Loaves and Fishes
April 18, 2004 6:52 PM Subscribe
Google has directed me to many instances of this as a rhetorical quesion, but no answer, and I'm not asking rhetorically: In the story of Jesus feeding the multitudes with the loaves and fishes, what species of fish was it, most likely? Ignore whether the event happened: If it had happened, what kind, or kinds, of fish would the multitudes have been eating, probably?
Apparently there was a Food Network show called Great Feasts of the Bible which may have gone through possible answers to this. Anybody see it? I don't have cable, and there doesn't seem to be any more info on their site. Thanks for any pointers to pages or ways of nailing this down.
Apparently there was a Food Network show called Great Feasts of the Bible which may have gone through possible answers to this. Anybody see it? I don't have cable, and there doesn't seem to be any more info on their site. Thanks for any pointers to pages or ways of nailing this down.
Another fish I remember eating from the Galiliee is called "fseech" by the locals. Not sure what it is, but it's a bit bigger than the sardine type fish.
posted by cell divide at 7:17 PM on April 18, 2004
posted by cell divide at 7:17 PM on April 18, 2004
As a vegetarian I rarely browse the fish section at the supermarket, but while waiting for my brother I picked up a tilapia package. It claimed it was the fish.
posted by Utilitaritron at 7:28 PM on April 18, 2004
posted by Utilitaritron at 7:28 PM on April 18, 2004
I've heard the same thing about tilapia.
posted by blueshammer at 7:31 PM on April 18, 2004
posted by blueshammer at 7:31 PM on April 18, 2004
Assuming that the common translation to the word "fishes" is not erroneous, doesn't that signify multiple types of fish? Otherwise, it would be "loaves and fish."
posted by bingo at 9:59 PM on April 18, 2004
posted by bingo at 9:59 PM on April 18, 2004
the question just doesn't make sense. if it had happened then miracles can occur and things like probably lose all meaning. why does it have to be any kind of fish known, for example? why couldn't everything in the world, including our memories of going to sunday school and reading the bible, have been made two minutes ago by an all-powerful creator?
any kind of predicition relies on consistency, reliabilty of physical laws. if you're going to accept a worldview where they go out of the window then you can't ask this kind of question. it's like asking "if red is blue then what colour is green?".
posted by andrew cooke at 6:31 AM on April 19, 2004
any kind of predicition relies on consistency, reliabilty of physical laws. if you're going to accept a worldview where they go out of the window then you can't ask this kind of question. it's like asking "if red is blue then what colour is green?".
posted by andrew cooke at 6:31 AM on April 19, 2004
bingo, that's the King James translation, which (wonderful as it is as a literary artifact) is four centuries out of date. Current translations (like the one quoted here) say "bread and fish."
andrew cooke: The poster specifically said he wasn't interested in that kind of response. Do you feel compelled to proselytize for your atheism the way Moonies do for Moon?
posted by languagehat at 7:14 AM on April 19, 2004
andrew cooke: The poster specifically said he wasn't interested in that kind of response. Do you feel compelled to proselytize for your atheism the way Moonies do for Moon?
posted by languagehat at 7:14 AM on April 19, 2004
I'm not sure your objection is entirely fair, Mr. Cooke.
For one thing, the gospel narrative (John, I believe is the only one with this account, no?) indicates that Jesus didn't catch the fish, and that someone else had them before. It seems likely that John would have pointed out that these fish were of a variety of heretofore unknown mystery Jesus-fish if they weren't something he was used to seeing. He was a fisherman, after all. In fact, it seems unlikely that the apostles would have offered him the fish if they didn't know what they were, or that the crowd would have accepted them. If you were a fisherman and caught something you had never seen before, would you offer it to your Lord and 5,000 strangers as well?
And for what it's worth, the presence of miracles does not preclude one from assuming the regularity of the natural universe. Whether you accept true randomness on the quantum level, accept that there are natural laws which remain unknown, or accept higher-level anomalies like miracles, there are always the potential for occurances which humans cannot predict.
There are numerous Christian philosophers who suggest that their worldview is the only one which can rationally account for the sort of universal predictability you suggest. It's a far bigger subject than is appropriate for this thread, I guess, but I can send you some author names and perhaps links if you're interested.
posted by mragreeable at 9:19 AM on April 19, 2004
For one thing, the gospel narrative (John, I believe is the only one with this account, no?) indicates that Jesus didn't catch the fish, and that someone else had them before. It seems likely that John would have pointed out that these fish were of a variety of heretofore unknown mystery Jesus-fish if they weren't something he was used to seeing. He was a fisherman, after all. In fact, it seems unlikely that the apostles would have offered him the fish if they didn't know what they were, or that the crowd would have accepted them. If you were a fisherman and caught something you had never seen before, would you offer it to your Lord and 5,000 strangers as well?
And for what it's worth, the presence of miracles does not preclude one from assuming the regularity of the natural universe. Whether you accept true randomness on the quantum level, accept that there are natural laws which remain unknown, or accept higher-level anomalies like miracles, there are always the potential for occurances which humans cannot predict.
There are numerous Christian philosophers who suggest that their worldview is the only one which can rationally account for the sort of universal predictability you suggest. It's a far bigger subject than is appropriate for this thread, I guess, but I can send you some author names and perhaps links if you're interested.
posted by mragreeable at 9:19 AM on April 19, 2004
Response by poster: Thanks all - it looks like it's a toss-up between sardine and tilapia. Now I can look further into it.
andrew, I do get your point, and I could probably have phrased it better, e.g. "if someone were going to feed a lot of people on the spur of the moment at exactly that place and point in time, what fish would likely have been eaten, regardless of whether it was miraculously extended?" One of the pages I had already come across supplied exactly the kind of answer you would have liked (only they meant it seriously): "What kind of fish was it that Jesus made into enough for a multitude? A magic fish."
Anyway, thanks.
posted by soyjoy at 9:37 AM on April 19, 2004
andrew, I do get your point, and I could probably have phrased it better, e.g. "if someone were going to feed a lot of people on the spur of the moment at exactly that place and point in time, what fish would likely have been eaten, regardless of whether it was miraculously extended?" One of the pages I had already come across supplied exactly the kind of answer you would have liked (only they meant it seriously): "What kind of fish was it that Jesus made into enough for a multitude? A magic fish."
Anyway, thanks.
posted by soyjoy at 9:37 AM on April 19, 2004
it's like asking "if red is blue then what colour is green?".
No, it's not. It's like asking, "if the spectrum of visible electromagnetic radiation shifted x amount, what color would formerly green objects be?" Don't be pompous.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:57 AM on April 19, 2004
No, it's not. It's like asking, "if the spectrum of visible electromagnetic radiation shifted x amount, what color would formerly green objects be?" Don't be pompous.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:57 AM on April 19, 2004
> the question just doesn't make sense. if it had happened then miracles can
> occur and things like probably lose all meaning. why does it have to be any
> kind of fish known, for example? why couldn't everything in the world, including
> our memories of going to sunday school and reading the bible, have been
> made two minutes ago by an all-powerful creator?
Hmmm. I've always felt this crowd was quite well supplied with stashed food, each person having no knowledge of the others' supplies and hence disinclined to reveal his own, for fear that he and only he would be, um, expropriated, if he revealed his provisions; and the quite astonishing miracle performed by Jesus was to bring the whole crowd to act out of love, rather than self-interested calculation. Knowing people, I would find that more remarkable than divinely-conjured tuna casserole--and yet a thing for which one might hope without entailing the denial of the law of conservation of mass.
[Excuse the editorial, I know it's out of place, I'm in withdrawal. My employer's internet filter started blocking the blue this morning, I'm restricted to grey and green except on my own time and ISP. I blame quonsar.]
To add something to the point, here's what's in the Sea of Galilee (= modern Lake Kinneret) in amounts that support commercial fisheries, so these are your candidates for those First Two Fishies:
posted by jfuller at 10:47 AM on April 19, 2004
> occur and things like probably lose all meaning. why does it have to be any
> kind of fish known, for example? why couldn't everything in the world, including
> our memories of going to sunday school and reading the bible, have been
> made two minutes ago by an all-powerful creator?
Hmmm. I've always felt this crowd was quite well supplied with stashed food, each person having no knowledge of the others' supplies and hence disinclined to reveal his own, for fear that he and only he would be, um, expropriated, if he revealed his provisions; and the quite astonishing miracle performed by Jesus was to bring the whole crowd to act out of love, rather than self-interested calculation. Knowing people, I would find that more remarkable than divinely-conjured tuna casserole--and yet a thing for which one might hope without entailing the denial of the law of conservation of mass.
[Excuse the editorial, I know it's out of place, I'm in withdrawal. My employer's internet filter started blocking the blue this morning, I'm restricted to grey and green except on my own time and ISP. I blame quonsar.]
To add something to the point, here's what's in the Sea of Galilee (= modern Lake Kinneret) in amounts that support commercial fisheries, so these are your candidates for those First Two Fishies:
Tab. 1. Commercial fisheries in Lake Kinneret (averaged for 1988-99):
annual landings and market value.
Species Annual landing Market value
(t) (sd) (%) (×103 US $) (%)
Sarotherodon galilaeus (Galilee St. Peter's Fish) 377 (110) 21 1750 48
Oreochromis aureus (Jordan St. Peter's Fish) 124 (63) 7 345 9
Tristramella spp. (Tritram's St. Peter's Fish) 58 (26) 3 87 2
Mugil spp. (Gray Mullet) 162 (79) 9 825 23
Barbus spp. (Barbel) 39 (23) 2 82 2
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Silver Carp) 64 (50) 3 32 1
Cyprinus carpio (Common carp) 83 (54) 5 242 7
Acanthobrama spp. (Bleak) 924 (314) 50 277 8
Total 1832 (362) 100 3640 100
posted by jfuller at 10:47 AM on April 19, 2004
languagehat - no, they said assuming that the miracle did happen. i'm not saying that it didn't - it doesn't bother me whether it did or didn't - but if you're going to assume that, then the answer is "no idea".
they're asking, in effect, for a prediction if matter were not conserved. that so deeply violates what we know of physics that any prediction is useless.
you're a linguist. if someone says "what would the word for 'sky' be if the native american civilisations had dominated the world?" what would you have said? forgive me if the question is silly, but i hope you get the idea - this is similarly non-sensical.
my objection wasn't based on some childish religious point scoring. i'm old enough to both know that is pointless and, frankly, not care. rather, i'm concerned that people simply don't understand how deeply entwined science is with our everyday lives and terminology. you can't just toss away most of physics to make an "interesting question". that's not smart, it's ignorant, and it's the same thing that disturbed me last time we exchanged words (that i remember) over your claims that linguistics was a science, yet appeared to use nothing that resembled scientific method. maybe you should try learning a little physics?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:01 PM on April 19, 2004
they're asking, in effect, for a prediction if matter were not conserved. that so deeply violates what we know of physics that any prediction is useless.
you're a linguist. if someone says "what would the word for 'sky' be if the native american civilisations had dominated the world?" what would you have said? forgive me if the question is silly, but i hope you get the idea - this is similarly non-sensical.
my objection wasn't based on some childish religious point scoring. i'm old enough to both know that is pointless and, frankly, not care. rather, i'm concerned that people simply don't understand how deeply entwined science is with our everyday lives and terminology. you can't just toss away most of physics to make an "interesting question". that's not smart, it's ignorant, and it's the same thing that disturbed me last time we exchanged words (that i remember) over your claims that linguistics was a science, yet appeared to use nothing that resembled scientific method. maybe you should try learning a little physics?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:01 PM on April 19, 2004
> they're asking, in effect, for a prediction f matter were not conserved.
Is it written, then, that the tale must refer to an instance of miraculous non-conservation of mass, or else it cannot contain any grain of historical referent at all, not even an ancient Jewish personality or a geographic location or a species of fish? It must be written in some work of great authority, because you've bought the notion whole.
By exactly the same logic you're committed to holding that, there being no Zeus and no Hera, one therefore cannot form meaningful factual questions about Troy. I really have to deny that soyjoy's question is ill-formed, since it's so evident what the probabilities point to as the right answer (Acanthobrama, 50% of the modern-era catch, from the table.)
posted by jfuller at 5:26 PM on April 19, 2004
Is it written, then, that the tale must refer to an instance of miraculous non-conservation of mass, or else it cannot contain any grain of historical referent at all, not even an ancient Jewish personality or a geographic location or a species of fish? It must be written in some work of great authority, because you've bought the notion whole.
By exactly the same logic you're committed to holding that, there being no Zeus and no Hera, one therefore cannot form meaningful factual questions about Troy. I really have to deny that soyjoy's question is ill-formed, since it's so evident what the probabilities point to as the right answer (Acanthobrama, 50% of the modern-era catch, from the table.)
posted by jfuller at 5:26 PM on April 19, 2004
maybe you should try learning a little physics?
Actually, I was concentrating on math and physics before I switched to linguistics (I got sick of taking the calculus the math department insisted on every semester). I understand your point perfectly; I just think you're forcing an irrelevant issue. It was clear to me (and I suspect to you) that soyjoy's question meant exactly what his expanded version means: "if someone were going to feed a lot of people on the spur of the moment at exactly that place and point in time, what fish would likely have been eaten, regardless of whether it was miraculously extended?" The other answers were to the point; yours wasn't. No offense, though; I don't want to cross swords with you, since we agree about the basics.
(Oh, and linguistics is not a science in the sense physics is, but the word "science" is used in a way that includes it, therefore it is a science. That's how words work.)
posted by languagehat at 6:12 PM on April 22, 2004
Actually, I was concentrating on math and physics before I switched to linguistics (I got sick of taking the calculus the math department insisted on every semester). I understand your point perfectly; I just think you're forcing an irrelevant issue. It was clear to me (and I suspect to you) that soyjoy's question meant exactly what his expanded version means: "if someone were going to feed a lot of people on the spur of the moment at exactly that place and point in time, what fish would likely have been eaten, regardless of whether it was miraculously extended?" The other answers were to the point; yours wasn't. No offense, though; I don't want to cross swords with you, since we agree about the basics.
(Oh, and linguistics is not a science in the sense physics is, but the word "science" is used in a way that includes it, therefore it is a science. That's how words work.)
posted by languagehat at 6:12 PM on April 22, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
Doing some googling, this page says that the fish in the story were 2 sardines brought by a boy.
Also, not directly related, but this page is pretty cool.
posted by cell divide at 7:15 PM on April 18, 2004