More on the miracle of sharingFirst, a reader mentions in a comment that, not surprisingly, Matthew Fox embraces this interpretation.
My husband said that he thought the interpretation was mentioned by William Barclay in his commentary on the miracle. (For those of you who don't know, William Barclay was a Scottish scholar who published a whole series of Scripture commentaries - you'd recognize them if you saw them - small, compact volumes. Published first in the 1950's, and never out of print since)
So this morning, I looked it up, and sure enough:
There are those who see in this miracle something which in a sense is perfectly natural, and yet which in another sense is a real miracle, and which in any sense is very precious. Picture the scene. There is the crowd; it is late; and they are hungry. But was it really likely that the vast majaroirty of that crowd would set out around the lake without any food at all? Would they not take something with them, however little? Now it was evening and they were hungry. But they were also selfish. And no one would produce what he had, lest he have to share it and leave himself without enough. Then Jesus took the lead. Such as he and his disciples had, he began to share with a blessing and an invitation and a smile. And thereupon all began to share, and before they knew what was happening, there was enough and more than enough for all. If this is what happened, it was not the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes; it was the miracle of the changing of selfish people into generous people at the the touch of Christ.....It does not matter how we understand this miracle. One thing is sure -- when Christ is there, the weary find rest and the hungry soul is fed.
Isn't there a flaw in this? If no one would set out for the lake without some food...then....no one would be without food, right? Hmm.
I'm kind of disappointed. I didn't want to have to hurl Blogdarts and old' Barclay. I was hoping for a good Schillebeeckx or Schussler-Fiorenza target. Oh well. There it is - Barclay's everywhere, and this explanation is so superficially clever, it must strike more than our fair share of preachers - Protestant and Catholic - as a clever sermon point. Damn the consequences for faith. Who cares about that?
Anyway, I agree with another reader who commented that the attempt to explain away miracles (and the resurrection, ultimately) is supremely insulting to the early Christians. It suggests they were either stupid or they were liars. Neither possibility makes me interested in listening to what they have to say. What does interest me is that they say in several places that it is the truth they are about, so because of that, I am ready to listen. And learn. Not dictate what they mean, especially if my interpretation has the effect of being the opposite of what they say they mean.