MIRACULOUS FEEDINGS, THE EUCHARIST, AND EPIPHANIES

I would like to highlight here an observation that Edmund Leach made in an essay in Alter and Kermode's The Literary Guide to the Bible. He describes seven places in the gospels in which Jesus performs a miraculous feeding involving bread and fish. “Each of these seven feedings is linked with an epiphany in which Jesus reveals himself as a supernatural being.” In addition, he states that “these stories...have always been seen as providing a model for the Eucharist. They reflect the fact that in early Christianity the Eucharist food consisted of bread and fish rather than bread and wine.” Here are those seven occurrences, the number seven perhaps indicating a form of completeness or perfection, although Leach does not specifically point out that possibility: Matthew 14:15-21; 15:32-38; Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-9; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:8-13; and John 21:9-13.

Now I am probably more prone than most readers of the Bible to look for hidden literary phenomena in Scripture, but in this case I really wonder if Leach has actually discovered any pervasive pattern at all. For one thing, he has prejudiced the reader highly in his favor by implying that these represent seven different miraculous feedings. But if you compare his examples with one another you can readily see that Mark's account in 6:30-44 concerning the feeding of the 5,000 is closely followed in Matthew 14:15-21, Luke 9:12-17 and John 6:8-13 with all of them describing but one event. Thus, we are now down to only four different miraculous feedings, not seven. And if we further consider that the feeding of the 4,000 in Matthew 15:32-38 is simply a retelling of Mark 8:1-9, that leaves us with only three such occasions, hardly enough times to establish any sort of consistent trend.

In addition, note that in John 21 Jesus already has fish grilling on the fire even before the apostles have hauled in their miraculous catch. So although one can certainly say that a fish meal was associated with the miracle, it is not made crystal clear in the text that whether any of the fish they ate actually came from the catch.

Leach's next point is that each of the seven events is associated with an epiphany. So the next thing to do is look at the parallel passages pointed out above and see if again we have a mere duplication of the same events or whether some of the parallels follow the feedings with a different epiphany. And as Leach stated, all the Gospel writers agree that following each of the four accounts of the feeding of the 5,000, the same epiphany occurs – Jesus' walking on the Sea of Galilee.

The next pair of miraculous feedings is recorded in Mark and Matthew only. Leach says that the associated epiphany in each case consists of the Transfiguration. But it is really stretching a point to say that the two events are “linked.” The reason I say this is that between the two events in Matthew's account we have a number of intervening happenings such as a visit to Magadan where the Pharisees and Sadducees tempt Jesus, the disciples crossing the lake and forgetting to bring any bread, Peter making the Great Confession in Caesarea Philippi, and Peter being later rebuked by Jesus, who then teaches the apostles regarding his Second Coming. Turning to Mark's account of the miraculous feeding, we see not only the above intervening events, but also a healing of a blind man before we at last come to the epiphany of the Transfiguration.

That only leaves the feeding, which may or not be considered as miraculous, which closes John's Gospel. In this case, it is associated with the resurrected Jesus' appearance to the apostles, which can certainly be considered as an epiphany.

In conclusion, regarding Leach's contention that there are seven separate miraculous feeding--epiphany associations in the Gospels, we are only left with one definite and one possible occasion on which this happened.

But Leach makes an even bolder statement next: “Because of the very explicit elaboration in John 6:26-58, these stories, along with the more intimate miraculous feeding of the disciples in John 21:9-13, have always been seen as providing a model for the Eucharist. They reflect the fact than in early Christianity the Eucharist food consisted of bread and fish rather than bread and wine.”

There are several problems with Leach's argument here:

In the first place, the “explicit elaboration” in John 6 does not once mention fish, but it does certainly allude to wine in the emphasis on Christ's blood.

Secondly, John is not elaborating on “these stories,” but only a single one.

Thirdly, the only real historical evidence we have of fish in association with the Eucharist in the early church comes from one catacomb fresco dating to about AD 100 which pictures a group of men at a table on which are placed a jug of wine, many loaves of bread, and two fish. Even early church documents such as Didache fail to mention the presence of fish at a communion service.

And Sandra Silver says regarding the early fresco that “it is moot whether they ate the fish with the sacrament or included the fish as symbol of the totality of the bread and wine, Christ’s Body, Ichthus. Perhaps the fish depicted on communion tables in the catacombs has a meaning yet to be comprehended by modern Christians.”

Next, Leach completely ignores the very passage in the Gospels describing the actual institution of the Lord's Supper the night before he was betrayed. Since almost every scholar agrees, this was a Passover observance or something closely akin to one, at that meal the only possible protein present was lamb, certainly not fish. Paul confirms that fact in his discussion in I Corinthians 11 in which there is no mention of fish, only bread and wine. Only the most skeptical critic would claim that all of the Gospel accounts and Paul's letter post-date the AD 100 fresco.

In conclusion, it is best to be skeptical of writings by those such as Leach who preface their remarks by admitting that they are anthropologists who owe their general biblical approach to the structuralist methodology of Levi-Strauss applied only to “the oral mythology of preliterate peoples,” as well as stating that he lacks “most of the qualifications of an ordinary biblical scholar.” And in the name of fairness, I would say that the same caution should be applied to any comments by a similarly untrained person such as myself.