[1] Gould, E. P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1896), pp. 140–1.Google ScholarWohlenberg, D. G., Das Evangelium des Markus ausgelegt (KNT 2) (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 219–21.Google ScholarLagrange, M.-J., Evangile selon Saint Marc (EtBib) (Paris, 1929 ⁴), p. 204.Google ScholarSchlatter, A., Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas (Schlatters Erläuterungen zum N.T. 2) (Stuttgart, 1961), p. 79.Google ScholarCranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1972 ⁴), p. 205.Google ScholarClavier, H., ‘La multiplication des pains dans le ministère de Jésus’, StudEv 1 (Berlin, 1959), 441–57.Google ScholarKnackstedt, J., ‘Die beiden Brotvermehrungen im Evangelium’, NTS 10 (1964), 309–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[2] Holtzmann, H. J., Die synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig, 1863), p. 85.Google Scholar To support his theory, he gives the names of Schleiermacher, Schulz, Kern, Credner, Hase, De Wette, Neander, Ewald, Hilgenfeld. Weiss, J., Das älteste Evangelium (Göttingen, 1903), pp. 204–26.Google ScholarWellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1903), p. 59.Google Scholar

[3] Wendling, E., Die Entstehung des Markusevangeliums, Philologische Untersuchungen (Tübingen, 1908), p. 68.Google Scholar

[4] Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen, 1926 ²), p. 85.Google ScholarHauck, F., Das Evangelium des Markus (Leipzig, 1931), p. 74.Google ScholarBranscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (MNTC) (New York, 1937), p. 136.Google ScholarLohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus übersetzt und erklärt (Meyer 1, 2) (Göttingen, 1954 ¹³), p. 153.Google ScholarSchmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT 2) (Ratisbonne, 1958 ⁴), pp. 146–8.Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (THNT 2) (Berlin, 1959 ²), p. 138.Google ScholarNineham, D. E., The Gospel of Saint Mark (PGC) (London, 1963), p. 206.Google ScholarHaenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin, 1968), p. 279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarTaylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1966 ²), p. 630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHeising, A., Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 15) (Stuttgart, 1967 ²), p. 63.Google ScholarSchweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1) (Göttingen, 1968), p. 77.Google ScholarKertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium (München, 1970), pp. 128, 139–41.Google ScholarSchenke, L., Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums (Stuttgart, 1974), p. 226.Google Scholarvan Cangh, J. -M., La multiplication des pains et l'eucharistie (Paris 1975), p. 101.Google ScholarPesch, R., Das Markusevangelium 1 (Freiburg, 1977 ²), p. 402.Google ScholarZiener, G., ‘Die Brotwunder im Markusevangelium’, BZ 4 (1960) 284–5.Google ScholarMontefiore, H. W., ‘Revolt in the Desert? (Mark VI, 30 ff.)’, NTS 8 (1961–1962), 140.Google Scholarvan Iersel, B., ‘Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition (Mk. vi 35–44 par., viii 1–20 par.)’, NovT 7 (1964), 179.Google ScholarAchtemeier, P. J., ‘Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae’, JBL 89 (1970), 290–1.Google Scholar

[5] The validity and the complementary nature of these questions in ascertaining Markan redaction are discussed by Stein, R. H., ‘The “Redaktionsgeschichtlich” Investigation of a Markan Seam (Mc 121f.)’, ZNW 61 (1970), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[6] Pryke, E. J., Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978), p. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[7] Van, Cangh, p. 10.Google Scholar

[8] 1. 21–22, 2. 13, 4. 1–2, 6. 6, 8. 31, 9. 31, 10. 1, 11. 17, 12. 35.

[9] Dormeyer, D., Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell (Münster, 1974), pp. 273–5.Google Scholarde la Potterie, I., ‘Le sense primitif de la multiplication des pains’, Jèsus aux origines de la christologie (BETL 40), ed. Dupont, J. (Gembloux, 1975), p. 311.Google Scholar

[10] Van, Cangh, p. 11.Google Scholar

[11] Mauser, U., Christ in the Wilderness. The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (SBT) (London, 1963), pp. 103–8.Google ScholarDe, la Potterie, p. 310, n. 26.Google Scholar

[12] Van Cangh thinks the same, but since the expression ͊ρημος τόφος is Markan, originally it must have been ρημος or έρημία (‘Les sources de l'Evangile: les collections pré-marciennes de miracles’, ETL 44 (1972), 82–3). Pryke regards ρημος as Markan vocabulary (p. 136).Google Scholar

[13] Van Cangh considers as Markan the theme found in vv. 30–3 3 - the Messianic secret which leaks out in spite of Jesus' desire and attracts the crowd - (La multiplication, pp. 12, 133–4Google Scholar). Achtemeier, referring to B. Weiss, Holtzmann, Larfeld, Sundwall, sees Markan themes in the crowd surrounding Jesus, and the sea and the boat (p. 271). Snoy finds as Markan the theme of the crowd surrounding Jesus in vv. 31–33 (Snoy, Th., ‘La rédaction marcienne de la marche sur les eaux (mc., VI, 45–52)’, ETL 44 (1968), 238–40).Google Scholar

[14] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 134–5.Google Scholar

[15] Van, Iersel, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

[16] In his study of Mk. 14. 1–42, Schenke considers that in 13. 11, 32, 14. 35,41 ρα is a redactional element used with a theological implication (Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus: Tradition und Redaktion in Markus 14: 1–42, Forschung zur Bibel 4 (Würzburg, 1971), pp. 504–6).Google Scholar

[17] Delling, G., ‘ρα’, TDNT 9, 677–81.Google Scholar

[18] Heising, , p. 64.Google Scholar

[19] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 172.Google Scholar

[20] Pryke, , p. 16.Google Scholar

[21] Ibid., p. 136.

[22] Ibid., p. 137; cf. Van Cangh, La multiplication, p. 134, n. 2.

[23] Lagrange, , Cf. pryke, pp. 73–8.Google Scholar

[24] Lagrange lists this as an example of pleonasm in a broad sense (LXXXII). Neirynck, F., ‘Duality in Mark’, ETL 47 (1971), 436.Google Scholar‘Duplicate Expressions in the Gospel of Mark’, ETL 48 (1972), 173.Google Scholar

[25] Pryke, , p. 136.Google Scholar

[26] Taylor, , p. 44.Google Scholar L. Cerfaux considers τούς κύκλωῂ άγρούς και κώμας a Markan expression (‘Lasection des pains’, Synoptische Studien, ed. Wikenhauser, F. A. (München, 1954), p. 72).Google Scholar

[27] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[28] Taylor, , p. 322.Google Scholar

[29] Lagrange, , LXIX-LXX.Google ScholarTaylor, , p. 46. Both quote the statistics from Hawkins.Google ScholarStein, , p. 75.Google Scholar

[30] 3. 33; 6. 37; 7. 28; 8. 29; 9. 5, 19; 10.3, 24, 51; 11. 14, 22, 33; 12. 35; 14. 48; 15.2, 12.

[31] Taylor, , p. 63.Google Scholar

[32] Gould, , p. 26.Google ScholarHaenchen, , p. 90, n. 1.Google ScholarCranfield, , p. 87.Google ScholarTaylor, , p. 180.Google ScholarGrundmann, , p. 47.Google ScholarNineham, , p. 82.Google ScholarNeirynck, , ‘Duplicate Expressions’, pp. 183–4.Google Scholar

[33] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 447, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google Scholar

[34] Held, H. G., ‘Matthew's Interpretation of the Miracle Stories’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. Bornkamm, G. et al., Eng. tr. (London, 1963), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar

[35] Kertelge, , p. 131.Google Scholar

[36] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 447, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google Scholar

[37] This is well demonstrated by Schenke who gives 13. 1–5 and 14. 12–16 as other examples (Studien, , pp. 169–80Google Scholar). However, Dormeyer considers the Passion Narrative, including Mk. 14. 12–16, was given dialogue form in the pre-Markan redactional stage (p. 258).

[38] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

[39] Schenke, , Die Wundererzählungen, pp. 222–5.Google Scholar

[40] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[41] Ibid., p. 136.

[42] Blass, F.–Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen, 1965 ¹²), § 461.Google ScholarBlack, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1954 ²), p. 46, n. 2.Google ScholarTaylor, , pp. 57–8.Google ScholarNeirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 404, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 171.Google ScholarDormeyer, , p. 102.Google Scholar

[43] Although Taylor knows that the present verse is not included in the lists of asyndeta by Black and Lagrange to which he referred (pp. 49–50), he regards this as such (p. 323).

[44] De la, Potterie, p. 311.Google Scholar

[45] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[46] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 430.Google Scholar

[47] Herbert, A. G., ‘History in the Feeding of the Five Thousand’, StudEv 2 (Berlin, 1964), 69–70.Google ScholarHeising, , ‘Exegese und Theologie der alt- und neutestamentlichen Speisewunder’, ZKT 86 (1964), 91.Google ScholarVan, lersel, p. 188.Google ScholarKertelge, , p. 134.Google Scholar

[48] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 136.Google ScholarDe, Ia Potterie, pp. 315–16.Google Scholar

[49] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[50] Thiering, B. E., ‘“Breaking of Bread” and “Harvest” in Mark's Gospel’, NovT XII (1970), 3.Google Scholar

[51] IQS 2. 21–2, I QSa 1. 14, 1. 27–2.1, Damascus 13.1.

[52] Stauffer, E., ‘Zum apokalyptischen Festmahl in Mc 6:34 ff’, ZNW 48 (1955), 264–6.Google ScholarFriedrich, G., ‘Die beiden Erzählungen von der Speisung in Mark vi 31–44, viii 1–9’, ThZ 20 (1964), 17.Google ScholarHeising, , Die Botschaft, pp. 47–8.Google ScholarDe hi, Potterie, p. 314.Google Scholar However, Q. Quesnell rejects this theory and finds no relation with the OT or Qumran writings, since Mark uses only ‘hundred’ and ‘fifty’, but not ‘thousand’ and ‘ten’ which are found in OT and Qumran writings (The Mind of Mark (Rome, 1969), p. 21, n. 92Google Scholar). His opinion seems to be too rigid, denying the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world, especially in Jewish thinking. On the other hand, van Cangh claims that though Qumran writings show that Ex. 18. 21, 25 were well known in NT times, it cannot be proved that Mark is using these (La multiplication, p. 118Google Scholar). He considers that the typology of Moses belongs to the pre-Markan community and Mark himself avoids it (ibid., p. 119).

[53] Pryke, , pp. 15, 124–5.Google Scholar

[54] Schenke, , Die Wundererzahlungen, p. 231.Google Scholar

[55] Taylor, , p. 325.Google Scholar

[56] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 423, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, pp. 172, 183.Google Scholar

[57] Neirynek, , ‘Duality’, p. 398, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 170.Google Scholar

[58] Taylor, , pp. 325–6.Google Scholar

[59] Neirynck, , ‘DuplicateExpressions’, p. 172.Google Scholar

[60] Van, lersel, p. 174.Google Scholar Van Cangh regards this as an insertion either by Mark himself (‘Le thème des poissons dans les recits èvangeliques de hi multiplication des pains’, RB 78 (1971), 72Google Scholar), or by an editor before him (ibid., and La multiplication, pp. 105–6).Google Scholar

[61] It is a well known fact that there tend to be more redactional elements in the introduction and the summary of pericopae in Mark, and vv. 42–44 is not a description of an event but a reflection on it (Kertelge, , p. 131).Google Scholar

[62] Taylor, , p. 326.Google Scholar

[63] For the same reason which B. M. Metzger gives, the author considers the text with Τούς άρτους as original: ‘External evidence is evenly divided between the witnesses that include the words Τούς άρτους and those that omit them⃜ From the point of view of transcriptional probabilities, it is more likely that copyists were tempted to delete than to add Τούς άρτους, for the presence of these words raises awkward questions why ‘loaves’ should be singled out with no mention of the fish⃜’ (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London, 1971), p.92Google Scholar).

[64] Pryke, , p. 16.Google Scholar

[65] Ibid., p. 137.

[66] Ibid., p. 136.

[67] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 12.Google Scholar

[68] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 437, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 15.Google Scholar

[69] Pryke, , p. 137. Stein regards εις οικον as redactional (p. 78, n. 29).Google Scholar

[70] Lagrange, , 73.Google ScholarNeirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 395, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 170.Google Scholar

[71] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 437, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google Scholar

[72] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[73] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 415, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 172.Google Scholar

[74] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 437, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google Scholar

[75] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 15, 128.Google ScholarPesch, , p. 400.Google Scholar

[76] Danker, F. W., ‘Mark viii 3’, JBL 82 (1963), 215–16.Google Scholar

[77] Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh, 1965), p. 133.Google Scholar

[78] Lagrange, , 70.Google Scholar

[79] Pryke, , p. 137.Google Scholar

[80] Participle: Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, pp. 402–4, Asyndetic construction: Lagrange, 70–71;Google ScholarTaylor, , pp. 49–50, 58Google Scholar; Stein, , p. 75.Google Scholar

[81] Neirynck, ‘Duality’, p.441, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google Scholar

[82] Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, p. 399, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 170.Google Scholar

[83] Klostermann, , p. 85.Google ScholarTaylor, , pp. 44–5Google Scholar; Van, Cangh, ‘Le thème des poissonso’, p. 73.Google Scholar Cf. Pesch, , p. 400.Google Scholar

[84] Taylor, , p. 62.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 106.Google Scholar

[85] Stein, , pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

[86] Van, Cangh considers it as Markan style in ‘Le thème des poissons’, p. 73.Google Scholar

[87] Van, lersel, p. 182.Google Scholar

[88] Stein, , p. 75.Google Scholar

[89] Neirynck, , ‘Duality‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 170.Google Scholar

[90] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 128.Google ScholarPesch, , p. 400.Google Scholar

[91] Pryke, , p. 16.Google Scholar

[92] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 124.Google Scholar

[93] Kertelge, , p. 44.Google Scholar

[94] De la, Potterie, p. 306.Google ScholarPesch, , p. 400.Google Scholar

[95] Kertelge, , p. 140.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 128.Google ScholarPesch, , p. 400.Google Scholar

[96] Bultmann, , p. 217.Google Scholar

[97] Schenke, , Studien, pp. 171–9.Google Scholar

[98] Schenke, , pp. 178–9.Google Scholar

[99] Ibid., p. 178, n. 2.

[100] Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Eng. Tr. (1966), p. 175.Google Scholar

[101] Also Dormeyer, , p. 103.Google Scholar As to Markan synonymous and redundant expressions, cf. Stein, , p. 77Google Scholar; Neirynck, , ‘Duality’, pp. 421–6, ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 172.Google Scholar

[102] Turner, N., ‘The Style of St. Mark's Eucharistic Words’, JTS 8 (1957), 108–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[103] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 78.Google Scholar

[104] Schenke, , Studien, pp. 311–13, especially p. 312, n. 5.Google ScholarMerklein, H., ‘Erwägungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der neutestamentlichen Abendmahlstraditionen’, BZ 21 (1977), p. 98.Google Scholar

[105] Schenke concludes thus following Marxsen, Kümmel, , Bornkamm, , Schweizer, , Schürmann, , Betz, , Turner, , Neuenzeit, (Studien, pp. 310–12).Google Scholar

[106] Schenke, , Studien, pp. 337–8Google Scholar; cf. Klostermann, , pp. 163–5.Google Scholar Dormeyer considers Mk. 14. 22, 24 similar to 1 Cot. 11. 23–25 were inserted (p. 110).

[107] Schenke, , Studien, pp. 319–24.Google Scholar

[108] Van, lersel, p. 176.Google Scholar

[109] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 105–9.Google Scholar

[110] Bultmann, , p. 61.Google Scholar

[111] Ibid., p. 333.

[112] Stein, , ‘The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History’, NovT 13 (1971), 193, gives the following examples: 3. 22–30 into 3. 19b–21 and 31–35; 5. 25–34 into 5. 21–24 and 35–43; 6. 14–29 into 6. 6b–13 and 30 f.; 11. 15–19 into 11. 12–14 and 20–25; 14. 3–9 into 14. 1–2 and 1–11.Google Scholar

[113] Kertelge, , p. 136.Google Scholar

[114] De, la Potterie, p. 319, n. 54.Google Scholar

[115] Lagrange, , 76–77.Google Scholar

[116] Taylor, , p. 53.Google Scholar

[117] 2. 3,5. 13,6. 37,40 but Lk. 9. 14, 8. 14, 9. 2 but Lk. 9. 28, 14. 5, 30, 68, 72, 15. 25.

[118] Lagrange, , 75, p. 171.Google Scholar

[119] A. Fairer's understanding of the numerical construction of the gospel of Mark in St. Matthew and St. Mark (Westminster, 1954Google Scholar), has received much criticism as having little proof. Van, lersel, p. 177, n. 1.Google ScholarQuesnell, , p. 14.Google ScholarThiering, , p. 3, n. 2.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 129, n. 46.Google Scholar

[120] Van, lersel, pp. 181, 185–6.Google Scholar

[121] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 128.Google Scholar

[122] Van, lersel, p. 177, n. 1.Google Scholar

[123] Friedrich, , p. 21.Google Scholar

[124] Thiering, , pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

[125] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 129.Google Scholar

[126] Thiering, , quoting Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says there is no difference between κόϕωος and σπυρις (p. 3, n. 2), though there is no specific reference to their size in the lexicon. Friedrich differs from Thiering (p. 21).Google Scholar

[127] Stein, , ‘A Markan Seam’ pp. 71–2. Kertelge considers 6. 42–44 are reflections on an event, and could not be understood as facts including numbers (p. 131). The question why they took empty baskets to the desert is a question on a historical fact beyond the limitation of this article, but the supposition that people without food must have been without baskets suggests that the reference to the number of baskets is more than a simple record of a fact, but a reflection on an event.Google Scholar

[128] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p.55, n. 68.Google Scholar

[129] Thiering, , p. 3.Google Scholar

[130] Quesnell, , p. 273.Google Scholar

[131] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 54.Google Scholar

[132] Friedrich, , p.21.Google Scholar

[133] ibid.

[134] Van, lersel, pp. 185–6.Google ScholarThiering, , p. 4.Google Scholar But Lampe, C. W. H. considers that Luke obtained the number from Mk. 8. 8 (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, ed., Black, M. (London, 1962), p. 894).Google Scholar

[135] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 54. Thiering considers it symboLizes Jews in the Diaspora (p. 4).Google Scholar

[136] Farrer, , St. Matthew and St. Mark.Google Scholar

[137] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

[138] Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1964 ²), p. 356.Google Scholar

[139] The person of Moses and the episode of the manna occupy a central place in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic Judaism in general. Heising, , p. 46.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 119, 50–3.Google ScholarDe la, Potterie, pp. 325–6.Google Scholar

[140] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 38.Google Scholar

[141] Heising, , ‘Das Kerygma der wunderbaren Fischvermehrung (mk 6:34–44 parr)’, Bibel und Leben 10 (1969), 53–7.Google Scholar

[142] Because of the contradiction in local reference in v. 45 and v. 53, Snoy considers that the tradition of the miracle of the bread originally ended with v. 53, vv. 45–52 being inserted in between (pp. 205–41). Its purpose, he thinks, is to set the miracle, which originally took place on the east coast, on the west coast of the sea of Galilee. However, he agrees that vv. 54–56 are redactional summary (p. 235), and his theory that v. 53, the last verse of the tradition, is cut off from the main body and is made an introduction of the redactional summary is not convincing enough. Is it not rather that v. 53 sets Galilee for the summary of healing miracles of Jesus, and vv. 54–56, the redactional summary, set the place of controversy against the Pharisees? Concerning the theories for and against this, cf. the same article, p. 235, n. 129.

[143] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 50.Google Scholar

[144] Ibid., p. 55.

[145] Kertelge admits the image of the new Moses or the eschatological prophet, but rejects the possibility of the implication of manna (pp. 133–4).

[146] Clavier, , p. 451.Google ScholarHeising, , Die Botschaft, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

[147] According to some, such construction based on 2 K. was done in the pre-Markan stage; Clavier, , p. 451Google Scholar, Taylor, , p. 321Google Scholar, van, lersel, p. 182.Google Scholar

[148] Sanh 47a (Strack, H. L.–Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash. Bd. 4/2 (München, 1928), p. 751).Google Scholar

[149] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 32.Google Scholar

[150] Schmid, , p. 122.Google ScholarKlostermann, , p. 67.Google Scholar

[151] Van, lersel, p. 188.Google ScholarVan, Cangh, La multiplication, pp. 134–6.Google ScholarDe, la Potterie, pp. 315–16.Google Scholar

[152] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 136.Google Scholar

[153] Heising, , Die Botschaft, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

[154] Van, Cangh, La multiplication, p. 136.Google Scholar

[155] Heising, , Die Botschaft, p. 43.Google Scholar

[156] Friedrich, , p. 20.Google Scholar However, van lersel criticizes him as carelessly leaping from the theme of the shepherd to the typology of Moses (p. 188). Van Cangh recognizes the possibility of such interpretation as Friedrich's, but considers that the typology of Moses is not Mark's (La multiplication, p. 136).Google Scholar

[157] Van, Cangh, ‘Le thème des poissons’, p. 81.Google Scholar

[158] Schümann, H., Der Abendmahlsbericht Lukas 22, 7–38 (Die Botschaft Gottes, 2, 1), p. 27.Google Scholar

[159] Heising considers that tradition-historically it cannot be concluded which of the above two theological interpretations pre-existed (Die Botschaft, p. 55Google Scholar). Van Cangh considers that the Primitive Church united the two currents which were independent in Judaism. In his article in 1971, he says it is either Mark or a pre-Markan redactor who used Greek that joined the theme of the prophet like Moses and that of the eschatological banquet with the Messiah (‘Le theme des poissons’, pp. 81–3Google Scholar). However, in his book in 1975, he says that since Mark shows interest only in the bread in 6. 38, 44, 8. 14–21, the reference to fish which has the theme of Moses in 6. 41c, 43, 8. 7 is due to pre-Markan tradition, and based on this, he concludes that it is not Mark but the Jewish community in the Diaspora which united the themes of Moses and Messiah (La multiplication, pp. 108–9Google Scholar). Nevertheless, if our assumption that 6. 41–44, 8. 7 are also Markan redaction is correct, the stage in the tradition history which van Cangh assumes could not have existed.

[160] Dormeyer, , p. 101.Google Scholar

[161] Denis, A.-M., ‘La section des pains selon s. Marc (6, 30–8, 26), une théologie de l'Eucharistie’, StudEv (Berlin, 1968), 178.Google Scholar

[162] Danker, , p. 216.Google Scholar

[163] Klostermann, , pp. 84–5.Google ScholarSchmid, , pp. 147–8.Google ScholarTaylor, , pp. 628–30.Google ScholarKertelege, , p. 128.Google Scholar

[164] Achtemeier, , ‘Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Catenae’. Kuhn, H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen, 1971).Google Scholar

[165] Kuhn, , pp. 191–210.Google Scholar

[166] Van, Caugh, ‘Les sources’, pp. 76–85.Google Scholar

[167] Stein, , ‘The Proper Methodology’, p. 193.Google ScholarNeirynck, , ‘Duplicate Expressions’, p. 173.Google ScholarDe la, Potterie, p. 310.Google Scholar

[168] Pryke, , pp. 14, 17.Google Scholar

[169] Schmid, , p. 122.Google Scholar

[170] Klostermann, , p. 67.Google Scholar

[171] Ibid. Schmid, , p. 122.Google Scholar

[172] Klostermann, , p. 91.Google Scholar

[173] If such framework is Markan, the question concerning the typology of Moses left from the preceding sectiond becomes of itself resolved. ‘By hundreds and by fifties’ in 6. 40 is most probably Markan, connected with the same them. The fish element in 6. 41, 43, 8. 7 need not necessarily be pre-Markan tradition because of their link with the same theme of Moses.