Dating gJohn & John 5:2

[ficino]

City probably not an eruv! Or at least, the eruv issue may be of no value for establishing where the Bethesda Pool was located.

A friend called my attention to this series by Lawrence Schiffman about "sectarian" views of the institution of eruv in the Second Temple period.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/eruv-and-s ... roduction/

To make a long story short, Schiffman concludes that the Sadducean-Zadokite tradition, including the Samaritans and other groups as well, did not have the institution of the eruv. They basically just prohibited carrying things on the sabbath. He also hesitates to suppose that the pharisaical tradition, from which "rabbinic Judaism" evolved, had developed the institution of eruv by the early 1st century. And he has nothing on the walls of Jerusalem constituting an eruv.

I got the idea that they did constitute an eruv from the two articles from 1905 and 1907, written by Protestants, that I cited earlier.

At this point in my knowledge, I can't establish that it matters for the Bethesda Pool story whether the pool was inside or outside of the walls. If nobody regarded an eruv as permissable, or if nobody had thought of the idea, then "the Jews" of the story would have been offended by the carrying of the pallet on the sabbath, no matter where the pool was located. Or, if only some Jews regarded eruvim as valid, "the Jews" of the story who object to carrying the pallet can well have been Sadducees or allied with them.

This leaves me with only one, not two, cavils against identifying the pool dug up near St. Anne's as Bethesda. My remaining cavil is that the water appears to have come from cisterns/reservoirs and not from an intermittent spring. Therefore, it is hard to explain why its water would have moved at intervals in a way mysterious to the inhabitants.

The clear prohibition of carrying things from the public domain to one's private dwelling on the sabbath, found in prophetic and other texts cited by Schiffman as well as deduced from Exodus, makes all the more radical Jesus' command to the paralytic to take up his pallet and walk. Jesus is portrayed as very explicitly and intentionally telling the man to break the law. This law is not mere tradition of men but is derived from scripture. The evangelist pulls no punches!

[maryhelena]

City probably not an eruv! Or at least, the eruv issue may be of no value for establishing where the Bethesda Pool was located.

A friend called my attention to this series by Lawrence Schiffman about "sectarian" views of the institution of eruv in the Second Temple period.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/eruv-and-s ... roduction/

To make a long story short, Schiffman concludes that the Sadducean-Zadokite tradition, including the Samaritans and other groups as well, did not have the institution of the eruv. They basically just prohibited carrying things on the sabbath. He also hesitates to suppose that the pharisaical tradition, from which "rabbinic Judaism" evolved, had developed the institution of eruv by the early 1st century. And he has nothing on the walls of Jerusalem constituting an eruv.

I got the idea that they did constitute an eruv from the two articles from 1905 and 1907, written by Protestants, that I cited earlier.

At this point in my knowledge, I can't establish that it matters for the Bethesda Pool story whether the pool was inside or outside of the walls. If nobody regarded an eruv as permissable, or if nobody had thought of the idea, then "the Jews" of the story would have been offended by the carrying of the pallet on the sabbath, no matter where the pool was located. Or, if only some Jews regarded eruvim as valid, "the Jews" of the story who object to carrying the pallet can well have been Sadducees or allied with them.

This leaves me with only one, not two, cavils against identifying the pool dug up near St. Anne's as Bethesda. My remaining cavil is that the water appears to have come from cisterns/reservoirs and not from an intermittent spring. Therefore, it is hard to explain why its water would have moved at intervals in a way mysterious to the inhabitants.

The clear prohibition of carrying things from the public domain to one's private dwelling on the sabbath, found in prophetic and other texts cited by Schiffman as well as deduced from Exodus, makes all the more radical Jesus' command to the paralytic to take up his pallet and walk. Jesus is portrayed as very explicitly and intentionally telling the man to break the law. This law is not mere tradition of men but is derived from scripture. The evangelist pulls no punches!

Interesting, Thanks....

Ah - so it's all about that stirred water - living water - and the breaking of the law.

OK - below is a story from Josephus about living water and breaking the law.

• 7. Now this lake of Gennesareth is so called from the country adjoining to it. Its breadth is forty furlongs, and its length one hundred and forty; its waters are sweet, and very agreeable for drinking, for they are finer than the thick waters of other fens; the lake is also pure, and on every side ends directly at the shores, and at the sand; it is also of a temperate nature when you draw it up, and of a more gentle nature than river or fountain water, and yet always cooler than one could expect in so diffuse a place as this is. Now when this water is kept in the open air, it is as cold as that snow which the country people are accustomed to make by night in summer. There are several kinds of fish in it, different both to the taste and the sight from those elsewhere. It is divided into two parts by the river Jordan. Now Panium is thought to be the fountain of Jordan, but in reality it is carried thither after an occult manner from the place called Phiala: this place lies as you go up to Trachonitis, and is a hundred and twenty furlongs from Cesarea, and is not far out of the road on the right hand; and indeed it hath its name of Phiala [vial or bowl] very justly, from the roundness of its circumference, as being round like a wheel; its water continues always up to its edges, without either sinking or running over. And as this origin of Jordan was formerly not known, it was discovered so to be when Philip was tetrarch of Trachonitis; for he had chaff thrown into Phiala, and it was found at Paninto, where the ancients thought the fountain-head of the river was, whither it had been therefore carried [by the waters]. As for Panium itself, its natural beauty had been improved by the royal liberality of Agrippa, and adorned at his expenses. Now Jordan's visible stream arises from this cavern, and divides the marshes and fens of the lake Semechonitis; when it hath run another hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes by the city Julias, and then passes through the middle of the lake Gennesareth; after which it runs a long way over a desert, and then makes its exit into the lake Asphaltitis.
  
  8. The country also that lies over against this lake hath the same name of Gennesareth; its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men's expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year; for besides the good temperature of the air, "it is also watered from a most fertile fountain. The people of the country call it Capharnaum. Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria. The length of this country extends itself along the banks of this lake that bears the same name for thirty furlongs, and is in breadth twenty, And this is the nature of that place.
  
  Josephus War book 3. ch.10 published around 74/75 ce

“The Jordan’s course from Banias, through the swamps of the Huleh (Semechonitis),into the Sea of Galilee (Gennesarat) and finally the Dead Sea (Asphaltitis), is of course accurately traced. But it is geologically impossible for water to run from the Phiale (now called Birkat Ram) to Banias. Nevertheless, Josephus says that Philip, whom he calls ‘tetrarch of Trachonitis’, himself made this gravity-defying discovery by means of a scientific experiment.The king ‘had chaff thrown into the pool of Phiale and found it cast up at Panion’. Since this result is physically impossible, given the geological relationship of the two sites, we can only speculate that Philip’s assistants in this experiment, eager to please, manipulated the evidence to match the king’s theory".

CAESAREA PHILIPPI: BANIAS, THE LOST CITY OF PAN: John Francis Wilson

-------------------------------
Water and fountains and wonderful beauty in nature, soil that is fruitful and palm trees and fig and olive trees - this place is the ambition of nature - plants that are natural enemies agree together, a happy contention of the seasons, supplies fruit beyond men’s expectation...Are we not seeing here a vision of Camelot, of Arcadia?

A place of living water where 'miracles' happen... life in abundance and 'chaff' that goes upstream against the laws of nature.....

Camelot!

Taking Josephus at his word, that he was not unfamiliar with the prophets etc and had visions and could interpreted them - is he not here dealing with an abstract ideal rather than the geography of the region? Is not gJohn 5.2 dealing with abstract gospel ideas re Sheep's Gate, stirred water, miracles at Bethsada. A place name that sounds similar to Bethsaida - a place that was renamed as Bethsaida Julias. Josephus, re the above quote, stating that: ' Jordan's visible stream arises from this cavern, and divides the marshes and fens of the lake Semechonitis; when it hath run another hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes by the city Julias,'.

[ficino]

Taking Josephus at his word, that he was not unfamiliar with the prophets etc and had visions and could interpreted them - is he not here dealing with an abstract ideal rather than the geography of the region? Is not gJohn 5.2 dealing with abstract gospel ideas re Sheep's Gate, stirred water, miracles at Bethsada. A place name that sounds similar to Bethsaida - a place that was renamed as Bethsaida Julias. Josephus, re the above quote, stating that: ' Jordan's visible stream arises from this cavern, and divides the marshes and fens of the lake Semechonitis; when it hath run another hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes by the city Julias,'.

Oh no, now you too, maryhelena?! You too are now in the "Jesus was really Julius Caesar" camp?

[maryhelena]

Taking Josephus at his word, that he was not unfamiliar with the prophets etc and had visions and could interpreted them - is he not here dealing with an abstract ideal rather than the geography of the region? Is not gJohn 5.2 dealing with abstract gospel ideas re Sheep's Gate, stirred water, miracles at Bethsada. A place name that sounds similar to Bethsaida - a place that was renamed as Bethsaida Julias. Josephus, re the above quote, stating that: ' Jordan's visible stream arises from this cavern, and divides the marshes and fens of the lake Semechonitis; when it hath run another hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes by the city Julias,'.

Oh no, now you too, maryhelena?! You too are now in the "Jesus was really Julius Caesar" camp?

Haha.....

The only camp I'm in is the historical camp - a camp that requires that one take on board the writer by the name of Josephus. I'm not after Julius Caesar - I'm after Josephus - and have been for a long time.....It's Josephus, as I've said many many times, that is the roadblock to early christian history.....unwelcome as that situation might well be for anyone wanting to find early christian history by interpretation of the gospel story or arguing interpolations in Paul.....

---

For what it's worth.....

Titre du document / Document title

The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch

Auteur(s) / Author(s)

KOKKINOS Nikos (1) ;

Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)

(1) University College London, ROYAUME-UNI

Résumé / Abstract

Josephus (Ant. 18.27) explicitly names Julia 'the daughter' of Augustus, distinguished from Livia/Julia 'the wife', as the person to whom the town of Bethsaida was dedicated. This must have taken place by 2 BCE when Julia was banished, denounced for multiple adulteries. The numismatist A. Kindler suggested that Josephus may be wrong and that Livia/Julia the wife would lie behind this dedication dated to 30/31 CE. Following Kindler, the archaeologists and theologians currently operating at etTell-identified by them as the site of Bethsaida-Julias-have produced many papers accusing Josephus of error. Reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the original suggestion should have never been made. By taking this opportunity, a problem of wider significance is underlined: the difference between the titles 'Augusta' and 'Sebaste' in west and east. Many documents attributed a priori to Livia, based only on the presence of her adopted name, could belong to Julia.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20769141

[Charles Wilson]

Before this Thread sinks slowly into the sunset, I feel obligated to Post on the Time Marker that is mentioned in the passage:

John 5: 5 (RSV):

[5] One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years.

"Thirty eight years..." is a Time Marker and adds proof to the Thesis that the Original Document was a Story of the Hasmoneans. The obvious question is "38 years from what date?" You can play around with subtraction from a variety of dates but the one that works correctly is "from 8/9 CE". Why?

The "Old Man by the Pool" is Hyrcanus who was a King and High Priest and was lured back to Jersualem by Herod. He was killed by Herod in 30 BCE. Herod made the High Priest a political, appointed position. Hyrcanus was Hasmonean. Herod is recorded in the NT as killing all of the Lineal Kings of the Hasmonean Line and it is possible to find their listings and deaths in the NT.

Why 8/9 BCE? The Original Story was a Story of Peter, who came from the Mishmarot Group "Immer", from "Upper Galilee". He saves a a Priest in 4 BCE, only to see him crucified in 9 CE. The Political Movement is nearly dead but Jairus convinces the Priest to mount one last Call to Glory. "Immer", the "Lamb" (a written word play), is on Duty for Passover in 4 BCE and also 9 CE. Unable to understand how God would not stand with the Priests at the Passover Slaughter in 4 BCE, the remnant constructs a reason, that God is preparing them for the final Call, in 12 years when Immer is on Duty again at Passover. See: "The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood". They are intercepted and crucified, probably at Caesarea. It is a very bitter Story.

Nonetheless, the dating is specific.

CW

[arnoldo]

. . . The clear prohibition of carrying things from the public domain to one's private dwelling on the sabbath . .

Apparently this prohibition wasn't entirely clear since it was open to interpretation what was or was not considered a load.

Tracing the Threads of Jewish Law: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition from Jeremiah to the Rabbis

[ficino]

Fascinating, thanks for linking this, arnoldo. How did you find it?

The author presents a lot of the same texts as Schiffman, but I find his presentation clearer.

Perhaps important for the question, where was the Pool of Bethesda, is the Jeremiah prohibition against carrying goods through the gates of Jerusalem into the city on the Sabbath. That is probably where Paton and Masterman a century ago got their conviction that the pool had to have been located outside the walls. I'm guessing, because neither man goes into detail about why the gates/walls are relevant.

I don't know if we'll ever get enough info to be clear on what Jesus' attitude toward the prohibition of carrying is supposed to be. I.e. whether he is portrayed as thinking it only applies to commercial goods, or what.

There is some stuff in the Jewish Encyclopedia on this passage:

"In John v. 2 et seq. the taking up of the bed would constitute the violation. But possibly "bed" here is a misreading for staff ("miṭṭah" instead of "maṭṭeh"). A "lame" person may carry his crutch or staff (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 301). If, moreover, the reading "bed" must be retained, for which there is a strong presumption, another explanation may be advanced. "Take up thy bed" may be a misapprehension of the Aramaic "ṭol we-ẓe," the well-known formula for bidding one depart, "ṭol" being construed as "pick up" (naturally, therefore, "thy couch"), when in reality it means "pick thyself up," or "walk away." Jesus' saying that the "Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark ii. 27) is a free translation of the Mekilta's comment on Ex. xxxi. 13—"The Sabbath is given over unto you, you are not delivered unto the Sabbath."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... 62-sabbath

Whatever the halakhic ruling on carrying mats on the Sabbath by this or that authority, however, it seems clear that the evangelist intends Jesus' command to violate sabbath law on carrying:

"But he had an answer for them:
'My Father is at work until now, and I am at work as well.'
The reason why the Jews were even more determined to kill him was that he not only was breaking the sabbath but, worse still, was speaking of God as his own Father, thereby making himself God's equal." John 5:17-18

Jesus is portrayed as claiming he is working on the sabbath, and the narrator says that he broke the sabbath.

[arnoldo]

Jesus is portrayed as claiming he is working on the sabbath, and the narrator says that he broke the sabbath.

I like the following rhetorical question concerning the breaking of the sabbath. . .

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

[maryhelena]

Dating gJohn pre 70 c.e. can be considered on the basis that it does not include the Herodias/Antipas/Philip/Salome story. That story being an inappropriate story to have included in a gospel story pre 70 c.e. Salome living, re Wikipedia, to somewhere between 62 and 71 c.e. (Salome being Queen of Chalcis).

The gJohn story is post 30 c.e. That is the year, re the 34 year coin of Philip the Tetrarch, in which he is called 'Founder'. Josephus saying:

Philip also built up Paneas at the source of the Jordan, calling it Caesarea, and made a city of the village of Bethsaida. Ant. book 18 ch.2

gJohn speaks of Bethsaida as a city. Thus, its Jesus story is dated post 30 c.e. (the date generally given by historians for Philip's 34th year).

Josephus is ambiguous re dating Pilate. Dating from 19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. are within a possible time-frame.

Where then to place a gJohn crucifixion story?

gJohn contains a statement that says JC is not yet 50 years old.

The last date for a Pilate crucifixion story is around 36/37 c.e. Running 49 years back and one gets to around 13/12 b.c. for a birth narrative for the gJohn JC.

Thus:

gMark has a crucifixion story prior to 30 c.e. A story that links to the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story in the Acts of Pilate (Eusebius) and links the gMark story with the birth narrative in the 15th year of Herod I. The JC figure being around 46 or 43 years old. (depending on Herod's rule counted from either 40 or 37 b.c.)

gJohn has a crucifixion story post 30 c.e. That story says the JC figure is not yet 50 years old. That gives a crucifixion story in 36/37 c.e. and a birth narrative around 13/12 b.c. - the last dating for Pilate. Thus, gJohn has moved away from the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus.

gMatthew, with it's mention of Archelaus and JC a young child, has moved the JC birth narrative to late in the rule of Herod I, generally assumed to be around 4 b.c. (Archelaus could be a late addition which would also then place the gMatthew birth narrative early in the rule of Herod I - particularly re the mention of the slaughter of innocents).

gLuke's birth narrative is ambiguous - either 1 b.c. or 6 c.e. The gLuke crucifixion story can be either around 30 c.e. or as late as 36/37 c.e.

Whatever the dating that can be discerned from gospel manuscripts - that dating cannot change the thrust of the gospel story. A story with numerous birth and crucifixion dates. JC is a literary creation; a literary creation able to reflect the developing gospel story - but also to reflect the developing historical context - a context that is the backbone to the gospel story. As history moves along - so too does the JC of the gospel story. A historical 'marker' if you will - able to be put down within any specific historical setting the gospel writers deemed relevant.

---

Historicists attempt to add up all the possible gospel dates for the birth and crucifixion to get one date for their assumed historical Jesus. What that approach does is to deny each gospel it's place in the Jesus story. On issues of birth narrative and crucifixion dating each gospel should be allowed to tell it's own story. If that is done then arguments re historicity of Jesus become devoid of any relevance for a search for early christian origins.

[arnoldo]

Historicists attempt to add up all the possible gospel dates for the birth and crucifixion to get one date for their assumed historical Jesus. What that approach does is to deny each gospel it's place in the Jesus story. On issues of birth narrative and crucifixion dating each gospel should be allowed to tell it's own story. If that is done then arguments re historicity of Jesus become devoid of any relevance for a search for early christian origins.

What of Marcion's gospel which allegedly had no birth narrative?

Chapter II. ----Marcion, Who Would Blot Out the Record of Christ's Nativity, is Rebuked for So Startling a Heresy.

[1] Clearly enough is the nativity announced by Gabriel.9 But what has he to do with the Creator's angel?10 The conception in the virgin's womb is also set plainly before us. But what concern has he with the Creator's prophet, Isaiah?11 He12 will not brook delay, since suddenly (without any prophetic announcement) did he bring down Christ from heaven.13 "Away," says he, "with that eternal plaguey taxing of Caesar, and the scanty inn, and the squalid swaddling-clothes, and the hard stable.14 We do not care a jot for15 that multitude of the heavenly host which praised their Lord at night.16 Let the shepherds take better care of their flock,17 and let the wise men spare their legs so long a journey;18 let them keep their gold to themselves.19 [2] Let Herod, too, mend his manners, so that Jeremy may not glory over him.20 Spare also the babe from circumcision, that he may escape the pain thereof; nor let him be brought into the temple, lest he burden his parents with the expense of the offering;21 nor let him be handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of death.22 Let that old woman also hold her tongue, lest she should bewitch the child."23 After such a fashion as this, I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. [3] But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles,24 side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us: if, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have the best reason to say) cease to live.25 [4] For indeed you are already dead, since you are no Christian, because you do not believe that which by being believed makes men Christian,----nay, you are the more dead, the more you are not a Christian; having fallen away, after you had been one, by rejecting26 what you formerly believed, even as you yourself acknowledge in a certain letter of yours, and as your followers do not deny, whilst our (brethren) can prove it.27 [5] Rejecting, therefore, what you once believed, you have completed the act of rejection, by now no longer believing: the fact, however, of your having ceased to believe has not made your rejection of the faith right and proper; nay, rather,28 by your act of rejection you prove that what you believed previous to the said act was of a different character.29 What you believed to be of a different character, had been handed down just as you believed it. Now30 that which had been handed down was true, inasmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down. Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you rejected that which was true. You had no authority for what you did. [6] However, we have already in another treatise availed ourselves more fully of these prescriptive rules against all heresies. Our repetition of them hereafter that large (treatise) is superfluous,31 when we ask the reason why you have formed the opinion that Christ was not born.