoted to this question: See the third chapter of Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? for more information.

Faith Lesson from Feeding the 5,000

1. After being used mightily by God to teach and heal a large number of people, the disciples should have had greater trust. What about the rest of us? Do we have a lack of trust in the face of everything that God has done for us and others? 2. Later, the mob approached Jesus and demanded that He be crowned King. Jesus, on the other hand, reprimanded them because they were only interested in what He could accomplish for them and not in real discipleship. Do we have a tendency to seek solely God’s benefits and not to want to be called to discipleship, sacrifice, suffering, or persecution?

Today, many people come to God for aid and seek to be patched up, just as the throng Jesus fed did back then.
Do we acknowledge Christ as our Lord and Savior, or do we simply want our issues handled so that we may go on living our lives as we please?
God is concerned about our spiritual needs as well, and He compares Himself to spiritual bread.
5.

John 6:35 (NIV): They heard Jesus tell them, “I am the bread of life.” It is my promise that no one who comes to me will ever go hungry, and no one who believes in me will ever be thirsty.” Matthew 4:4 (NIV): Man does not live on bread alone; rather, he lives on every word that comes from the mouth of God, according to the Bible.

Feeding the Five Thousand

1. Having been used mightily by God to teach and heal a large number of people, the disciples should have had more trust. We’ll see how things go. Given all that God has done for us and for others, do we still lack faith? 2. Later on, the throng approached Jesus and demanded that He be crowned King of all the nations. Jesus, on the other hand, reprimanded them because they were just interested in what He could accomplish for them and not in genuine discipleship. Does God’s gifts seem to be all that we desire, with little regard for our willingness to follow him through sacrifice, suffering, and persecution?

Today, many people turn to God for aid and desire to be patched up, just as the throng Jesus fed did in the first century CE.
What do we believe about Christ’s lordship?
4.
What do you spend your time doing?
Do we nourish our souls with God’s Word and the Bread of Life on a regular basis?
The Gospel of John 6:35 says, “I am the bread of life,” Jesus explained to them.

” I promise that everyone who comes to me will never be hungry or thirsty, and anyone who believes in me will never go thirsty.” Jesus says in Matthew 4:4 that Man does not live on bread alone; rather, he lives on every word that comes from the mouth of God, as it is written.

Ancient mosaic found near Sea of Galilee depicts Jesus’ loaves and fishes miracle

1. After being used mightily by God to teach and heal a large number of people, the disciples should have had more confidence. How about the rest of us? Do we have a lack of trust in the face of what God has done for us and others? 2. Later on, the mob approached Jesus and demanded that He be crowned King. Nevertheless, Jesus scolded them because they were just interested in what He could achieve for them and had no desire in becoming real disciples. Do we have a tendency to seek solely God’s benefits and not to want to be called to discipleship, sacrifice, suffering, and persecution?

Today, many people come to God for aid and wish to be patched up, much like the throng Jesus fed.
Do we accept Christ’s reign, or do we simply want our issues handled so that we may go on living our lives as we please?
God is likewise concerned about our spiritual needs, and He likens Himself to spiritual bread in this regard.
5.
John 6:35 (KJV): “I am the bread of life,” Jesus said to them.

Feeding the multitude – Wikipedia

The feeding of the crowd is considered to be two independent miracles of Jesus, both of which are recorded in the Gospels. With the exception of Jesus’ resurrection, the first miracle, known as the “Feeding of the 5,000,” is the only miracle that is reported in all four gospels (Matthew 14 -Matthew 14:13-21;Mark 6 -Mark 6:31-44;Luke 9 -Luke 9:12-17;John 6 -John 6:1-14). Neither Matthew 15(Matthew 15:32-39) nor Mark 8(Mark 8:1-9), nor Luke nor John mention the second miracle, the “Feeding of the 4,000,” which was accomplished with only seven loaves of bread and a few tiny fish.

The feeding of the 5,000 people

Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000 is sometimes referred to as the “miracle of the five loaves and two fish,” since the Gospel of John tells that he relied on five loaves and two fish provided by a kid to feed a large group of people. In Matthew’s narrative, after Jesus learned that John the Baptist had been slain, he fled by boat to a remote location in order to be alone. Luke specifies that the location was in the vicinity of Bethsaida. The people followed Jesus on foot as he made his way through the towns.

As the evening drew near, the disciples approached him and said, “It’s already late in the evening because we’re in a secluded location.
When they told Jesus that they only had five loaves and two fish, he demanded that they be delivered to him right away.
In Mark’s Gospel, the multitudes were divided into groups of 50 and 100 people, while in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus’ instructions were to divide the throng into groups of 50 people, meaning that there were a total of 100 groups.
Then he handed them up to the disciples, who in turn handed them over to the general public.
In addition to women and children, the number of males who ate amounted to around five thousand.

As recorded in John’s Gospel, the multitudes had gathered around Jesus as a result of the healing miracles he has done, and Jesus’ feeding of the crowd is seen as yet further indication that he is the Messiah.

The feeding of the 4,000

When Jesus fed 5,000 people, he performed what is referred to as the “miracle of the five loaves and two fish”; according to the Gospel of John, he utilized five loaves and two fish provided by a child to feed a crowd. When Jesus learned that John the Baptist had been slain, according to Matthew’s narrative, he fled by boat to an isolated location. A area near Bethsaida, according to Luke, was the location of the event. From the towns, the people flocked to Jesus on foot. The moment Jesus touched down and observed a throng of people, he was moved by their plight and cured them.

Dispatch the throngs so that they might travel to the villages and get food for themselves.” In response to Jesus’ statement that they were not need to go, he instructed his followers that they should provide them with food and drink.
In order to sit in groups on the grass, Jesus ordered the crowds.
He took the five loaves and two fish and, lifting his eyes to the heavens, he expressed gratitude and broke the loaves into pieces.
Everybody was satisfied, so the disciples went about collecting twelve baskets full of broken bits that had been left over.
It is recorded in the gospel of John that the multitudes have been drawn to Jesus because he has done miracles of healing.

Analysis

Providing food for a large number of people. Manuscript written in Armenian. The Gospel of Daniel of Uranc was written around 1433. For example, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer points out that there are differences between some of the specifics of the accounts as a way of emphasizing that there were two distinct miracles: for example, the baskets used to collect the food that was left were twelvev (hand baskets) in Mark 6:43but sevenv (large baskets) in Mark 8:8. ‘A large basket,’ according to Cornelius a Lapidestaed, was twice the size of a ‘extra-large basket,’ In order to forestall an attempted assassination of the apostle Paul, the apostle Paul was allowed to escape from a building via a gap in theDamascuscity wall located within one (Acts 9:25).

References

Brown, Raymond E., et al (1997). An overview of the New Testament’s main themes and ideas. Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-24767-2
HarperCollins Bible Commentary (2000)
Kilgallen, John J. Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-24767-2
Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-24767-2
Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-24767-2 (1989). A Concise Commentary on the Gospel According to Mark. Published by Paulist Press (ISBN 0-8091-3059-9)

External links

At Wikimedia Commons, you may find images and videos related toFeeding the multitude.

Bible bombshell: City where Jesus fed crowds with five loaves and two fish found

According to experts, they have discovered the location where the incident described in the Book of John took place, following thirty years of investigation. Archaeologists have now pinpointed the precise location of Bethsaida after three decades of excavations on the site. A team of archaeologists has been excavating at the Et-Tell archaeological site for decades, and they now believe they have sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. Bethsaida was a village in the Galilee area of Israel that was referenced several times in the Gospels of the Bible.

Several miracles are also claimed to have been performed in the region by Jesus himself.
As also, here is the area where the Bible describes how a previously blind man went to the Pharisees who had accused Jesus of being a sinner and said: “I don’t know whether he is a sinner or not, but I do know one thing: I was blind, but now I can see!”.
Bethsaida is not the only ancient site that might be considered for the designation.
MORE INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT: Life after death: A woman who had experienced a near-death experience was “given a life evaluation.” The archaeological site at Et-Tell has been under investigation for 32 years.
Scientists believe the relics date back to the Iron Age and that they belonged to the ancient city of Geshur, which eventually became Bethsaida, according to their findings.
MAKE SURE NOT TO MISS OUT.
What happens to our bodies once we die?

Why NASA’s top scientist is certain that science confirms the existence of an afterlife This is what the archaeologist had to say: “He argues that the city was located in the lower Golan along the estuary of the Jordan River,” implying that this was the same location as the Et-Tell excavation site.

Although the specialist believes that it was closer in antiquity, he believes that geological movements and variations in water levels have produced the gap between the two locations.

He went on to say that his team had unearthed old fishing equipment among the remnants of the village, which they had discovered.

Maria Ortega contributed additional reporting.

Where Did Jesus Feed The 5,000 Map