Why gather the fragments? (Thomas O'Loughlin)

This video is a conference paper presented by Zoom at the Twelfth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament on 18th February 2021. ‘Broken pieces’ (klasmata) / ‘fragments’ (fragmenta) are clearly important in the two miraculous outdoor feedings in Mark (of the 5000 in 6:32-44 [with parallels in Mt 14; Lk 9 and Jn 6] and of the 4000 in 8:1-9 [with a parallel in Mt 15]) because their significance is a turning point in the dispute in 8:16-21 [with parallel in Mt 16:5-12]: do they not yet understand the significance of there being many baskets, on both occasions, full of broken pieces – and so there is lingering incomprehension [Mk]; or do they understand it in that now they are on guard against the leaven of the Pharisees! [Mt]. This question of Jesus, and then its significance, in Mk and Mt can blind us to the obvious: if you are narrating a story a miraculous feeding, why bother about the leftovers? Surely, it is the wonder that a multitude was fed with so little that should be the focus of attention rather than the consequential fact that there are remains after a picnic. After all, while we do not experience a few loaves feeding thousands, we often experience leftovers after a meal. Yet the questioning in Mk 8:16-21 does not ask what they understand about the feeding but about the leftovers. This concentration on the wonder rather than the leftovers is, indeed, so ‘obvious’ that that is where the bulk of the commentary tradition has placed its emphasis, and what interest there has been in the leftovers has concentrated on the ‘significance’ of the numbers of baskets rather than the fact that the klasmata were significant to Mark. While there is little possibility that we can ever know that answer Mark expected his question to elicit (Mt 16:11, after all, is the first recorded guess at an answer), we may be able to locate the question against its background in the ritual practice of the Jesus followers. The activity of breaking a loaf into pieces which were then eaten by the group was a practice of the churches as we see in both Paul and the Didache, and this is presented as a continuity with the meal practice of Jesus. However, in Paul and the Didache differing significance is attached to this activity: in Paul it is explained in terms of the parts of a body, while in the Didache it is explained in terms of shares in a re-gathered whole. There seems to have been a need in the gathering to explain why they are bothering with klasmata at their meals and while they are loyal to the practice, there is no agreement as to its ‘meaning.’ It is the praxis that is continuous, the explanations that are varied and fluid. If we assume familiarity with such a practice among the evangelists’ audience, can we, at least, better understand this focus on the leftovers and why Mark asks his question? So, the aim of this paper is a modest one: to re-focus the question of the fragmenta in terms of community practice.