|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.
[John 18.15]
There's a lot more going on here than the synoptics mention. All three claim that Peter followed "at a distance" - but right into the courtyard. There is no mention of another disciple. But here there is no mention of Peter's understandable caution. And he only gets into the courtyard, we find in a moment, on the say-so of the other, unnamed, disciple.
So who was he? We know of three disciples who had dealings with the Jewish authorities - Nicodemus,
Joseph of Arimathea, and Judas Iscariot. It could have been any one of them. But the most likely candidate is one I haven't yet mentioned - though I might have named him unwittingly - the disciple "whom Jesus loved". Who, in his few appearances at the end of John's gospel, is more often than not in the company of Peter.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I take the usual view, that it is John speaking of himself. And I suspect that John is known to the high priest (or more likely, the high priest's household) because of the family business--it appears the Zebedee family was in the fish business in a big way (see John and James' call when they leave Dad with the servants--apparently losing both sons was not a fatal blow to the family business!). All we really need to account for is how the guy got past the doorkeeper, since the high priest himself is otherwise occupied--and if there are longtime business connections, that's easily explained.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
It's not Judas, who has absconded at that point. I doubt it's Joseph of Arimathea. We don't see him until verse 19:38, where he's described as "who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews," in other words, unlikely to be stepping up at this point in the narrative. I tend to agree with Lamb Chopped.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think Judas is probably not a favourite here, but how do we know exactly when he absconded? The chronology of events in both the old and new testaments does shift around a bit.
The idea that it's John talking about himself seems strange to me (that's as polite as I can get about it). There is considerable disagreement among respected theologians concerning the authorship of the fourth gospel and the identity of the "beloved disciple".
My own (conjectural) take is that it must have been the beloved disciple who let Peter in; that the fact is not mentioned in the synoptic gospels because the material given to the final redactor of the fourth gospel regarding the beloved disciple was not available to the synoptic writers; and that he is not mentioned by name here because "John" simply didn't know who he was, any more than I do. But there's always a possibility of further evidence coming to light on that score.
[ 19. March 2015, 21:42: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Mamacita. With regard to Joseph of Arimathea. I know you can't be implying that he didn't actually exist before verse 19.38, but what exactly are you implying? That he wasn't brave enough? I mean, just about everybody - including Peter - was scared out of his wits around this time. You have a point though - if it was J. of A. why not name him? So the beloved disciple is still the most likely candidate, I think.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
This prayer of chapter 17 is foreign sounding to many Western ears. Apart from the concepts that John repeats (e.g., “I in them and you in me” which gets too close for me to ignore to “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...I am the Walrus...”), there is the feeling that we are eavesdropping on what should be a private prayer. Still, this is 'other' literature, so I'm going with the flow. Perhaps prayer was the routine of a day – the worry beads.
There is an interesting bit about Judas in 18:2-6 – the logical flow in the text:
[1] Judas secures an official team from the Jewish authorities
[2] Jesus comes out to meet them and confirms his identity - “I Am”
[3] Judas the betrayer is standing there with them
[4] So they fall back.
How does [4] follow on from [3]? In what way does Judas' being there with the arresting team relate to the retreat when Jesus says “I Am”?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Nigel, I think it's a parenthetical remark. (Being remarkably prone to parentheses myself (particularly onboard the Ship (as you've no doubt noticed)), I suspect John wanted to throw in that fact (but was handicapped by the lack of punctuation in the Greek of that time) and simply decided to go for it anyway (as you do).)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This prayer of chapter 17 is foreign sounding to many Western ears. Apart from the concepts that John repeats (e.g., “I in them and you in me” which gets too close for me to ignore to “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...I am the Walrus...”), there is the feeling that we are eavesdropping on what should be a private prayer. Still, this is 'other' literature, so I'm going with the flow. Perhaps prayer was the routine of a day – the worry beads.
There is an interesting bit about Judas in 18:2-6 – the logical flow in the text:
[1] Judas secures an official team from the Jewish authorities
[2] Jesus comes out to meet them and confirms his identity - “I Am”
[3] Judas the betrayer is standing there with them
[4] So they fall back.
How does [4] follow on from [3]? In what way does Judas' being there with the arresting team relate to the retreat when Jesus says “I Am”?
I think the inference is that Judas falls back with them, rather than the mob alone falling back and leaving Jesus and Judas face to face. It's a clumsy theological point IMV, making it clear - as if John hadn't done so enough already, that Judas separates
himself from Jesus, thus validating Jesus' claim that he didn't lose a single one of the ones God had given him. Doesn't like to leave any stone unturned, does he - John, I mean.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think that's really stretching it, sorry.
There's a very practical reason for Judas to be there. It's not all that easy to identify one out of twelve guys in the dark in an olive orchard under the trees, no matter how famous the man may be. You want to bring someone who can guarantee you've got the right man.
For that matter, I'm sure the high priests etc. wanted Judas to visibly "finish the job"--no sneaking off to Tarshish or wherever with the money while the soldiers get sent on what just MIGHT turn out to be a wild goose chase after all. After all, they ARE trusting the word of a traitor as to where Jesus is. And what if he's turned his coat twice? Best to verify.
[ 21. March 2015, 00:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
On the parentheses thing in 18:5, I suspect John is doing something more than popping in some background material here. He has already mentioned Judas as the betrayer in 18:2 (and the NET Version puts that in brackets as well). So we have:-
18:2 (Now Judas, the one betraying him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with his disciples) [= Ἤιδει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν τὸν τόπον, ὅτι πολλάκις συνήχθη Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ]
18:5 (Now Judas, the one betraying him, was standing there with them) [= εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετʼ αὐτῶν]
I did a couple of analyses around how English translators approached the parentheses point in English Versions and then what Greek connectives are used by John at points where parentheses are used in the Versions. The results are below, but to short cut what could be tedious reading, the conclusion is inconclusive. It comes down to a judgement call, with little technical assistance.
The Greek construction in 18:2 and 18:5 is very similar. I think this indicates John was making a point. Judas is very active in this episode; he knows the place, he collects the soldiers, he stood with them. This is no worried person who guides the police from a distant car with a brown bag over his head and who after the event disappears into the witness protection programme. I sense that the arresting party were probably not convinced that Judas was on the right track at that time of night and it took determination on Judas' part to get them there. He couldn't simply point them in the right direction, he had to be there with them, urging them on, as it were. So when Jesus confronted them all and confirmed his identity, the surprise was that things had worked out so easily.
[1] English Versions
Some English versions agree that John makes frequent use of parentheses as a tool to separate out background from foreground material. I did a quick pot shot at 8:5 to see which versions bracket the sentence “Now Judas the betrayer was standing there with them” and came up with the following: CEB, Easy-to-Read Version, Lexham English Bible, New Century Version, NIV, NET.
I'm not surprised that the KJV and its derivatives (including ASV and ESV) doesn't add parentheses, given one of its objectives being to deal with the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text. Use of parentheses seems to be a more modern thing. There are a few exceptions to that rule: Amplified Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, CEV (which takes the liberty of dropping that sentence entirely from its translation work, as does the Living Bible, the cowards!), Darby, Good News, Jubilee Bible, Modern English Version, The Voice, World English Bible.
The Message takes an interesting route. No parentheses, but “Judas, his betrayer, stood out like a sore thumb.” I guess that's an interpretation that takes John's use of language to be an emphasis on Judas as last man still standing.
So a mixed bag, really.
[2] Greek connectives
I thought it might be useful to see what connecting words John uses in his work at points where use of parentheses might be taken as read. I took the NET Version as the basis, seeing as it is not shy in asserting “This is a parenthetical note by the author”, and came up with the list below. I stopped when I reached chapter 11 because I think the point was made well enough by then.
1:24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees) [= Καὶ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων]
1:38 (which is translated Teacher) [= ὃ ⸂λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον⸃ διδάσκαλε]
1:41 (which is translated Christ) [= ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός]
1:42 (which is translated Peter) [= ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος]
1:44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter) [= ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου]
2:9 (though the servants who had drawn the water knew) [= οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ]
3:24 (For John had not yet been thrown into prison) [= οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Ἰωάννης]
4:2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were) [= καίτοιγε Ἰησοῦς αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐβάπτιζεν ἀλλʼ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ]
4:8 (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies) [= οἱ γὰρ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπεληλύθεισαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν]
4:9 (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans) [= οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις]
4:25 (the one called Christ) [= ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός]
4:44 (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country) [= αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει]
4:45 (for they themselves had gone to the feast) [= καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν]
5:9 (Now that day was a Sabbath) [= Ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ]
5:45 (I do not accept human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved) [= ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε]
6:1 (also called the Sea of Tiberias) [= τῆς Τιβεριάδος]
6:4 (Now the Jewish feast of the Passover was near) [= ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων]
6:6 (Now Jesus said this to test him, for he knew what he was going to do) [= τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν]
6:10 (Now there was a lot of grass in that place) [= ἦν δὲ χόρτος πολὺς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ]
6:17 (It had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them) [= καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς]
6:46 (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God—he has seen the Father) [= οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα]
6:64 (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him) [= ᾔδει γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν]
6:71 (Now he said this about Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for Judas, one of the twelve, was going to betray him) [= ἔλεγεν δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου· οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα]
7:5 (For not even his own brothers believed in him) [= οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν]
7:22 (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers) [= οὐχ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐστὶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων]
7:39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified) [= τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ὃ ⸂ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν· οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη]
8:6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him) [= τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔχωσιν ⸂κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ]
8:20 (Jesus spoke these words near the offering box while he was teaching in the temple courts. No one seized him because his time had not yet come) [= Ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπίασεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ]
8:27 (They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father) [= οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν]
9:7 (which is translated “sent”) [= ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος]
9:14 (Now the day on which Jesus made the mud and caused him to see was a Sabbath) [= ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν πηλὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἀνέῳξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς]
9:22f (His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is a mature adult, ask him”) [= ταῦτα εἶπαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐφοβοῦντο τοὺς Ἰουδαίους· ἤδη γὰρ συνετέθειντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ χριστόν, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται. διὰ τοῦτο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπαν ὅτι ἡλικίαν ἔχει, αὐτὸν ἐπερωτήσατε]
So another mixed bag. It seems that the NET translators at least were not guided by John's use of connective words to signpost parenthetical material, but rather by feeling. They probably asked themselves: Does this sentence feel more like foregrounded material, or is it background that supports a better understanding of the foreground?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think that's really stretching it, sorry.
There's a very practical reason for Judas to be there. It's not all that easy to identify one out of twelve guys in the dark in an olive orchard under the trees, no matter how famous the man may be. You want to bring someone who can guarantee you've got the right man.
For that matter, I'm sure the high priests etc. wanted Judas to visibly "finish the job"--no sneaking off to Tarshish or wherever with the money while the soldiers get sent on what just MIGHT turn out to be a wild goose chase after all. After all, they ARE trusting the word of a traitor as to where Jesus is. And what if he's turned his coat twice? Best to verify.
Not sure who's post your are answering, LC - or how.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Nigel. Wow! Thank you - that was a labour of love. Certainly a good idea to stop at Chapter 11 - you don't want to set me off again (for that matter, 1 don't want you to set me off again ) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Now we are getting into serious Beloved Disciple territory, I must try not to get planked for crusading. Nor wind up LC with her widely-held views about the BD. I mean wind her up with my NOT very widely held views. I doubt there can be many who would even consider the possibility that the disciple whom Jesus loved might have been the disciple whom Peter hated. That's not a valid tangent here or even another thread. It's got to be a book, and I doubt I have the wit or the energy or the time to write it.
[ 21. March 2015, 23:38: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
16 but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in.
[John 18.16]
Another Johannine detail, not found elsewhere, AFAIR. A female bouncer, no less!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Mamacita. With regard to Joseph of Arimathea. I know you can't be implying that he didn't actually exist before verse 19.38, but what exactly are you implying? That he wasn't brave enough? I mean, just about everybody - including Peter - was scared out of his wits around this time. You have a point though - if it was J. of A. why not name him? So the beloved disciple is still the most likely candidate, I think.
Sorry to be replying late, pimple. All I was intending to convey is that J of A had not at that point been mentioned anywhere in Jesus' story, so I find it unlikely that he was the unnamed disciple in this episode. (J of A does not appear until after the crucifixion in John or the Synoptics.) I'll hold off on discussing the rest of it until we get to 19:38.
[ 26. March 2015, 17:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Perfectly reasonable point, Mamacita.
With reference to the latest verse, the reference to the woman as "guarding" the door, does seem rather an idiosyncratic rendition; the old RSV interlinear calls her a maidservant, a doorkeeper - more concierge than bouncer.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.
[John 18.15]
So who was he?
That other disciple: There was an intriguing theory (referred to in the notes of the NET Version) that this unidentified disciple was actually Judas (yes, him of the betraying trend), on the basis that he had dealings with the High Priest and that it was unlikely for Galilean fishermen to be known to the High Priest. It's a thought.
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Another Johannine detail, not found elsewhere, AFAIR. A female bouncer, no less!
Until you pointed it out the significance had passed me by. After all, I mean, where will it all end? Women Chief Priests? Universal Suffrage???
To try and block images of female Ninjas appropriately clad, or Amazon warriors less appropriately clad, zealously guarding the entrance in the manner of the angel at Eden, or a receptionist at the GP clinic, I took a look at the Greek verbage. The lady is described as a doorkeeper and in the following verse she is described using a term that probably means she was a slave girl. Not sure whether that term or the term 'servant' works better.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
(Clutches head) for gosh sakes, people. This is the high priest's residence and therefore a quasi-governmental building. They could have put ANYBODY on the gate, no muscle needed. If there was any trouble, it would have been a case of calling across the courtyard, "yo! Soldiers! A little help, please?"
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
17 The woman said to Peter, "You are not also one of this man's disciples, are you?" He said, "I am not." 18 Now the slaves and the police had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing around it warming themselves. Peter also was standing with them and warming himself.
[John 18.17-18]
Whereat John cuts to another scene. Everybody knows what's going to happen, of course, but the jump/cut racks up the tension. Give John the Golden Dagger award!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
There's a bit of confusion in this chapter around Annas and the High Priest (identified earlier in John and the other Gospels as Caiaphas). We're in the high priest's courtyard, which, as LC noted, is probably the official residence in Jerusalem, part of the authority estate. Annas is the initial investigator and he seems to be the power behind the throne, having been a High Priest himself a few years earlier and keeping the role in the family. Who's who gets a bit tricky in the next verses. But that's for another day.
John seems to be a man of the people, doesn't he? He takes time to give a bit of detail about folk in all positions of society, as he does with assorted inanimate objects. Helps with the imagination; here we are several years down the line and yet we can almost walk through the same doors, sniff the same odours, warm hands at the same fire, cut the tension with the same filleting knife Peter had to hand...
And that servant doorkeeper – she's a bit of cheeky civil servant, isn't she?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The confusion over the high priests could simply be an indication of an editorial slip-up or a copier's error. This all we have - copies of copies, and unless you believe John had his words dictated to him in the manner of Muhammed, we shouldn't be too fazed by minor inconsistencies.
quote:
19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.
[John 18.19]
If only we knew what those questions were, precisely! Jesus' responses might then less difficult for someone like me. The default attitude in John is that nobody - priest or common man, has the right to question Jesus about anything, and anybody who does must do so from evil intent. Transferred paranoia. perhaps.
But I'll go with the flow for now and simply accept that if Jesus is God, normal rules don't apply. An innocent man may respond to his accusers in many different ways, from total silence. to outrage, to "I don't accept the jurisdiction of this court" - all of which can be (mis)interpreted as evidence of guilt. When you're in a situation which you can't win, who's to judge the victim? And in his shoes, who wouldn't trade insults with the oppressor?
quote:
20 Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple [[Not true, actually - unless the synoptic writers were lying], where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said."
Today is Palm Sunday? What happened to this event in John's narrative? I've had it explained to me some time ago, but I can't remember the reason.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't understand. You think Jesus should have traded insults with the high priest?
As for the confusion over high priests, that's easily explained. The office was supposed to be lifelong, but in Roman times it became a political football, a reward tossed from man to man for staying in the good graces of Rome. And also, likely, to keep them dependent on Roman power and insure nobody had sufficient time to "grow into the office" and become a natural focus point for rebellion. I've read (rightly or wrongly) that one way this was insured was by keeping the high priestly regalia (needed for the day of atonement) locked up under Roman control, and handing it back only when required. Certainly having a Roman fortress snugged up to the temple itself would have a dampening effect on any rebellious ideas a high priest might get.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
John makes the point that Caiaphas was High Priest “for that year”, which might reflect the time constrained element imposed from outside. Annas used to be High Priest and was apparently forced to give up that post by the Roman administrators when they took over direct control of Palestine / Israel. The Gospel writers probably reflect the confusion that remained as Annas retained the people's respect and a significant behind-the-scenes control over policy and operations. Luke especially refers to Annas and Caiaphas as both being High Priests. This approach is not unknown in subservient cultures – one can fulfil the rules of empire while still keeping the 'real' power going behind the scenes.
Even so, John records Caiaphas as being responsible for the “better one dies for the people” policy, whether or not Annas may have been the man behind the mouth.
In the back of my mind has been the interesting section by John back in chapter 1:19-26...
quote:
NET Version
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed—he did not deny but confessed—“I am not the Christ!” So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!” Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
John said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me...
I think the line of questioning used here against John the Baptist may well be similar to that used against Jesus at this trial. “Who are you?”
Equally interesting is the suggestion that Jesus may well have been among this crew from Jerusalem that came down to see John the Baptist. They question him, he responds directly to them and says “Among you stands one...” I tend to think that Jesus did grow up with time in the Temple, not just for the ritual and feasts, but for training. He did hit the ground with his feet running when his mission started; he knew the Scriptures and was good at interpretation, and he knew the approach the authorities would take when he was questioned during that mission. So now at this trial I think he would have understood what was going on and his responses were planned, designed to deflect the attack. It's as though he was forcing his interrogators out of any chance of a compromise.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
That's how it seems to me - though deflecting the attack and forcing a direct confrontation sounds contradictory - I probably misunderstood the exact nature of your point. But it all sounds like a very reasonable conjecture - given that, with only one side of the conversation at our disposal, conjecture is what it must remain.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
And a third point of view--it seems to me that most of what Jesus is doing before Caiaphas / Annas is standing on his rights only insofar as any ordinary innocent man might do in the same situation. Thus he refuses to testify about his activities because this will let them off having to bring in witnesses; he refuses to speak to what the witnesses disagree on, because again, this will let them off finding two or three AGREEING witnesses. He will not lift a finger to enable their kangaroo court proceeding; but neither will he appeal to his divine nature, rights or powers to avoid it. He's hewing to the exact letter of the law. And what's amazing is how far it gets him--the high priest has to finally charge him in God's name to speak (which I understand was illegal) in order to get any rule-able evidence at all. How infuriating it must have been for them all.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23 Jesus answered, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
[John 18.22-24]
Meanwhile, back outside by the brazier...
quote:
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
After which we expect some reaction from Peter, but John switches immediately to Jesus' continued interrogation. And there is something missing here, surely? Annas has sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, but what happens between Caiaphas and Jesus?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I assume more of the same, which is why John doesn't bother to record it.
This is all my mental image and probable total hooey, but the way I visualize this scene has Jesus showing up at the house of the high priest. Annas is present but Caiaphas is delayed for some reason or another (on the pot? who knows?) and Annas, though not OFFICIALLY the high priest at that moment, can't resist sticking his oar into his son-in-law's business, just for a bit, especially since he still holds much of the power and honor of the position, and nobody's going to stop him...
so he gets on with interrogating Jesus (in a very slovenly, shockingly unlawful manner) and manages to bollix things up pretty thoroughly before Caiaphas arrives on the scene, with the properly bribed witnesses to make it all look legal, and probably pretty pissed off to find Dad's been meddling ... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) And of course he can't say anything, because they have to stick together.
But of course, I could be entirely wrong.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John makes the point that Caiaphas was High Priest “for that year”, which might reflect the time constrained element imposed from outside.
I might be wrong, but I thought that Caiaphas was High Priest for some years. As has already been pointed out upthread, the Romans made this position a political football, hence the fact that whilst being High Priest should have been "for life", there were a number of ex-High Priests knocking around at the time.
My understanding is that Caiaphas seems to have been successful in keeping the Romans pleased, and hence remained in his position for some time.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Meanwhile, back outside by the brazier...
quote:
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
I find it interesting how the scene with Peter changes subtly from one gospel to another.
In Mark, Peter is the courtyard, sitting with the guards beside the fire. The servant girl twice accuses him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that he is a Galilean. Peter curses and denies knowing Jesus. The cock crows a second time, and Peter breaks down and weeps.
In Matthew, Peter is again in the courtyard (though there is no mention of a fire). This time, two different servant girls accuse him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that it is his accent which has betrayed him. The cock crows (only once), Peter leaves, weeping bitterly.
In Luke, it is very similar to Matthew, although there are elements of Mark (the fire is there and the explicit mention of his accent is missing).
In John, we have Peter being brought in by the other disciple (that's new). Again we have the first two questions, fairly similar to the other gospels. But then the final accusation is based not on his Galilean accent, but that he was seen in the garden of Gethsemane. More over, the one accusing him is a relative of the man whose ear he has cut off (again - only John makes this point).
What may also be interesting is that John doesn't mention anything about Peter being distraught when the cock crows. Again, perhaps he presumes that the readers will already know this. He also doesn't mention the bit about Peter curses and making oaths. All in all, it is far less dramatic scene than in the other gospels.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I assume more of the same, which is why John doesn't bother to record it.
This is all my mental image and probable total hooey, but the way I visualize this scene has Jesus showing up at the house of the high priest. Annas is present but Caiaphas is delayed for some reason or another (on the pot? who knows?) and Annas, though not OFFICIALLY the high priest at that moment, can't resist sticking his oar into his son-in-law's business, just for a bit, especially since he still holds much of the power and honor of the position, and nobody's going to stop him...
so he gets on with interrogating Jesus (in a very slovenly, shockingly unlawful manner) and manages to bollix things up pretty thoroughly before Caiaphas arrives on the scene, with the properly bribed witnesses to make it all look legal, and probably pretty pissed off to find Dad's been meddling ... And of course he can't say anything, because they have to stick together.
But of course, I could be entirely wrong.
You're talking about the "properly bribed witnesses" again. This must be mighty confusing to some people. We are supposed to be studying the fourth gospel here. If you are going to drag the synoptics in you ought to reference them, and say why they are relevant. You are regarded as a competent bible scholar after all - but not all your readers are!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Meanwhile, back outside by the brazier...
quote:
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
I find it interesting how the scene with Peter changes subtly from one gospel to another.
In Mark, Peter is the courtyard, sitting with the guards beside the fire. The servant girl twice accuses him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that he is a Galilean. Peter curses and denies knowing Jesus. The cock crows a second time, and Peter breaks down and weeps.
In Matthew, Peter is again in the courtyard (though there is no mention of a fire). This time, two different servant girls accuse him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that it is his accent which has betrayed him. The cock crows (only once), Peter leaves, weeping bitterly.
In Luke, it is very similar to Matthew, although there are elements of Mark (the fire is there and the explicit mention of his accent is missing).
In John, we have Peter being brought in by the other disciple (that's new). Again we have the first two questions, fairly similar to the other gospels. But then the final accusation is based not on his Galilean accent, but that he was seen in the garden of Gethsemane. More over, the one accusing him is a relative of the man whose ear he has cut off (again - only John makes this point).
What may also be interesting is that John doesn't mention anything about Peter being distraught when the cock crows. Again, perhaps he presumes that the readers will already know this. He also doesn't mention the bit about Peter curses and making oaths. All in all, it is far less dramatic scene than in the other gospels.
Thank you for taking the trouble I was too lazy to go to. The differences between the synoptic accounts and John are substantial and significant. The accounts neither "prove" their validity by the bits that agree, nor "disprove" anything on account of the apparent discrepancies. They are different views from different communities and individuals at different times, and they are all interesting.
As John himself states later on, you could fill a library with all the different accounts of the life and death of Jesus. We have probably lost a considerable number of insights due to the church's obsession with unity, sameness, orthodoxy.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
You're talking about the "properly bribed witnesses" again. This must be mighty confusing to some people. We are supposed to be studying the fourth gospel here. If you are going to drag the synoptics in you ought to reference them, and say why they are relevant. You are regarded as a competent bible scholar after all - but not all your readers are!
Pimple, remember--you don't get to decide that posts based on material from the synoptics is out of bounds here. We had a ruling on that, remember?
As for me being a competent Bible scholar, I told you before I'm a geek. I hold no theological degrees, I sit on no seminary faculty, and there's no reason anyone should take my posts for anything more than they are in themselves. And I did clearly mark that particular post as my general impression, written in response to a question about a historical vacuum (what did Caiaphas do?) and possibly just hooey as well.
Really, if you're going to require me to stick to John-and-only-John unless clearly signposted in every single post, I might as well quit the thread now. My mind is not that organized. It is a lost sock basket of data, impressions, quotations, and what-was-that-again? And there's no way with my current workload that I'm ever going to be able to comb the four gospels to determine which particular lost sock came from which Gospel every time I post.
Besides that, I trust the other people interested in this thread. They are not my students. They are adults capable of making their own judgments. They can totally ignore me if they like. They can ask questions if they want to know where I got random-concept-of-the-day from, and I will try to dig it up for them, if I have time.
Seriously, if I irritate you that much, call me to hell. It's a good week for it, as it gets harrowed this Saturday. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Absolutely nothing hellworthy here, AFAIS. I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't refer to the synoptics on this thread - I've done it myself, on several occasions. My beef was about including material which is exclusively synoptic in a comment on a passage in John, as though the two were inextricably intertwined. It doesn't irritate me, I just don't find it very helpful in getting to grips with what John's gospel is all about - it's difficult enough on its own.
I think the differences are both significant and interesting and I don't see any point in pretending they don't exist. I agree entirely that many of John's readers may have been acquainted with the earlier gospels. But why did John write his own if the former three were perfectly adequate and comprehensive. After Mark, all the other gospel writers leave stuff out and put stuff in, but the new testament wasn't written by a committee.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Back to the task in hand?
quote:
28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphus to Pilate's headquarters [Gk The praetorium]It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went out to meet them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" 30 The answered, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." 31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law." The Jews replied, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." 32 (This was to fulfil what Jesus had said when he had indicated the kind of death he was to die.)
[John 18.28-32]
Were the Jews prohibited from carrying out capital punishment? That doesn't seem to have been the case when the synoptics were written ("Let him who is without sin first cast a stone...") Could this, if it is true - and John is famous for getting his local facts right, I believe - this might be evidence of a later date for the writing of the fourth gospel.
Any helpful historians about?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Interesting question. I don't have an immediate answer here.
One answer off of the top of my head is that especially during Passover, the Romans were very twitchy about the possibility of uprisings. Allowing the Jewish authorities to summarily execute someone would not be a good idea. Stepping for a moment outside the purely Johannine account, it is clear in all the gospels that taking Jesus to Pilate was an essential step and seems to have been (from the view point of the Jewish authorities) a wise move. Getting the Romans onboard (as it were) would help to prevent any violent backlash.
I think it is also worth noting that John seems to go out of his way to emphasise that the Passover had NOT already happened:
They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Absolutely nothing hellworthy here, AFAIS. I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't refer to the synoptics on this thread - I've done it myself, on several occasions. My beef was about including material which is exclusively synoptic in a comment on a passage in John, as though the two were inextricably intertwined. It doesn't irritate me, I just don't find it very helpful in getting to grips with what John's gospel is all about - it's difficult enough on its own.
Look, if you don't find it helpful, just scroll by. You're obviously interested in John qua John, its differences from the other gospels, ways of deconstructing the text, and so on. That's fine. I am interested in John not so much as an author but because of what he reports about Jesus, and therefore I'm naturally going to add that to what I already know of Jesus from the Synoptics.
We can coexist, really, we can. But it'll be a lot more comfortable for the two of us if you'd be kind enough to stop calling me out every time you get a whiff of the Synoptics, simply because they are Synoptics. It's one thing to start a discussion because you're interested in something that grows out of some comment I (or someone else) made about John vs. the Synoptics; there's some meat to that. But if you're going to simply signpost every mention of Synoptic material along with a declaration that you personally dislike it and find it unhelpful, look, she's doing it again! (frantic pointing) well, that just gets frustrating.
Scroll on by, man. Scroll on by.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Picking up several things here:
On Caiaphas; I suppose it's possible that John's reference to a year could mean that Caiaphas was chief priest during the year John is talking about (and was chief priest during other years as well), it's just that John's wording seems more specific – he uses the same phrase a few times in respect of Caiaphas (11:49, 11:51, and 18:13): tou eniatou ekeivou [= τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου], which emphasises a single year as opposed to two, or three, etc. It reads more like “he was chief priest for that single year”. Josephus' account of the chief priests during the period starts off with a yearly change, but is not clear on whether Caiaphas was in power for longer than a year or was in and out more than once.
quote:
Antiquities of the Jews, chapter 2
Valerius Gratus...deprived Ananus [the Annas of the NT] of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor. ...
A while later, Josephus records,
quote:
Chapter 4
[Vitellius] deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him.
That might imply Caiaphas hung on for a few years, or because Josephus wanted to talk about other historical events, perhaps it was coincidence that Caiaphas was in office when Josephus gets back to Jerusalem in his narrative.
While on the subject of Josephus, in the same work he mentions the high priestly garments:
quote:
Chapter 4
Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia... [T]he Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him.
On the capital punishment point, there isn't a clear reference in records to the Romans imposing a law on the Jews preventing them from carrying out an execution – and the mention of stonings here and there suggest that the Jews had the power. What the gospels seem keen to point out, though, is that the case of Jesus was being presented as a political act threatening imperial peace, rather than a strictly religious affair limited to the confines of Judaism. Jesus had to be seen to be executed by Rome, for the sake of the Jewish nation. The Jewish authorities had to get Rome to accept that Jesus was a pretender, in effect, to Roman rule (perhaps even a threat to Causer’s rule?).
I don't suppose it's a coincidence that we are approaching the crucifixion on Good Friday, so I'll nudge it on a bit...
quote:
[b]John 18:33-40
So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”
Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”
Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate asked, “What is truth?” When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)
Given the politically charged atmosphere, the irony over Barabbas is heavy.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
It is noticeable that Jesus is much more verbal here than in the other gospels, especially Mark.
But it is also worth noticing some of the similarities between John and the Synoptics. First of all, there is Pilate's repeated insistence that "I find no basis for an accusation against him". And secondly, there is this reference to the custom of Pilate to release someone (only Luke omits this and makes the crowd suggest it to Pilate).
With reference to this custom - do we have any external confirmation of it? WAS it Pilate's custom?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just a quick note re stoning--given the nature of the activity, and where it usually took place, it would be fairly easy for leaders to argue that it was simple mob violence and none of their concern. Crucifixion or beheading, not so much.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. 3 They kept coming up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and striking him on the face. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him." 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them "Here is the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no case against him." 7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God."
[John 19.1-7]
[ 03. April 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Pilate comes across as the reluctant one left with the hot potato, but it was his order in the end which set the torture and death of Jesus in motion. Was he less responsible for the crucifixion than the chief priests?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Pilate isn't just reluctant - he's terrified:
quote:
8 Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. 9 He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you? 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin."
Which seems to answer your query as to where the greater responsibility lay. Pilate now tries to avoid crucifying Jesus - but not, in this account anyway, from any sense of justice but from cowardice. "Even more afraid than ever, we heard, but John doesn't say anything about him being afraid before, so it's reasonable to assume that for John's readers, Pilate already had a reputation for cowardice as well as cruelty.
Unless the point is that
anyone put in the position of having to face the Son of God and pass judgment on him would de facto be shitting himself.
quote:
12 From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor."
[ 03. April 2015, 19:22: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I guess that Pilate was pushed into a corner - he realised he had to act when the Jewish authorities charged Jesus with using the "Son of God" title - something that was being used of some members of the Caesar family (Julius and Augustus, for example). Cunning ploy by the Jerusalem faction!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat [or seated him] on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew [that is, Aramaic], Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!" 15 They cried out "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate asked them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor." 16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
Handed him over to whom? His own soldiers presumably, not the chief priests. But you can see, can't you, why for so long , today, Good Friday, was the traditional time for Jew-baiting by pious Christians dazed from fasting and with a limited understanding of the scriptures.
[ 03. April 2015, 22:22: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I find John's treatment of Pilate actually quite sympathetic – and the more I read John's approach to the trial, the more the political element comes out. John had made it clear in his introduction that one of his themes was going to be the rejection of Jesus by 'his own.' By chapter 10 John has drawn the red lines over interpretation of God's will and work for the world. What takes things up a level is how the Jerusalem authorities (the 'Jews') respond; they appear to have lost the battle over interpretation and ownership of the scriptures, and conclude that they cannot deal with Jesus according to those scriptures, so have to manipulate their political overlords, the Romans, into getting rid of him.
John notes the excuse the authorities settled on for getting rid of Jesus:
Caiaphas - “Consider this: it's better for one man to die [for the people] than for the entire nation to be destroyed” (11:50, 18:14).
The authorities know that the Romans would not sanction hearing a case that involved just their own religious issues (and John makes his audience aware of this fact in 18:31 - Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!”).
The authorities had clearly thought through what they needed to do. They brought a charge that the Roman overlords would understand: in effect, treason. Jesus had made political claims in opposition to the Caesar family. He (Jesus) was claiming to be God's only authorised representative on earth. For Pilate the immediate issue was whether this was a challenge to Rome's perceived right to impose rulers over the Jewish nation. He is not convinced.
With all this going on, I wonder whether John is doing something daring with his plot. When Pilate takes to his Judge's Seat,* I don't think it is background material (annoyingly called 'parenthetical notes by the author' in the NET Bible) when John equates 'Stone Pavement' to its Aramaic equivalent in 19:13 (Gabbatha). Personally I think these notes are not background – they are a deliberate foregrounding of material designed to highlight something of importance in the text. If so, then it may be possible that John intended his audience to do what Paul did in his letters where he refers to the Judgement Seat of God / Christ (e.g., Rom. 14:10, 2 Cor. 5:10) and draws on the likes of Isa. 45:23...
quote:
By myself I make this oath — what I say is true and cannot be rescinded.
Surely every knee will bow to me, every tongue will swear allegiance.
Similarly, although the relevance of the word Gabbatha in the verse is debated, its etymology suggests the idea of 'elevation', which is what was going to happen to Jesus. I like the idea that John might have been doing this deliberately.
John's masterpiece, though, is the record of how Pilate's mocking of the Jewish authorities causes them to do what their Law expressly forbids them to do – upon pain of death – swearing allegiance to the Caesar dynasty rather than to God.
Job done, eh?
* There is an alternative reading here – that Pilate had Jesus sit on the Seat. This is a nice idea; it fits with the mock presentation of Jesus as King earlier and now with Pilate presenting Jesus to the crowd, “Look! Your King!”
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, very neat. I didn't know that phrase "every knee shall bow" came from there. And I did wonder if the Stone Pavement might be an allusion to Christ as a corner-stone.
Well, today, Jesus, as Lamb Chopped says, is harrowing hell - whatever that means. I don't think we're going to get to the resurrection before tomorrow morning, but we have to eat our bread and butter first, so we may as well get on with it:
quote:
So they took Jesus; 17 and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew [Aramaic] is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him and with two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth [or the Nazorean], the King of the Jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write
'The King of the Jews', but, 'This man said, I am the King of the Jews.'" 22 Pilate answered them, "What I have written, I have written." 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one foe each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. 24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it." This was to fulfil what the scripture says,
"They divided my clothes among
themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots."
25 And that is what the soldiers did.
[John 19.16b-25b]
Standard first century exegesis of the OT?
[Scrolling on!]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We're in a race against death! Let's see if we can't beat the old Skull. I'm sure we will have time – years, in fact, if not even eternity – to go back over the no doubt plenteous material we've moved over in the race.
In fact, we could write books on the little sections of John's work showing how he takes his audience on the journey. Here's a title for the section we're in – From Gabbatha to Gologtha: Jesus' route from height to height.
Pilate's stand over the notice he ordered to be placed on the cross suggests to me at any rate that this was in fact his court judgement – what he had formally concluded at the end of the trial. Not something that he could easily rescind or amend.
The NT use of the OT is a fascinating subject. For those who don't get out much, I mean. It keeps me indoors for hours and hours. As the scripture says, “There is a time for everything” and “Sluggards do not plough in season.” Elsewhere the Law says “Do not plough with an ox and a donkey yoked together” and in a place the prophet says “A wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving – in her heat who can restrain her?”
Mind you, I have to admit that I've heard a wide and wild range of exegetical approaches in a wide and wild range of churches!
The quotation in John comes from Ps 22:18. The full Psalm is a bit of a long one, link here.
I tend to see these quotes in the NT as a device for opening up the whole section they come from, in this case the whole of Ps 22. Taken that way, it's interesting that the opening is also used in connection with the crucifixion: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Should have pushed on...
quote:
John 19:25-27
Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
Something peculiarly Johannine.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Startling. Beguiling. If all the disciples scarpered, who saw the group at the cross, including (apparently) the only disciple who had the courage, or the compunction, to watch the crucifixion? Or something else. It has prompted libraries full of conjecture. It has been cited as evidence for Mary Magdalene being the Beloved Disciple, for instance. Not one of the most likely candidates, in my own view.
But my own, very, very subjective view is less orthodox than that. Here we have the disciple whom Jesus loved, who is often in the company of Peter. But not here. No other disciples, apart from the women. Has he left their company in order to be with his friend - or has he left them because doesn't feel comfortable in their company? He goes fishing with Peter later, of course, but here he is visiting his friend, lord, and master on his own.
I am increasingly coming to the belief that the disciple whom Jesus loved to death may have been one the other disciples had far more negative feelings about. And I don't mean Judas - though that possibility did occur to me somewhere along the way. Right, that's my baggage out of the way. Returning to our sheep:
quote:
28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scriptures)"I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Thank you, Nigel, for reading my mind. I'm sure we're going to get there!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
As if it's not enough to beat someone up, flog him, mock him, stick thorns in his head and nail him to a cross leaving him there to dry out until he dies, just as he's about to depart from this world you shove a sponge of sour vinegar into his face, using a pungent hyssop branch, commonly used for cleaning purposes.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Consciously or not, all this feels as though John is still in the world of Psalm 22:
quote:
I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads. ...
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
Not sure if the concern for his mother was prompted by another bit of that Psalm:
quote:
Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Then John broadens the world out with details associated with the treatment of the Passover lamb and the need for cleansing, apposite given the proximity of hyssop:
quote:
John 19:31-37
Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken and the bodies taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately. And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe. For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” And again another scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”
That last quote from a passage in Zech 12-13...
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child … On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
