>because they are like sheep without a shepherd
This is the focus of the point being made, Leonard; it is in Mark, but not
in Matthew or Luke. To consider other passages Matthew and Luke leave out
of their redactions of Mark (or things that Mark has "added" to Matthew,
in Leonard's view) see tables 10-15 on pages 187-190. Any idea why Mark
alone has the Micaiah ben Imlah reference?
>I have no idea what this means.
The common issue between Mark's and John's renderings of the feeding (of
the 5,000) narrative is the connection with the looming Roman presence
(possible perception as a revolt -- companies, I mean "groups," of 50 and
100 being seated; guerrilla season, I mean "springtime;" just the
soldiers, I mean "the men," are counted, etc. -- with the implicit threat
of Roman retaliation in the background) both drawing on OT conquest
motifs. Some of these nuances (for whatever reason) are missing from
Matthew and Luke while more amplified in Mark and John.
I take it to imply Marcan and Johannine proximity to the events themselves
-- and more realistically so, while independent from each other -- which
casts important light on the EGGUS TO PASCHA motif in John. It is present
neither for theological nor for chronological reasons in John, but for
chairological ones, suggesting a more realistic set of interpretations
regarding some of the events narrated than some synoptic presentations.
See also my treatments, if you're interested, Leonard, of John 6:14f. and
Paul N. Anderson
Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
George Fox University
Newberg, OR 97132