Read Anytime Anywhere Easy TestBank Download at testbankmall.

com

Solution Manual for Fundamentals of Aerodynamics,

6th Edition John Anderson

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-
fundamentals-of-aerodynamics-6th-edition-john-anderson/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Visit and Get More TestBank Download Instantly at https://testbankmall.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Fundamentals of Aerodynamics 6th Edition Anderson

Solutions Manual

https://testbankmall.com/product/fundamentals-of-aerodynamics-6th-
edition-anderson-solutions-manual/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Aerodynamics for Engineers, 6/E 6th

Edition John J. Bertin, Russell M. Cummings

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-aerodynamics-for-
engineers-6-e-6th-edition-john-j-bertin-russell-m-cummings/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Fundamentals of Cost Accounting, 6th

Edition, William Lanen, Shannon Anderson Michael Maher

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-fundamentals-of-
cost-accounting-6th-edition-william-lanen-shannon-anderson-michael-
maher/
testbankmall.com

Solution manual for Fundamentals of Cost Accounting Lanen

Anderson Maher 4th Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-fundamentals-of-
cost-accounting-lanen-anderson-maher-4th-edition/

testbankmall.com
Aerodynamics for Engineering Students 6th Edition Houghton
Solutions Manual

https://testbankmall.com/product/aerodynamics-for-engineering-
students-6th-edition-houghton-solutions-manual/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Fundamentals of Algebraic Modeling,

6th Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-fundamentals-of-
algebraic-modeling-6th-edition/

testbankmall.com

Test Bank for Fundamentals of Cost Accounting, 6th

Edition, William Lanen, Shannon Anderson Michael Maher

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-fundamentals-of-cost-
accounting-6th-edition-william-lanen-shannon-anderson-michael-maher/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Fundamentals of Cost Accounting, 5th

Edition, By William Lanen, Shannon Anderson Michael Maher

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-fundamentals-of-
cost-accounting-5th-edition-by-william-lanen-shannon-anderson-michael-
maher/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Aerodynamics for Engineers 5th Edition

by Bertin

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-aerodynamics-for-
engineers-5th-edition-by-bertin/

testbankmall.com
2) Aerodynamics: Some Fundamental Principles and Equations
Part Two – Inviscid, Incompressible Flow
3) Fundamentals of Inviscid, Incompressible Flow
4) Incompressible Flow over Airfoils
5) Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings
6) Three-Dimensional Incompressible Flow
Part Three – Inviscid, Compressible Flow
7) Compressible Flow: Some Preliminary Aspects
8) Normal Shock Waves and Related Topics
9) Oblique Shock and Expansion Waves
10) Compressible Flow Through Nozzles, Diffusers, and Wind Tunnels
11) Subsonic Compressible Flow over Airfoils: Linear Theory
12) Linearized Supersonic Flow
13) Introduction to Numerical Techniques for Nonlinear Supersonic Flow
14) Elements of Hypersonic Flow
Part Four – Viscous Flow
15) Introduction to the Fundamental Principles and Equations of Viscous Flow
16) Some Special Cases; Couette and Poiseuille Flows
17) Introduction to Boundary Layers
18) Laminar Boundary Layers
19) Turbulent Boundary Layers
20) Navier-Stokes Solutions: Some Examples
Appendix A – Isentropic FlowProperties
Appendix B – Normal Shock Properties
Appendix C – Prandtl-Meyer Function and Mach Angle
Appendix D – Standard Atmosphere, SI Units
Appendix E – Standard Atmosphere, English Engineering Units
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
which of the two is historical, or whether either of them deserves
that epithet, must be the object of a special inquiry.

To evade the pre-eminently magical appearance which this miracle

presents, Olshausen gives it a relation to the moral state of the
participants, and supposes that the miraculous feeding of the
multitude was effected through the intermediation of their spiritual
hunger. But this is ambiguous language, which, on the first attempt
to determine its meaning, vanishes into nothing. For in cures, for
example, the intermediation here appealed to consists in the
opening of the patient’s mind to the influence of Jesus by faith, so
that when faith is wanting, the requisite fulcrum for the miraculous
power of Jesus is also wanting: here therefore the intermediation is
real. Now if the same kind of intermediation took place in the case
before us, so that on those among the multitude who were
unbelieving the satisfying power of Jesus had no influence, then
must the satisfaction of hunger here (as, in the above cases, the
cure) be regarded as something effected by Jesus directly in the
body of the hungry persons, without any antecedent augmentation
of the external means of nourishment. But such a conception of the
matter, as Paul us justly remarks, and as even Olshausen intimates,
is precluded by the statement of the Evangelists, that real food was
distributed among the multitude; that each enjoyed as much as he
wanted; and that at the end the residue was greater than the
original store. It is thus plainly implied that there was an external
and objective increase of the provisions, as a preliminary to the
feeding of the multitude. Now, this cannot be conceived as effected
by means of the faith of the people in a real manner, in the sense
that that faith co-operated in producing the multiplication of the
loaves. The intermediation which Olshausen here supposes, can
therefore have been only a teleological one, that is, we are to
understand by it, that Jesus undertook to multiply the loaves and
fishes for the sake of producing a certain moral condition in the
multitude. But an intermediation of this kind affords me not the
slightest help in forming a conception of the event; for the question
is not why, but how it happened. Thus all which Olshausen believes
himself to have done towards rendering this miracle more intelligible,
rests on the ambiguity of the expression, intermediation; and the
inconceivableness of an immediate influence of the will of Jesus on
irrational nature, remains chargeable upon this history as upon those
last examined.

But there is another difficulty which is peculiar to the narrative

before us. We have here not merely, as hitherto, a modification or a
direction of natural objects, but a multiplication of them, and that to
an enormous extent. Nothing, it is true, is more familiar to our
observation than the growth and multiplication of natural objects, as
presented to us in the parable of the sower, and the grain of
mustard seed, for example. But, first, these phenomena do not take
place without the co-operation of other natural agents, as earth,
water, air, so that here, also, according to the well-known principle of
physics, there is not properly speaking an augmentation of the
substance, but only a change in the accidents; secondly, these
processes of growth and multiplication are carried forward so as to
pass through their various stages in corresponding intervals of time.
Here, on the contrary, in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes
by Jesus, neither the one rule nor the other is observed: the bread
in the hand of Jesus is no longer, like the stalk on which the corn
grew, in communication with the maternal earth, nor is the
multiplication gradual, but sudden.
But herein, it is said, consists the miracle, which in relation to the
last point especially, may be called the acceleration of a natural
process. That which comes to pass in the space of three quarters of
a year, from seed-time to harvest, [512]was here effected in the
minutes which were required for the distribution of the food; for
natural developments are capable of acceleration, and to how great
an extent we cannot determine. 298 It would, indeed, have been an
acceleration of a natural process, if in the hand of Jesus a grain of
corn had borne fruit a hundred-fold, and brought it to maturity, and
if he had shaken the multiplied grain out of his hands as they were
filled again and again, that the people might grind, knead, and bake
it, or eat it raw from the husk in the wilderness where they were;—
or if he had taken a living fish, suddenly called forth the eggs from
its body, and converted them into full-grown fish, which then the
disciples or the people might have boiled or roasted, this, we should
say, would have been an acceleration of a natural process. But it is
not corn that he takes into his hand, but bread; and the fish also, as
they are distributed in pieces, must have been prepared in some
way, perhaps, as in Luke xxiv. 42 , comp. John xxi. 9 , broiled or
salted. Here then, on both sides, the production of nature is no
longer simple and living, but dead and modified by art: so that to
introduce a natural process of the above kind, Jesus must, in the
first place, by his miraculous power have metamorphosed the bread
into corn again, the roasted fish into raw and living ones; then
instantaneously have effected the described multiplication; and
lastly, have restored the whole from the natural to the artificial state.
Thus the miracle would be composed, 1st, of a revivification, which
would exceed in miraculousness all other instances in the gospels;
secondly, of an extremely accelerated natural process; and thirdly, of
an artificial process, effected invisibly, and likewise extremely
accelerated, since all the tedious proceedings of the miller and baker
on the one hand, and of the cook on the other, must have been
accomplished in a moment by the word of Jesus. How then can
Olshausen deceive himself and the believing reader, by the
agreeably sounding expression, accelerated natural process, when
this nevertheless can designate only a third part of the fact of which
we are speaking? 299

But how are we to represent such a miracle to ourselves, and in

what stage of the event must it be placed? In relation to the latter
point, three opinions are possible, corresponding to the number of
the groups that act in our narrative; for the multiplication may have
taken place either in the hands of Jesus, or in those of the disciples
who dispensed the food, or in those of the people who received it.
The last idea appears, on the one hand, puerile even to
extravagance, if we are to imagine Jesus and the apostles
distributing, with great carefulness, that there might be enough for
all, little crumbs which in the hands of the recipients swelled into
considerable pieces: on the other hand, it would have been scarcely
a possible task, to get a particle, however small, for every individual
in a multitude of five thousand men, out of five loaves, which,
according to Hebrew custom, and particularly as they were carried
by a boy, cannot have been very large; and still less out of two
fishes. Of the two other opinions I think, with Olshausen, the one
most suitable is that which supposes that the food was augmented
under the creative hands of Jesus, and that he time after time
dispensed new quantities to the disciples. We may then endeavour
to represent the matter to ourselves in two ways: first we may
suppose that as fast as one loaf or fish was gone, a new one came
out of the hands of Jesus, or secondly, that the single loaves and
fishes grew, so that as one piece was broken off, its loss was
repaired, until on a calculation [513]the turn came for the next loaf or
fish. The first conception appears to be opposed to the text, which
as it speaks of fragments ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων, of the five loaves
(John vi. 13 ), can hardly be held to presuppose an increase of this
number; thus there remains only the second, by the poetical
description of which Lavater has done but a poor service to the
orthodox view. 300 For this miracle belongs to the class which can
only appear in any degree credible so long as they can be retained
in the obscurity of an indefinite conception: 301 no sooner does the
light shine on them, so that they can be examined in all their parts,
than they dissolve like the unsubstantial creations of the mist.
Loaves, which in the hands of the distributors expand like wetted
sponges,—broiled fish, in which the severed parts are replaced
instantaneously, as in the living crab gradually,—plainly belong to
quite another domain than that of reality.

What gratitude then do we not owe to the rationalistic

interpretation, if it be true that it can free us, in the easiest manner,
from the burden of so unheard-of a miracle? If we are to believe Dr.
Paulus, 302 the Evangelists had no idea that they were narrating
anything miraculous, and the miracle was first conveyed into their
accounts by expositors. What they narrate is, according to him, only
thus much: that Jesus caused his small store of provisions to be
distributed, and that in consequence of this the entire multitude
obtained enough to eat. Here, in any case, we want a middle term,
which would distinctly inform us, how it was possible that, although
Jesus had so little food to offer, the whole multitude obtained
enough to eat. A very natural middle term however is to be
gathered, according to Paulus, out of the historical combination of
the circumstances. As, on a comparison with John vi. 4 , the
multitude appear to have consisted for the greater part of a caravan
on its way to the feast, they cannot have been quite destitute of
provisions, and probably a few indigent persons only had exhausted
their stores. In order then to induce the better provided to share
their food with those who were in want, Jesus arranged that they
should have a meal, and himself set the example of imparting what
he and his disciples could spare from their own little store; this
example was imitated, and thus the distribution of bread by Jesus
having led to a general distribution, the whole multitude were
satisfied. It is true that this natural middle term must be first
mentally interpolated into the text; as, however, the supernatural
middle term which is generally received is just as little stated
expressly, and both alike depend upon inference, the reader can
hardly do otherwise than decide for the natural one. Such is the
reasoning of Dr. Paulus: but the alleged identity in the relation of the
two middle terms to the text does not in fact exist. For while the
natural explanation requires us to suppose a new distributing subject
(the better provided among the multitude), and a new distributed
object (their provisions), together with the act of distributing these
provisions: the supranatural explanation contents itself with the
subject actually present in the text (Jesus and his disciples), with the
single object there given (their little store), and the described
distribution of this; and only requires us to supply from our
imagination the means by which this store could be made sufficient
to satisfy the hunger of the multitude, namely its miraculous
augmentation under the hands of Jesus (or of his disciples). How
can it be yet maintained that neither of the two middle terms is any
more suggested by the text than the other? That the miraculous
multiplication of the loaves and fishes is not expressly mentioned,
[514]is explained by the consideration that the event itself is one of
which no clear conception can be formed, and therefore it is best
conveyed by the result alone. But how will the natural theologian
account for nothing being said of the distribution, called forth by the
example of Jesus, on the part of those among the multitude who
had provisions? It is altogether arbitrary to insert that distribution
between the sentences, He gave them to the disciples, and the
disciples to the multitude (Matt. xiv. 19 ), and, they did all eat and
were filled (v. 20 ); while the words, καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχθύας ἐμέρισε
πᾶσι, and the two fishes divided he among them all (Mark vi. 41 ),
plainly indicate that only the two fishes—and consequently only the
five loaves—were the object of distribution for all. 303 But the natural
explanation falls into especial embarrassment when it comes to the
baskets which, after all were satisfied, Jesus caused to be filled with
the fragments that remained. The fourth Evangelist says: συνήγαγον
οὖν, καὶ ἐγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων
τῶν κριθίνων, ἃ ἐπερίσσευσε τοῖς βεβρωκόσιν, therefore they
gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments
of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them
that had eaten (vi. 13) . This seems clearly enough to imply that
out of those identical five loaves, after five thousand men had been
satisfied by them, there still remained fragments enough to fill
twelve baskets,—more, that is, than the amount of the original
store. Here, therefore, the natural expositor is put to the most
extravagant contrivances in order to evade the miracle. It is true,
when the synoptists simply say that the remnants of the meal were
collected, and twelve baskets filled with them, it might be thought
from the point of view of the natural explanation, that Jesus, out of
regard to the gift of God, caused the fragments which the crowd had
left from their own provisions to be collected by his disciples. But as,
on the one hand, the fact that the people allowed the remains of the
repast to lie, and did not appropriate them, seems to indicate that
they treated the nourishment presented to them as the property of
another; so, on the other hand, Jesus, when, without any
preliminary, he directs his disciples to gather them up, appears to
regard them as his own property. Hence Paulus understands the
words ἦραν κ.τ.λ., of the synoptists, not of a collection first made
after the meal, of that which remained when the people had been
satisfied, but of the overplus of the little store belonging to Jesus
and the disciples, which the latter, after reserving what was
necessary for Jesus and themselves, carried round as an introduction
and inducement to the general repast. But how, when the words
ἔφαγον καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν πάντες, they did all eat and were filled,
are immediately followed by καὶ ἦραν, and they took up, can the
latter member of the verse refer to the time prior to the meal? Must
it not then have necessarily been said at least ἦραν γὰρ, for they
took up? Further, how, after it had just been said that the people did
eat and were filled, can τὸ περισσεῦσαν, that which remained,
especially succeeded as it is in Luke by αὐτοῖς, to them, mean
anything else than what the people had left? Lastly, how is it
possible that out of five loaves and two fishes, after Jesus and his
disciples had reserved enough for themselves, or even without this,
there could in a natural manner be twelve baskets filled for
distribution among the people? But still more strangely does the
natural explanation deal with the narrative of John. Jesus here adds,
as a reason for gathering up the fragments, ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται, that
nothing be lost; hence it appears impossible to divest the succeeding
statement that they filled twelve baskets with the remains of the five
loaves, of its relation to the time after the meal; and in this case, it
would be impossible to get clear of a miraculous multiplication of the
loaves. Paulus therefore, although [515]the words συνήγαγον οὖν καὶ
ἐγεμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κ.τ.λ., therefore they gathered them
together and filled twelve baskets, etc., form a strictly coherent
whole, chooses rather to detach συνήγαγον οὖν, and, by a still more
forced construction than that which he employed with the synoptical
text, makes the narrative pass all at once, without the slightest
notice, into the pluperfect, and thus leap back to the time before the
meal.

Here, then, the natural explanation once more fails to fulfil its task:
the text retains its miracle, and if we have reason to think this
incredible, we must inquire whether the narrative of the text
deserves credence. The agreement of all the four Evangelists is
generally adduced in proof of its distinguished credibility: but this
agreement is by no means so perfect. There are minor differences,
first between Matthew and Luke; then between these two and Mark,
who in this instance again embellishes; and lastly, between the
synoptists collectively and John, in the following points: according to
the synoptists, the scene of the event is a desert place, according to
John, a mountain; according to the former, the scene opens with an
address from the disciples, according to John, with a question from
Jesus (two particulars in which, as we have already remarked, the
narrative of John approaches that of the second feeding in Matthew
and Mark); lastly, the words which the three first Evangelists put into
the mouth of the disciples indefinitely, the fourth in his
individualizing manner ascribes to Philip and Andrew, and the same
Evangelist also designates the bearer of the loaves and fishes as a
boy (παιδάριον). These divergencies however may be passed over as
less essential, that we may give our attention only to one, which has
a deeper hold. While, namely, according to the synoptical accounts,
Jesus had been long teaching the people and healing their sick, and
was only led to feed them by the approach of evening, and the
remark of the disciples that the people needed refreshment: in John,
the first thought of Jesus, when he lifts up his eyes and sees the
people gathering round him, is that which he expresses in his
question to Philip: Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?
or rather, as he asked this merely to prove Philip, well knowing
himself what he would do, he at once forms the resolution of
feeding the multitude in a miraculous manner. But how could the
design of feeding the people arise in Jesus immediately on their
approach? They did not come to him for this, but for the sake of his
teaching and his curative power. He must therefore have conceived
this design entirely of his own accord, with a view to establish his
miraculous power by so signal a demonstration. But did he ever thus
work a miracle without any necessity, and even without any
inducement,—quite arbitrarily, and merely for the sake of working a
miracle? I am unable to describe strongly enough how impossible it
is that eating should here have been the first thought of Jesus, how
impossible that he could thus obtrude his miraculous repast on the
people. Thus in relation to this point, the synoptical narrative, in
which there is a reason for the miracle, must have the preference to
that of John, who, hastening towards the miracle, overlooks the
requisite motive for it, and makes Jesus create instead of awaiting
the occasion for its performance. An eye-witness could not narrate
thus; 304 and if, therefore, the account of that gospel to which the
greatest authority is now awarded, must be rejected as unhistorical;
so, with respect to the other narratives, the difficulties of the fact
itself are sufficient to cast a doubt on their historical credibility,
especially if in addition to these negative grounds we can discover
positive reasons which render it probable that our narrative had an
unhistorical origin. [516]

Such reasons are actually found both within the evangelical history
itself, and beyond it in the Old Testament history, and the Jewish
popular belief. In relation to the former source, it is worthy of
remark, that in the synoptical gospels as well as in John, there are
more or less immediately appended to the feeding of the multitude
by Jesus with literal bread, figurative discourses of Jesus on bread
and leaven: namely, in the latter, the declarations concerning the
bread of heaven, and the bread of life which Jesus gives (John vi. 27
ff. ); in the former, those concerning the false leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, that is, their false doctrine and
hypocrisy. 305 (Matt. xvi. 5 ff. ; Mark viii. 14 ff. ; comp. Luke xii. 1 );
and on both sides, the figurative discourse of Jesus is erroneously
understood of literal bread. It would not then be a very strained
conjecture, that as in the passages quoted we find the disciples and
the people generally, understanding literally what Jesus meant
figuratively; so the same mistake was made in the earliest Christian
tradition. If, in figurative discourses, Jesus had sometimes
represented himself as him who was able to give the true bread of
life to the wandering and hungering people, perhaps also placing in
opposition to this, the leaven of the Pharisees: the legend, agreeably
to its realistic tendency, may have converted this into the fact of a
miraculous feeding of the hungry multitude in the wilderness by
Jesus. The fourth Evangelist makes the discourse on the bread of
heaven arise out of the miracle of the loaves: but the relation might
very well have been the reverse, and the history owe its origin to the
discourse, especially as the question which introduces John’s
narrative, Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? may be
more easily conceived as being uttered by Jesus on the first sight of
the people, if he alluded to feeding them with the word of God
(comp. John iv. 32 ff. ), to appeasing their spiritual hunger (Matt. v.
6 ), in order to exercise (πειράζων) the higher understanding of his
disciples, than if he really thought of the satisfaction of their bodily
hunger, and only wished to try whether his disciples would in this
case confide in his miraculous power. The synoptical narrative is less
suggestive of such a view; for the figurative discourse on the leaven
could not by itself originate the history of the miracle. Thus the
gospel of John stands alone with reference to the above mode of
derivation, and it is more agreeable to the character of this gospel to
conjecture that it has applied the narrative of a miracle presented by
tradition to the production of figurative discourses in the Alexandrian
taste, than to suppose that it has preserved to us the original
discourses out of which the legend spun that miraculous narrative.

If then we can discover, beyond the limits of the New Testament,

very powerful causes for the origination of our narrative, we must
renounce the attempt to construct it out of materials presented by
the gospels themselves. [517]And here the fourth Evangelist, by
putting into the mouth of the people a reference to the manna, that
bread of heaven which Moses gave to the fathers in the wilderness
(v. 31 ), reminds us of one of the most celebrated passages in the
early history of the Israelites (Exod. xvi. ), which was perfectly
adapted to engender the expectation that its antitype would occur in
the Messianic times; and we in fact learn from rabbinical writings,
that among those functions of the first Goël which were to be
revived in the second, a chief place was given to the impartation of
bread from heaven. 306 If the Mosaic manna presents itself as that
which was most likely to be held a type of the bread miraculously
augmented by Jesus; the fish which Jesus also multiplied
miraculously, may remind us that Moses gave the people, not only a
substitute for bread in the manna, but also animal food in the quails
(Exod. xvi. 8 , xii. 13 ; Num. xi. 4 ff. ). On comparing these Mosaic
narratives with our evangelical ones, there appears a striking
resemblance even in details. The locality in both cases is the
wilderness; the inducement to the miracle here as there, is fear lest
the people should suffer from want in the wilderness, or perish from
hunger; in the Old Testament history, this fear is expressed by the
people in loud murmurs, in that of the New Testament, it results
from the shortsightedness of the disciples, and the benevolence of
Jesus. The direction of the latter to his disciples that they should
give the people food, a direction which implies that he had already
formed the design of feeding them miraculously, may be paralleled
with the command which Jehovah gave to Moses to feed the people
with manna (Exod. xvi. 4 ), and with quails (Exod. xvi. 12 ; Num.
xi. 18–20 ). But there is another point of similarity which speaks yet
more directly to our present purpose. As, in the evangelical
narrative, the disciples think it an impossibility that provision for so
great a mass of people should be procured in the wilderness, so, in
the Old Testament history, Moses replies doubtingly to the promise
of Jehovah to satisfy the people with flesh (Num. xi. 21 f. ). To
Moses, as to the disciples, the multitude appears too great for the
possibility of providing sufficient food for them; as the latter ask,
whence they should have so much bread in the wilderness, so Moses
asks ironically whether they should slay the flocks and the herds
(which they had not). And as the disciples object, that not even the
most impoverishing expenditure on their part would thoroughly meet
the demand, so Moses, clothing the idea in another form, had
declared, that to satisfy the people as Jehovah promised, an
impossibility must happen (the fish of the sea be gathered together
for them); objections which Jehovah there, as here Jesus, does not
regard, but issues the command that the people should prepare for
the reception of the miraculous food.

But though these two cases of a miraculous supply of nourishment

are thus analogous, there is this essential distinction, that in the Old
Testament, in relation both to the manna and the quails, it is a
miraculous procuring of food not previously existing which is spoken
of, while in the New Testament it is a miraculous augmentation of
provision already present, but inadequate; so that the chasm
between the Mosaic narrative and the evangelical one is too great
for the latter to have been derived immediately from the former. If
we search for an intermediate step, a very natural one between
Moses and the Messiah is afforded by the prophets. We read of
Elijah, that through him and for his sake, the little store of meal and
oil which he found in the possession of the widow of Zarephath was
miraculously replenished, or rather was made to suffice throughout
the duration of the famine (1 Kings xvii. 8–16 ). This species of
miracle is developed still further, and with a greater [518]resemblance
to the evangelical narrative, in the history of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 42
ff. ). As Jesus fed five thousand men in the wilderness with five
loaves and two fishes, so this prophet, during a famine, fed a
hundred men with twenty loaves, (which like those distributed by
Jesus in John, are called barley loaves,) together with some ground
corn (‫‏ַּכְר ֶמל‬‎, LXX. παλάθας); a disproportion between the quantity of
provisions and the number of men, which his servant, like the
disciples in the other instance, indicates in the question: What!
should I set this before a hundred men? Elisha, like Jesus, is not
diverted from his purpose, but commands the servant to give what
he has to the people; and as in the New Testament narrative great
stress is laid on the collection of the remaining fragments, so in the
Old Testament it is specially noticed at the close of this story, that
notwithstanding so many had eaten of the store, there was still an
overplus. 307 The only important difference here is, that on the side of
the evangelical narrative, the number of the loaves is smaller, and
that of the people greater; but who does not know that in general
the legend does not easily imitate, without at the same time
surpassing, and who does not see that in this particular instance it
was entirely suited to the position of the Messiah, that his
miraculous power, compared with that of Elisha, should be placed, as
it regards the need of natural means, in the relation of five to
twenty, but as it regards the supernatural performance, in that of
five thousand to one hundred? Paulus indeed, in order to preclude
the inference, that as the two narratives in the Old Testament are to
be understood mythically, so also is the strikingly similar evangelical
narrative, extends to the former the attempt at a natural explanation
which he has pursued with the latter, making the widow’s cruse of oil
to be replenished by the aid of the scholars of the prophets, and the
twenty loaves suffice for one hundred men by means of a
praiseworthy moderation; 308 a mode of explanation which is more
practicable here than with the New Testament narrative, in
proportion as, by reason of the greater remoteness of these
anecdotes, they present fewer critical (and, by reason of their
merely mediate relation to Christianity, fewer dogmatical) motives
for maintaining their historical veracity.

Nothing more is wanting to complete the mythical derivation of this

history of the miraculous feeding of the multitude, except the proof,
that the later Jews also believed of particularly holy men, that by
their means a small amount of provision was made sufficient, and of
this proof the disinterested industry of Dr. Paulus as a collector, has
put us in possession. He adduces a rabbinical statement that in the
time of a specially holy man, the small quantity of shew-bread more
than sufficed for the supply of the priests. 309 To be consequent, this
commentator should try to explain this story also naturally,—by the
moderation of the priests, for instance: but it is not in the canon,
hence he can unhesitatingly regard it as a fable, and he only so far
admits its striking similarity to the evangelical narrative as to
observe, that in consequence of the Jewish belief in such
augmentations of food, attested by that rabbinical statement, the
New Testament narrative may in early times [519]have been
understood by judaizing Christians in the same (miraculous) sense.
But our examination has shown that the evangelical narrative was
designedly composed so as to convey this sense, and if this sense
was an element of the popular Jewish legend, then is the evangelical
narrative without doubt a product of that legend. 310
[Contents]

§ 103.

JESUS TURNS WATER INTO WINE.

Next to the history of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, may
be ranged the narrative in the fourth gospel (ii. 1 ff. ), of Jesus at a
wedding in Cana of Galilee turning water into wine. According to
Olshausen, both miracles fall under the same category, since in both
a substratum is present, the substance of which is modified. 311 But
he overlooks the logical distinction, that in the miracle of the loaves
and fishes, the modification is one of quantity merely, an
augmentation of what was already existing, without any change of
its quality (bread becomes more bread, but remains bread); whereas
at the wedding in Cana the substratum is modified in quality—out of
a certain substance there is made not merely more of the same kind,
but something else (out of water, wine); in other words, a real
transubstantiation takes place. It is true there are changes in quality
which are natural results, and the instantaneous effectuation of
which by Jesus would be even more easy to conceive, than an
equally rapid augmentation of quantity; for example, if he had
suddenly changed must into wine, or wine into vinegar, this would
only have been to conduct in an accelerated manner the same
vegetable substratum, the vinous juice, through various conditions
natural to it. The miracle would be already heightened if Jesus had
imparted to the juice of another fruit, the apple for instance, the
quality of that of the grape, although even in this his agency would
have been within the limits of the same kingdom of nature. But
here, where water is turned into wine, there is a transition from one
kingdom of nature to another, from the elementary to the vegetable;
a miracle which as far exceeds that of the multiplication of the
loaves, as if Jesus had hearkened to the counsel of the tempter, and
turned stones into bread. 312

To this miracle, as to the former, Olshausen, after Augustine, 313

applies his definition of an accelerated natural process, by which we
are to understand that we have here simply the occurrence, in an
accelerated manner, of that which is presented yearly in the vine in a
slow process of development. This mode of viewing the matter
would have some foundation, if the substratum on which Jesus
operated had been the same out of which wine is wont to be
naturally produced; if he had taken a vine in his hand, and suddenly
caused it to bloom, and to bear ripe grapes, this might have been
called an accelerated natural process. Even then indeed we should
still have no wine, and if Jesus were to produce this also from the
vine which he took into his hand, he must add an operation which
would be an invisible substitute for the winepress, that is, an
accelerated artificial process; so that [520]on this supposition the
category of the accelerated natural process would already be
insufficient. In fact, however, we have no vine as a substratum for
this production of wine, but water, and in this case we could only
speak with propriety of an accelerated natural process, if by any
means, however gradual, wine were ever produced out of water.
Here it is urged, that certainly out of water, out of the moisture
produced in the earth by rain and the like, the vine draws its sap,
which in due order it applies to the production of the grape, and of
the wine therein contained; so that thus yearly, by means of a
natural process, wine does actually come out of water. 314 But apart
from the fact that water is only one of the elementary materials
which are required for the fructification of the vine, and that to this
end, soil, air, and light, must concur; it could not be said either of
one, or of all these elementary materials together, that they produce
the grape or the wine, nor, consequently, that Jesus, when he
produced wine out of water, did the same thing, only more quickly,
which is repeated every year as a gradual process: on the contrary,
here again there is a confusion of essentially distinct logical
categories. For we may place the relation of the product to the
producing agent, which is here treated of, under the category of
power and manifestation, or of cause and effect: never can it be said
that water is the power or the cause, which produces grapes and
wine, for the power which gives existence to them is strictly the
vegetable individuality of the vine-plant, to which water, with the
rest of the elementary agencies, is related only as the solicitation to
the power, as the stimulus to the cause. That is, without the co-
operation of water, air, etc, grapes certainly cannot be produced, any
more than without the vine plant; but the distinction is, that in the
vine the grape, in itself or in its germ, is already present, and water,
air, etc., only assist in its development; whereas in these elementary
substances, the grape is present neither actu nor potentiâ; they can
in no way produce the fruit out of themselves, but only out of
something else—the vine. To turn water into wine is not then to
make a cause act more rapidly than it would act in a natural way,
but it is to make the effect appear without a cause, out of a mere
accessory circumstance; or, to refer more particularly to organic
nature, it is to call forth the organic product without the producing
organism, out of the simple inorganic materials, or rather out of one
of these materials only. This is about the same thing as to make
bread out of earth without the intervention of the corn plant, flesh
out of bread without a previous assimilation of it by an animal body,
or in the same immediate manner, blood out of wine. If the
supranaturalist is not here contented with appealing to the
incomprehensibleness of an omnipotent word of Jesus, but also
endeavours, with Olshausen, to bring the process which must have
been contained in the miracle in question nearer to his conception,
by regarding it in the light of a natural process; he must not, in
order to render the matter more probable, suppress a part of the
necessary stages in that process, but exhibit them all. They would
then present the following series: 1st, to the water, as one only of
the elementary agents, Jesus must have added the power of the
other elements above named; 2ndly (and this is the chief point), he
must have procured, in an equally invisible manner, the organic
individuality of the vine; 3rdly, he must have accelerated, to the
degree of instantaneousness, the natural process resulting from the
reciprocal action of these objects upon one another, the blooming
and fructification of the vine, together with the ripening of the
grape; 4thly, he must have caused the artificial process of pressing,
[521]and so forth, to occur invisibly and suddenly; and lastly, he must
again have accelerated the further natural process of fermentation,
so as to render it momentary. Thus, here again, the designation of
the miracle as an accelerated natural process, would apply to two
stages only out of five, the other three being such as cannot possibly
be brought under this point of view, though the two first, especially
the second, are of greater importance even than belonged to the
stages which were neglected in the application of this view to the
history of the miraculous feeding: so that the definition of an
accelerated natural process is as inadequate here as there. 315 As,
however, this is the only, or the extreme category, under which we
can bring such operations nearer to our conception and
comprehension; it follows that if this category be shown to be
inapplicable, the event itself is inconceivable.

Not only, however, has the miracle before us been impeached in

relation to possibility, but also in relation to utility and fitness. It has
been urged both in ancient 316 and modern 317 times, that it was
unworthy of Jesus that he should not only remain in the society of
drunkards, but even further their intemperance by an exercise of his
miraculous power. But this objection should be discarded as an
exaggeration, since, as expositors justly observe, from the words
after men have well drunk, ὅταν μεθυσθῶσι (v. 10 ), which the ruler
of the feast ἀρχιτρίκλινος uses with reference to the usual course of
things at such feasts, nothing can with certainty be deduced with
respect to the occasion in question. We must however still regard as
valid an objection, which is not only pointed out by Paulus and the
author of the Probabilia, 318 but admitted even by Lücke and
Olshausen to be at the first glance a pressing difficulty: namely, that
by this miracle Jesus did not, as was usual with him, relieve any
want, any real need, but only furnished an additional incitement to
pleasure; showed himself not so much helpful as courteous; rather,
so to speak, performed a miracle of luxury, than of true beneficence.
If it be here said that it was a sufficient object for the miracle to
confirm the faith of the disciples, 319 which according to v. 11 was
its actual effect; it must be remembered that, as a general rule, not
only had the miracles of Jesus, considered with regard to their form,
i.e. as extraordinary results, something desirable as their
consequence, for instance, the faith of the spectators; but also,
considered with regard to their matter, i.e. as consisting of cures,
multiplications of loaves, and the like, were directed to some really
beneficent end. In the present miracle this characteristic is wanting,
and hence Paulus is not wrong when he points out the contradiction
which would lie in the conduct of Jesus, if towards the tempter he
rejected every challenge to such miracles as, without being
materially beneficent, or called for by any pressing necessity, could
only formally produce faith and astonishment, and yet in this
instance performed a miracle of that very nature. 320

The supranaturalist was therefore driven to maintain that it was not

faith in general which Jesus here intended to produce, but a
conviction entirely special, and only to be wrought by this particular
miracle. Proceeding on this supposition, nothing was more natural
than to be reminded by the opposition of water and wine on which
the miracle turns, of the opposition between him who baptized with
water (Matt. iii. 11 ), who at the same time [522]came neither eating
nor drinking (Luke i. 15 ; Matt. xi. 18 ), and him who, as he
baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire, so he did not deny
himself the ardent, animating fruit of the vine, and was hence
reproached with being a wine-bibber οἰνοπότης (Matt. xi. 19 );
especially as the fourth gospel, in which the narrative of the wedding
at Cana is contained, manifests in a peculiar degree the tendency to
lead over the contemplation from the Baptist to Jesus. On these
grounds Herder, 321 and after him some others, 322 have held the
opinion, that Jesus by the above miraculous act intended to
symbolize to his disciples, several of whom had been disciples of the
Baptist, the relation of his spirit and office to those of John, and by
this proof of his superior power, to put an end to the offence which
they might take at his more liberal mode of life. But here the
reflection obtrudes itself, that Jesus does not avail himself of this
symbolical miracle, to enlighten his disciples by explanatory
discourses concerning his relation to the Baptist; an omission which
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about testbank and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

testbankmall.com