No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In their homiletical expositions of the Scriptures, the patristic writers freely employed symbolical methods. Origen, for instance, understood the two miracles with which we are concerned here to signify the giving of the Word of God to the Gentiles; whilst Augustine held that the feeding of the five thousand symbolised that salvation was for the Jews, and that of the four thousand its offering to the Gentiles. Many modern scholars say that Augustine's exegesis would, in this respect, have been Mark's view of these two miracles.
page 77 note 1 Werner, M., Der Einfluss d. paulinischen Theologie im Markusevangelium (1923), pp. 8–28Google Scholar, denied the validity of attributing symbolical meanings to the material of the Second Gospel. But Werner's argument on this question is defective. He paid no attention to the significance of Mark's grouping of the contents of his Gospel, nor to the prevalence of symbolism and allied, hermeneutical devices in the apostolic, Christian Church, in later Christian expositors and in Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism; and whilst one may well hesitate to pursue symbolism and typology in Mark to the extent to which Austin Farrer does (A Study in St. Mark (1951)), it is impossible to assent to C. Montefiore's judgment that Werner had given ‘very hard knocks’ to the symbolism theory (Synoptic Gospils, I, 177). Loisy noticed that an explicit, symbolical allusion appears at Mark 14.8 (L'Évangile selon Marc (1912), p. 40).
page 77 note 2 Volkmar, G., Marcus u. d. Synopse der Evangelien nach dem urkundlichen Text (Zürich, 1876) (Neue mit einem Anhang erweiterte Ausgabe). See especially pp. 327–410.Google Scholar
page 79 note 1 Cf. Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen d. Geshichte Jesu (1919), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar
page 79 note 2 L'Évangile selon Marc (1912), p. 197.
page 79 note 3 Evangile selon Marc (1928), p. 166.
page 82 note 1 Der Rahmen d. Geschkhte Jesu (1919), pp. 172–214.
page 82 note 2 op. cit., Chap. VI.
page 83 note 1 
in 10.45 and 
in 14.24 seem to mean ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of all’.Cf. Jeremias, J., Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (1949), pp. 91 ff, 108 ffGoogle Scholar; ‘Der Gedanke des “Heiligen Restes” im Spätjudentum u. in der Verkündigung Jesu’, ZNW, 42 Band (1949), pp. 184–194Google Scholar. On the theme of the Cross and its relation to the admission of the Gentiles into the Church, see Kiddle, M., ‘The Death of Jesus and the Admission of the Gentiles in St. Mark’, J.T.S., 1934, Vol. xxxv, pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar
page 84 note 1 op. cit., pp. 20 ff.
page 84 note 2 ‘Marcan Usage’, J.T.S., Vol. XXVI, 1924–1925, p. 150.Google Scholar
page 85 note 1 Das Evangelium des Markus (1937), p. 157 f.
page 86 note 1 Cf. Matt. 2; Luke 3.19, 13.31 f, 23.11 f; Acts 4.27, 12; in addition to the Marcan passages and their parallels.
page 87 note 1 It is often supposed that the miracles of the loaves prefigured the Eucharist; and I have discussed this theory in an article entitled ‘The Eucharistic Interpretation of the Miracles of the Loaves in St. Mark's Gospel’ published in the J.T.S. Vol. III, Part 2, Oct. 1952, pp. 161–171.Google Scholar