AFTER feeding 5,000, Jesus is forced to flee, which takes us into the story of Jesus calming the sea and walking on the water. Note that there are two distinct parts of the story. The first, calming the storm, is another of the very limited number of pericopes that are found in all four gospels. This immediately imparts a certain amount of weight to the narrative, that all four evangelists considered it necessary to include it. The second part, Jesus walking on the water, is only in three; when this happens, it is almost always that the pericope is in the Synoptics and not in John. In this instance, however, it appears in John but not in Luke. Finally, in Mark and Matthew, the two events are told as separate from the other, occurring at different places in the narrative. Here, in John, the two actions are part of the same continuous story.
Why did Luke leave out Walking on Water? This omission is actually redactionally consistent with the way Luke handles stories in Mark and Matthew. In cases where Matthew provides an abridged version of Mark, like the Geresene Demoniac, Luke will restore the text of Mark, providing an account that is longer and more detailed than Matthew, if not perhaps quite as long or detailed. In those instances where both Mark and Matthew provide full accounts, such as the Prophet Without Honour pericope, Luke will provide an abridged version. So it is here; Luke abridged the stories by leaving out the second, while John’s abridgement combined them into a shortened narrative that leaves out the lack of faith of the disciples.
Since some form of the narrative is part of all four gospels, the implication is that the Feeding of 5,000, the Cleansing of the Temple, and Calming the Sea was something that evangelists believed had to be included. It was too popular, or too well known, to omit. The audience expected it. Or, to modify this a bit, it was something that the evangelists felt to be critical to the overall narrative, the lesson, the message that they wanted to impart. It was a necessary piece of the explanation of who Jesus was and why he was so special and worthy of veneration. This certainly explains why the stories of mighty works* appear in all the gospels, even if the catalogue of these works varies from evangelist to evangelist. And certainly, walking on water is a prodigious accomplishment, as is feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, and such deeds were to be seen as indications of Jesus status as the Logos. Interesting to note, though, is that John does not describe the second of these actions as a “sign”. I would suggest the reason he did not was because it was not performed in front of a live audience as was the Feeding. Despite that, I would suspect that John intended his audience to understand Calming the Sea and Walking on the Water as signs; the term was used twice in Verses 1-14, so the implication seems clear.
*FKA “miracles”
Text
15 Ἰησοῦς οὖν γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἁρπάζειν αὐτὸν ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα ἀνεχώρησεν πάλιν εἰς τὸ ὄρος αὐτὸς μόνος.
16 Ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν,
17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
18 ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο.
Jesus thus knowing that they wished to come and carry him off so that they made him king, he departed again he to the mountain alone. (16) As it became evening his disciples descended down to the sea, (17) and embarking the boat they crossed (to the other shore of) the sea to Caphernaum. And it had become dark and Jesus had not yet come to them, (18) and the sea rose (in waves) with a great wind blowing.
For once, the crowd pursuing him is not interested in carrying Jesus off to destruction. This time, they want to make him king because of the great sign he has performed. This is, I believe, one of the few times where the crowd is emphatically and openly behind him, which marks a volte-face since the episode at the Sheep’s Pool back in the previous chapter. Not being familiar with the topography, it’s hard to explain why the crowd could not, or did not, follow him up the mountain; presumably, the path was too narrow and/or steep? But here is where we come up against the other gospels as far as spatial location. In Matthew’s description of the events leading up to Jesus calming the sea, following the Sermon on the Mount Jesus healed a leper, then proceeded to Caphernaum, where Jesus healed the Centurion’s slave, then went to Peter’s house to heal the latter’s mother-in-law so she could make them dinner. And after that, the crowd brought many to be healed in the evening. Presumably they spent the night in Caphernaum, whether at Peter’s house or at Jesus’ own house is not mentioned. As a reminder, Matthew specifically stated that Jesus came and dwelt in Caphernaum (Mt 4:13) and Mark (2:1) says that Jesus had a house there. Getting back to Matthew’s narrative, the next day, the group proceeded along the Sea and Jesus healed all who were brought to him before embarking on the boat Jesus had requested be ready to cross the lake (Mt 8:18). So the crossing started in Caphernaum according to the clues provided in the text. Sticking with Matthew, he sites the episode of Jesus walking on water immediately after the Feeding of 5,000. This latter occurred in a “remote place” (Mt 14:13, REB) where he had traveled to by boat.
In this description, Matthew follows Mark in two important ways. First, the Calming of the Sea is the first of the two events reported; second, this occurs directly after the Feeding of 5,000. Of course we see here that John did the same. Luke, however, situated his version in an entirely different location, for reasons that are no doubt redactionally consistent with his other decisions not to follow Matthew’s arrangement; or, does that only become necessary when Luke chooses not to follow Matthew’s arrangement of Q material? Or does it matter? And if so, why? My apologies, but the insistence that Luke’s reasoning has to be 100% consistent when he deviates from Matthew’s placement of Q material is a tad…artificial. What happens in situations like this when Luke deviates from Mark? Doesn’t that indicate that Luke may have had his reasons for placing things where he did that were based on other criteria than where Matthew put something?
In any case, John follows the relative temporal placement of the Calming of the Sea by having it occur directly after the Feeding of 5,000. But he really does not situate the location of the feeding very clearly. In fact, John’s geography is muddled. In Chapter 5, recall, Jesus was in Jerusalem. At the beginning of this chapter, John said that Jesus crossed to the other side of the lake, to the side the city of Tiberias was located. Here is the problem: Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Caphernaum are all on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. It was not at all necessary to cross the lake to get from Tiberias to Caphernaum. It is quite possible that the trip between the two could be made more quickly traveling by boat than walking; in fact, it’s highly likely that the trip by boat was quicker. So what we’ve got here is John using his source(s) without understanding the source(s) or the basic geography of Galilee. The plain meaning of the Greek word <<πέραν>> is “to cross” or “across”, as in being on opposite shores. It would imply crossing from the east shore to the west, making a transit of the middle of the lake/sea. The shoreline between Tiberias and Caphernaum is concave, so there is a sense of crossing what could be considered open water. But, that stretches the meaning. So yes, based on this alone, one can fairly well conclude without too much danger of being gainsaid that John is dependent on the Synoptics. For the life of me, I don’t understand why these sorts of points are almost never raised in discussions of dependence. Like how Luke is redactionally very consistent when treating a pericope found in both Mark and Matthew.
15 Iesus ergo, cum cognovisset quia venturi essent, ut raperent eum et facerent eum regem, secessit iterum in montem ipse solus.
16 Ut autem sero factum est, descenderunt discipuli eius ad mare
17 et, cum ascendissent navem, veniebant trans mare in Capharnaum. Et tenebrae iam factae erant, et nondum venerat ad eos Iesus.
18 Mare autem, vento magno flante, exsurgebat.
19 ἐληλακότες οὖν ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.
20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.
21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον.
22 Τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον:
23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου.
So having rowed* 25 or 30 stadia**, they beheld Jesus walking about on the water, and coming near to the boat, and they feared. (20) And he said to them, “It is I. Do not fear.” (21) So he having come, they lifted him into the boat and immediately the boat (was) upon the land to which it had departed (where it was heading). (22) On the morrow the crowd which was standing across the sea saw that another boat was not there, and that Jesus had not gone with his disciples to the other boat but his disciples had departed; (23) but another boat came from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread having been blessed by the lord.
We took care of the vocabulary items in the footnotes below, so that’s out of the way. There are two remarkable aspects in this passage. The first is confirmation of teleportation. Jesus got in the boat and immediately it teleported to its destination. In church, one never hears the story of either Feeding from John; it’s always Matthew or Mark. As a result, odd little details like this go unnoticed. It doesn’t say the boat sailed off safely; it says “immediately the boat was upon the land”. Granted, “immediately” doesn’t necessarily mean “instantaneously”, but the intent seems pretty clear. Actually, there is a third aspect. Jesus did not calm the sea. He did not end the tempest. He and the boat simply teleported to land. The second (now the third) is that the crowd across the sea communicated via quantum entanglement that they did not see the “other” boat that Jesus disciples had used. The crowd also communicated telepathically that they/it had not seen Jesus join his disciples.
So John, like Luke only tells one part of the dual narrative involving the Sea of Galilee. And, interestingly, John tells the walking on water part but not the part about calming the sea. Is this a coincidence? There’s no reason it can’t be, but it’s like Luke’s choices to add or abridge his material based on how Matthew treated Mark’s narrative. And granted again, this is only the first time I’ve noticed this about John, so it’s an individual anecdote and not a repeated occurrence; however, that may change and be sure I’ll be paying attention to this as we progress through the gospel. But again, not the sort of thing that gets discussed when talking about whether or not John is dependent on the Synoptics. I believe
*Rowed. The Greek word really means “to drive”, or “to strike” or other things that aren’t “to row”. In fact, the word is only used about a handful of times in the NT, and only one other time is it used in the sense of “to row”. This other instance is in Mark, in the passage about Jesus walking on the water. I suspect that is not a coincidence. But, for comparison, it’s also used once when Jesus “drives” out an evil spirit.
**Stadia, singular Stadion. This is the Greek form of the Latin stadium, which translates exactly as one would expect. The -on endings in Greek usually correlate to -um endings in Latin, indicating second declension neuter nominative nouns. The stadion, of course, was the place where athletic competitions occurred, and is the reason we have sports stadiums. Interestingly, there was a standard size for a stadion, of approximately 200 yards, so the word for the place was synonymous with the distance. If you think of it, a modern running track usually encompasses a football field, and has a circumference of 440 yards/400 metres. If you think about it, making a circuit of the track, the two long sides are 220 yards/200 metres; IOW, about the length of a stadion. So 25 x 200 = 5,000 yards or just short of 3 miles, which is a standard translation (NIV, ESV, RSPV & c.).
19 Cum remigassent ergo quasi stadia viginti quinque aut triginta, vident Iesum ambulantem super mare et proximum navi fieri, et timuerunt.
20 Ille autem dicit eis: “Ego sum, nolite timere!”.
21 Volebant ergo accipere eum in navem, et statim fuit navis ad terram, in quam ibant.
22 Altera die turba, quae stabat trans mare, vidit quia navicula alia non erat ibi, nisi una, et quia non introisset cum discipulis suis Iesus in navem, sed soli discipuli eius abiissent;
23 aliae supervenerunt naves a Tiberiade iuxta locum, ubi manducaverant panem, gratias agente Domino.
Commenting on the Bible 
John Chapter 6:15-23
Jul 9
Posted by James, brother of Jesus
AFTER feeding 5,000, Jesus is forced to flee, which takes us into the story of Jesus calming the sea and walking on the water. Note that there are two distinct parts of the story. The first, calming the storm, is another of the very limited number of pericopes that are found in all four gospels. This immediately imparts a certain amount of weight to the narrative, that all four evangelists considered it necessary to include it. The second part, Jesus walking on the water, is only in three; when this happens, it is almost always that the pericope is in the Synoptics and not in John. In this instance, however, it appears in John but not in Luke. Finally, in Mark and Matthew, the two events are told as separate from the other, occurring at different places in the narrative. Here, in John, the two actions are part of the same continuous story.
Why did Luke leave out Walking on Water? This omission is actually redactionally consistent with the way Luke handles stories in Mark and Matthew. In cases where Matthew provides an abridged version of Mark, like the Geresene Demoniac, Luke will restore the text of Mark, providing an account that is longer and more detailed than Matthew, if not perhaps quite as long or detailed. In those instances where both Mark and Matthew provide full accounts, such as the Prophet Without Honour pericope, Luke will provide an abridged version. So it is here; Luke abridged the stories by leaving out the second, while John’s abridgement combined them into a shortened narrative that leaves out the lack of faith of the disciples.
Since some form of the narrative is part of all four gospels, the implication is that the Feeding of 5,000, the Cleansing of the Temple, and Calming the Sea was something that evangelists believed had to be included. It was too popular, or too well known, to omit. The audience expected it. Or, to modify this a bit, it was something that the evangelists felt to be critical to the overall narrative, the lesson, the message that they wanted to impart. It was a necessary piece of the explanation of who Jesus was and why he was so special and worthy of veneration. This certainly explains why the stories of mighty works* appear in all the gospels, even if the catalogue of these works varies from evangelist to evangelist. And certainly, walking on water is a prodigious accomplishment, as is feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, and such deeds were to be seen as indications of Jesus status as the Logos. Interesting to note, though, is that John does not describe the second of these actions as a “sign”. I would suggest the reason he did not was because it was not performed in front of a live audience as was the Feeding. Despite that, I would suspect that John intended his audience to understand Calming the Sea and Walking on the Water as signs; the term was used twice in Verses 1-14, so the implication seems clear.
*FKA “miracles”
Text
15 Ἰησοῦς οὖν γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἁρπάζειν αὐτὸν ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα ἀνεχώρησεν πάλιν εἰς τὸ ὄρος αὐτὸς μόνος.
16 Ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν,
17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
18 ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο.
Jesus thus knowing that they wished to come and carry him off so that they made him king, he departed again he to the mountain alone. (16) As it became evening his disciples descended down to the sea, (17) and embarking the boat they crossed (to the other shore of) the sea to Caphernaum. And it had become dark and Jesus had not yet come to them, (18) and the sea rose (in waves) with a great wind blowing.
For once, the crowd pursuing him is not interested in carrying Jesus off to destruction. This time, they want to make him king because of the great sign he has performed. This is, I believe, one of the few times where the crowd is emphatically and openly behind him, which marks a volte-face since the episode at the Sheep’s Pool back in the previous chapter. Not being familiar with the topography, it’s hard to explain why the crowd could not, or did not, follow him up the mountain; presumably, the path was too narrow and/or steep? But here is where we come up against the other gospels as far as spatial location. In Matthew’s description of the events leading up to Jesus calming the sea, following the Sermon on the Mount Jesus healed a leper, then proceeded to Caphernaum, where Jesus healed the Centurion’s slave, then went to Peter’s house to heal the latter’s mother-in-law so she could make them dinner. And after that, the crowd brought many to be healed in the evening. Presumably they spent the night in Caphernaum, whether at Peter’s house or at Jesus’ own house is not mentioned. As a reminder, Matthew specifically stated that Jesus came and dwelt in Caphernaum (Mt 4:13) and Mark (2:1) says that Jesus had a house there. Getting back to Matthew’s narrative, the next day, the group proceeded along the Sea and Jesus healed all who were brought to him before embarking on the boat Jesus had requested be ready to cross the lake (Mt 8:18). So the crossing started in Caphernaum according to the clues provided in the text. Sticking with Matthew, he sites the episode of Jesus walking on water immediately after the Feeding of 5,000. This latter occurred in a “remote place” (Mt 14:13, REB) where he had traveled to by boat.
In this description, Matthew follows Mark in two important ways. First, the Calming of the Sea is the first of the two events reported; second, this occurs directly after the Feeding of 5,000. Of course we see here that John did the same. Luke, however, situated his version in an entirely different location, for reasons that are no doubt redactionally consistent with his other decisions not to follow Matthew’s arrangement; or, does that only become necessary when Luke chooses not to follow Matthew’s arrangement of Q material? Or does it matter? And if so, why? My apologies, but the insistence that Luke’s reasoning has to be 100% consistent when he deviates from Matthew’s placement of Q material is a tad…artificial. What happens in situations like this when Luke deviates from Mark? Doesn’t that indicate that Luke may have had his reasons for placing things where he did that were based on other criteria than where Matthew put something?
In any case, John follows the relative temporal placement of the Calming of the Sea by having it occur directly after the Feeding of 5,000. But he really does not situate the location of the feeding very clearly. In fact, John’s geography is muddled. In Chapter 5, recall, Jesus was in Jerusalem. At the beginning of this chapter, John said that Jesus crossed to the other side of the lake, to the side the city of Tiberias was located. Here is the problem: Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Caphernaum are all on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. It was not at all necessary to cross the lake to get from Tiberias to Caphernaum. It is quite possible that the trip between the two could be made more quickly traveling by boat than walking; in fact, it’s highly likely that the trip by boat was quicker. So what we’ve got here is John using his source(s) without understanding the source(s) or the basic geography of Galilee. The plain meaning of the Greek word <<πέραν>> is “to cross” or “across”, as in being on opposite shores. It would imply crossing from the east shore to the west, making a transit of the middle of the lake/sea. The shoreline between Tiberias and Caphernaum is concave, so there is a sense of crossing what could be considered open water. But, that stretches the meaning. So yes, based on this alone, one can fairly well conclude without too much danger of being gainsaid that John is dependent on the Synoptics. For the life of me, I don’t understand why these sorts of points are almost never raised in discussions of dependence. Like how Luke is redactionally very consistent when treating a pericope found in both Mark and Matthew.
15 Iesus ergo, cum cognovisset quia venturi essent, ut raperent eum et facerent eum regem, secessit iterum in montem ipse solus.
16 Ut autem sero factum est, descenderunt discipuli eius ad mare
17 et, cum ascendissent navem, veniebant trans mare in Capharnaum. Et tenebrae iam factae erant, et nondum venerat ad eos Iesus.
18 Mare autem, vento magno flante, exsurgebat.
19 ἐληλακότες οὖν ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.
20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.
21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον.
22 Τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον:
23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου.
So having rowed* 25 or 30 stadia**, they beheld Jesus walking about on the water, and coming near to the boat, and they feared. (20) And he said to them, “It is I. Do not fear.” (21) So he having come, they lifted him into the boat and immediately the boat (was) upon the land to which it had departed (where it was heading). (22) On the morrow the crowd which was standing across the sea saw that another boat was not there, and that Jesus had not gone with his disciples to the other boat but his disciples had departed; (23) but another boat came from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread having been blessed by the lord.
We took care of the vocabulary items in the footnotes below, so that’s out of the way. There are two remarkable aspects in this passage. The first is confirmation of teleportation. Jesus got in the boat and immediately it teleported to its destination. In church, one never hears the story of either Feeding from John; it’s always Matthew or Mark. As a result, odd little details like this go unnoticed. It doesn’t say the boat sailed off safely; it says “immediately the boat was upon the land”. Granted, “immediately” doesn’t necessarily mean “instantaneously”, but the intent seems pretty clear. Actually, there is a third aspect. Jesus did not calm the sea. He did not end the tempest. He and the boat simply teleported to land. The second (now the third) is that the crowd across the sea communicated via quantum entanglement that they did not see the “other” boat that Jesus disciples had used. The crowd also communicated telepathically that they/it had not seen Jesus join his disciples.
So John, like Luke only tells one part of the dual narrative involving the Sea of Galilee. And, interestingly, John tells the walking on water part but not the part about calming the sea. Is this a coincidence? There’s no reason it can’t be, but it’s like Luke’s choices to add or abridge his material based on how Matthew treated Mark’s narrative. And granted again, this is only the first time I’ve noticed this about John, so it’s an individual anecdote and not a repeated occurrence; however, that may change and be sure I’ll be paying attention to this as we progress through the gospel. But again, not the sort of thing that gets discussed when talking about whether or not John is dependent on the Synoptics. I believe
*Rowed. The Greek word really means “to drive”, or “to strike” or other things that aren’t “to row”. In fact, the word is only used about a handful of times in the NT, and only one other time is it used in the sense of “to row”. This other instance is in Mark, in the passage about Jesus walking on the water. I suspect that is not a coincidence. But, for comparison, it’s also used once when Jesus “drives” out an evil spirit.
**Stadia, singular Stadion. This is the Greek form of the Latin stadium, which translates exactly as one would expect. The -on endings in Greek usually correlate to -um endings in Latin, indicating second declension neuter nominative nouns. The stadion, of course, was the place where athletic competitions occurred, and is the reason we have sports stadiums. Interestingly, there was a standard size for a stadion, of approximately 200 yards, so the word for the place was synonymous with the distance. If you think of it, a modern running track usually encompasses a football field, and has a circumference of 440 yards/400 metres. If you think about it, making a circuit of the track, the two long sides are 220 yards/200 metres; IOW, about the length of a stadion. So 25 x 200 = 5,000 yards or just short of 3 miles, which is a standard translation (NIV, ESV, RSPV & c.).
19 Cum remigassent ergo quasi stadia viginti quinque aut triginta, vident Iesum ambulantem super mare et proximum navi fieri, et timuerunt.
20 Ille autem dicit eis: “Ego sum, nolite timere!”.
21 Volebant ergo accipere eum in navem, et statim fuit navis ad terram, in quam ibant.
22 Altera die turba, quae stabat trans mare, vidit quia navicula alia non erat ibi, nisi una, et quia non introisset cum discipulis suis Iesus in navem, sed soli discipuli eius abiissent;
23 aliae supervenerunt naves a Tiberiade iuxta locum, ubi manducaverant panem, gratias agente Domino.
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Tags: Bible, Bible commentary, Bible scholarship, biblical scholarship, commenting, gospel commentary, Historical Jesus, John's Gospel, New Testament, Q, religion, theology