Dating gJohn & John 5:2

[ficino]

The issue of the eruv can't be overlooked. To the best of my knowledge, carrying a pallet on the sabbath would not have been unlawful inside the city walls. So that also seems to rule out the pool at St. Anne's.

Perhaps some day an excavation will be done near the Gihon Spring and will unearth a large pool with five porticoes.

But the story does smell of a literary creation. Is there a standard topos of "the unfortunate person who was left at a [sacred] spot for years and years?" I think of Herodotus' account of the women of Babylon, who had to sit in the temple of the goddess until someone picked them for a wife. The pretty ones were snapped up, while the homely ones waited for years...

From an inerrantist point of view, perhaps one could imagine that the paralytic was a professional beggar, whose aim was really not to get into the water to be healed but just to beg. And that's why he doesn't act grateful when Jesus heals him, but rats on Jesus to "the Jews." Jesus shut down his racket. But still, the situation seems implausible, and ulterior motives are not part of the gospel presentation of the paralytic. Why was he so inept that he couldn't teeter on the edge of the pool and at least ONE TIME manage to fall in before anyone else? 38 years - holy fuck.

[maryhelena]

There is almost no way in my view that Gospel of John was completed prior to the synoptic tradition -

When gJohn was 'completed' is not the issue here. It is it's early dating that is being proposed.

at least not Mark and Q and/or Matthew (I'm open to the idea that the version of Luke we have now is possibly a little later).

I would put gLuke as the last of the gospels.

Gospel of John seems to be responding to claims made in the synoptic tradition - e.g. trying to tone down the claim that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy by having JtBaptist himself deny the charge,

Criterion of Embarrassment?? Hardly, the Elijah story develops into a full blown prophetic fullfillment....

gJohn = John the Baptist denies being Elijah.
gMark = JC identified John the Baptist as being Elijah - after death of JtB re the Herodias story.
gMatthew = JC identifies John the Baptist as being Elijah - while John the Baptist in prison; prior to the Herodias story.
gLuke = identifies John the Baptist as being Elijah from his birth...

having Jesus declare that he wouldn't ask to have his hour removed from him (as he does in the synoptic Gethsemane pericopes),

gJohn has "Father, the hour has come;......."It is finished."

gMark has "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want." ......."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gMatthew has "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.........."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gLuke has "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done."......"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

So, the gJohn writer found all this 'remove the cup' talk embarrassing so he cut it out and had the Lamb of God go willingly to the slaughter? Has not this Criterion of Embarrassment been ditched by serious NT scholars?

A more logical reason is that the synoptics were simply spinning a different take on the crucifixion story - as is indicated by their shifting the date from Nisan 14 to Nisan 15...

plus having Jesus be crucified the same time the lambs are slaughtered for Passover

Nisan 14 is a far more historically viable dating for the crucifixion story than Nisan 15....

as well as placing the 'storming of the Temple' scene early all make much more sense as later theological changes (rather than changes in the opposite direction).

Storyline development runs forward - the later Temple scene in the synoptics has moved the story forward - to late in the story.

Could the Gospel of John contain some traditions that are earlier? Sure. But so could the Gospel of Peter and Thomas. In the end though, the bulk of the directional influence seems to be: synoptics -> John, rather than the other way around.

Indeed, all gospels probably contain early traditions of one sort or another. The biggest argument, to my mind, that the NT story runs from gJohn is the lack of the John the Baptist/Herodias, Salome, Herod and Philip story. With this synoptic story one is dealing with historical figures (minus JtB...) It would not have been practical to run this story prior to 70 c.e. i.e. making claims against important historical figures would be asking for trouble....According to Wikipedia, Salome, daughter of Herodias, died between 62 - 71 c.e. Whatever the merits of the John the Baptist/Herodias, Salome, Herod and Philip story re symbolism etc - far safer to run it post 70 c.e. - as the synoptics have. (Salome marrying Aristobulus and becoming Queen of Chalcis).


Coin of Salome (daughter of Herodias), queen of Chalcis and Armenia Minor.



Salome

[toejam]

Criterion of Embarrassment?? Hardly, the Elijah story develops into a full blown prophetic fullfillment....

But the prophecy isn't fulfilled though. See Malachi 3:1 and 4:5. God's great cleansing should be imminent upon Elijah's return. gMark and gMatthew clearly have Jesus state that John has fulfilled the Elijah prophecy. Of the canonical gospels, gMark and gMatthew contain the most imminent apocalyptic material (see gMark 13 and gMatthew 24 etc.). gLuke and gJohn are toning this down - John the Baptist is "in the spirit of" Elijah in gLuke, and gJohn has the baptist himself deny the charge altogether. Why? Because it was becoming increasingly obvious that the imminent apocalypse wasn't so imminent after all. Look at the way gJohn also tries to tone down what was believed about the Beloved Disciple in chapter 21:20-23. This suggests that gMark and gMatthew are earlier. In gJohn, his community is settling in for the long haul.

gJohn has "Father, the hour has come;......."It is finished."

gMark has "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want." ......."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gMatthew has "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.........."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gLuke has "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done."......"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

So, the gJohn writer found all this 'remove the cup' talk embarrassing so he cut it out and had the Lamb of God go willingly to the slaughter? Has not this Criterion of Embarrassment been ditched by serious NT scholars?

Get the quotes right:

Mark 14:35 v. John 12:27-28

Mark 14:35
"And going a little farther, [Jesus] threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him"

John 12:27
[Jesus]: “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.”

Seems to me that the author of the gJohn passage is aware of the synoptic tradition and is trying to deny it. "No! That's not what happened! Jesus would never ask for his hour to pass from him!"

A more logical reason is that the synoptics were simply spinning a different take on the crucifixion story - as is indicated by their shifting the date from Nisan 14 to Nisan 15...

Possible, but seems less likely to me than the other way around. Having Jesus crucified the same time as the lambs is a great poetic theological ploy. Makes less sense for the synoptics to change that to something less poetic.

[maryhelena]

Criterion of Embarrassment?? Hardly, the Elijah story develops into a full blown prophetic fullfillment....

But the prophecy isn't fulfilled though. See Malachi 3:1 and 4:5. God's great cleansing should be imminent upon Elijah's return. gMark and gMatthew clearly have Jesus state that John has fulfilled the Elijah prophecy. Of the canonical gospels, gMark and gMatthew contain the most imminent apocalyptic material (see gMark 13 and gMatthew 24 etc.). gLuke and gJohn, the later gospels are toning this down - John the Baptist is "in the spirit of" Elijah in gLuke, and gJohn has the baptist him deny the charge altogether. Why? Because it was becoming increasingly obvious that the imminent apocalypse wasn't so imminent after all. Look at the way gJohn also tries to tone down what was believed about the Beloved Disciple in chapter 21:20-23. This suggests that gMark and gMatthew are earlier. In gJohn, his community is settling in for the long haul.

gJohn has "Father, the hour has come;......."It is finished."

gMark has "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want." ......."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gMatthew has "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.........."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

gLuke has "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done."......"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

So, the gJohn writer found all this 'remove the cup' talk embarrassing so he cut it out and had the Lamb of God go willingly to the slaughter? Has not this Criterion of Embarrassment been ditched by serious NT scholars?

Get the quotes right:

Mark 14:35 v. John 12:27-28

Mark 14:35
"And going a little farther, [Jesus] threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him"

John 12:27
[Jesus]: “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.”

A more logical reason is that the synoptics were simply spinning a different take on the crucifixion story - as is indicated by their shifting the date from Nisan 14 to Nisan 15...

Possible, but seems less likely to me than the other way around. Having Jesus crucified the same time as the lambs is a great poetic theological ploy. Makes less sense for the synoptics to change that to something less poetic.

gJohn, with the Nisan 14 crucifixion storyline is easily dated prior to 70 ce - when such a storyline would not raise a ruckus as to its historical plausibility. On the other hand, imagine, prior to 70 ce, the outcry of a storyline of a crucifixion on Nisan 15 that went against Jewish sensibilities regarding the Passover week. After 70 ce, with the temple no more and the old traditions having to be re-interpreted re that temple - then playing around with the details of the Passover observance would more easily get a pass...

Prophetic fullfillment is always an ongoing endeavor - come now - you surely don't expect any end of the world scenarios or utopias on the horizion? Apocalyptic is not the issue here - dating gJohn is. i.e. it's early christian history that is being sought. What early christians believed about end times etc is neither here nor there for that endeavor.

I noticed that you took no notice of the John the Baptist/Herodias, Salome, Herod and Philip story....

---------------------------
Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?

by Jonathan Klawans

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... r-a-seder/

• Against the “single” testimony of the synoptics that the Last Supper was a Passover meal stands the lone Gospel of John, which dates the crucifixion to the “day of Preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14). According to John, Jesus died just when the Passover sacrifice was being offered and before the festival began at sundown (see the sidebar to this article). Any last meal—which John does not record—would have taken place the night before, or even earlier than that. But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun.
  
  So are we to follow John or the synoptics?5 There are a number of problems with the synoptic account. First, if the Last Supper had been a Seder held on the first night of Passover, then that would mean Jesus’ trial and crucifixion took place during the week-long holiday. If indeed Jewish authorities were at all involved in Jesus’ trial and death, then according to the synoptics those authorities would have engaged in activities—holding trials and carrying out executions—that were either forbidden or certainly unseemly to perform on the holiday. This is not the place to consider whether Jewish authorities were involved in Jesus’ death. Nor is it the place to consider whether such authorities would have been devout practitioners of Jewish law. But this is the place to point out that if ancient Jewish authorities had been involved in something that could possibly be construed as a violation of Jewish law, the Gospels—with their hatred of the Jewish authorities—would probably have made the most of it. The synoptic account stretches credulity, not just because it depicts something unlikely, but because it fails to recognize the unlikely and problematic nature of what it depicts. It is almost as if the synoptic tradition has lost all familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice. And if they have lost familiarity with that, they have probably lost familiarity with reliable historical information as well.
  
  There are, of course, some reasons to doubt John’s account too. He may well have had theological motivations for claiming that Jesus was executed on the day of preparation when the Passover sacrifice was being offered but before Passover began at sundown. John’s timing of events supports the Christian claim that Jesus himself was a sacrifice and that his death heralds a new redemption, just as the Passover offering recalls an old one. Even so, John’s claim that Jesus was killed just before Passover began is more plausible than the synoptics’ claim that Jesus was killed on Passover. And if Jesus wasn’t killed on Passover, but before it (as John claims), then the Last Supper could not in fact have been a Passover Seder.

-----------------------------------

The gJohn storyline has more plausibility in regard to a Jewish context. Jesus, as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, is being connected to the slaughtered lamb that, symbolically, saved the Israelites from slavery and death in Egypt. Thus, a Passover Lamb. And, consequently, would need to be sacrificed, crucified, on Nisan 14. This more historically plausible storyline taking precedence over the later cultic storyline of symbolic blood and flesh inauguration of a New Covenant on Nisan 15 - especially so as the New Covenant Last Supper storyline, of Mark, Matthew and Luke, so clearly has compromised the Jewish context with its Nisan 15 crucifixion - and thus has stretched the credibility of this storyline having any historical relevance.

A more historically valid storyline in gJohn (Nisan 14) becomes, in the synoptics, a more symbolic cultic storyline re the Last Supper and its New Covenant on Nisan 15. The gJohn Jesus is talking theology/philosophy regarding bread and blood. The synoptics turn the words of the gJohn Jesus into a cultic practice with drinking wine and eating bread. The NT storyline development runs from Nisan 14 to Nisan 15. It does not run backwards...it moves forwards.....

[arnoldo]

edited to add: some links on debate/argument re the gospel of John.

The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml

Paul N. Anderson has also edited a book containing the following article;

“The Pool of Siloam: The Importance of the New Discoveries for our Understanding of Ritual Immersion in Late Second Temple Judaism and in the Gospel of John,” Anderson et al., eds., 2009, 155–73.

[ficino]

Thanks for posting this article, Arnoldo. On 173 n. 23 von Wahlde says that the Pool of Bethesda, which it locates on the northern side of the city, was also a mikveh, and that the Pool of Siloam has intermittent water flow. It sounds to me as though perhaps the evangelist conflated the two pools? From what I've seen, it doesn't appear that Bethesda could have had the stirring of the waters described in John 5 if it is identified as the northern pool. So the topographical accuracy of the evangelist, which von Wahlde extols on p. 173, seems not to be so. Unless there's stuff I'm not aware of.

[arnoldo]

From pg 166. . .

Although the Gihon Spring was the only source of water in Jerusalem, and although it regularly delivered abundant water, the Gihon was an intermittent spring. The Hebrew name of the spring is derived from the verb meaning "to gush forth." Thus the name itself seems to reflect its intermittent character. . . The geological reason for this irregularity is that the Gishon Spring is a siphonic spring created by underground water collected in a karst. When the water level reaches the top of the karst, it is siphoned off through crack in the rock. Thus, water gushes out into Hezekiah's Tunnel until the karst is emptied. At that point, the water ceases to flow until the karst fills again and the process is repeated.

Could the "stirring of the water" be the result of this geological phenomenon?

[Sheshbazzar]

I suggest that the Passover crucifixion story was a sectarian composition, one composed so as to accommodate, and to deliberately play upon two different calendar persuasions and the differing, opposing Passover observance practices, and that this apparent internal conflict between the varying Gospel accounts was fully intentional.

This where the difference comes in, and it is one that is a matter of interpretation of the requirements of observing the Passover.
'Traditional' Temple Judaism performed the Passover sacrifices on the afternoon of the 14th day of the month, holding the Passover seder in accordance with the traditions, authoritative rulings, and Decisions of the Temple Priesthood and Sanhedrin.

The sectarian NT Gospel writers however, held to a different interpretation and practice regarding Passover observance.
Based upon their reading and understanding of the Passover texts, the ruling Jewish religious leaders were neglecting the word of Scripture to follow vain 'traditions' of men.
The sects focus was upon cleaving to the actual content of the Torah. Those of that Way, looking back at that First Passover, holding that the 14th day of the month began at the sunset that ended the 13th day of the month. (at the completion of 312 hours/78 (4 hour) watches into the month and year)
And that in that original Passover in Egypt (being thereafter commemorated yearly), the lambs were sacrificed and the blood was upon the doorposts and lintel _before midnight_ of the 14th day of the first month. (the beginning of 319th hour of that month and year) and the lamb had to be fully consumed in that same night (the night of the 14th) with nothing left unburned past the 'morning' (of the 14th day) that being at the 324th hour in that month and year. ( Ex 12:10) And no one go out at the door of his house until the morning (Ex 12:22)
The 14th night (12 hours) being Leyil Shemorim the 'Night of Vigils' ...to be observed in all generations (Ex 12:42)

None of this took place on the 15th day of the month, which did not begin until the completion of 336 hours/84 (4 hour) watches into that month and year.

Following Torah, Messiah and disciples observed The Passover ('The Last Supper') -after the sunset (that began the 14th day), and before midnight on the 14th day of the month.
The 'Traditional' Temple cult following Jews did not sacrifice their lambs until the following afternoon (still being the 14th _until sunset) and held their 'Jewish' seder after sunset -on the evening that began the 15th day of the month, thus some 18 plus hours later than that original "midnight" deadline Passover which such seder supposedly commemorated.

The original Hebrew phrase 'bein ervim' not 'at evening', but 'between evenings', permitted the Messiah of the Way to both keep The Passover on the evening of the 14th with his disciples, and to be the 'Passover Lamb' the following afternoon, still 'between evenings' of the 24 hour period that constitutes the 14th day of the month.
Judaism of course puts an elaborate spin on the interpretation of 'between evenings', making them in the afternoon of the 14th day.

There is much more to this, and that is why the Gospels specify at what hour and in what 'watch' various events took place. All on schedule and according to a precise mathematical/geometrical pattern.
I counted off these hours and watches year after year for decades, and it was my custom to stay awake throughout the night of the 14th, not departing from the sanctuary until sunrise on the 14th morning of the year, that is why I am so personally aware of these matters.

Sheshbazzar

[arnoldo]

I suggest that the Passover crucifixion story was a sectarian composition, one composed so as to accommodate, and to deliberately play upon two different calendar persuasions and the differing, opposing Passover observance practices, and that this apparent internal conflict between the varying Gospel accounts was fully intentional.

This where the difference comes in, and it is one that is a matter of interpretation of the requirements of observing the Passover.
'Traditional' Temple Judaism performed the Passover sacrifices on the afternoon of the 14th day of the month, holding the Passover seder in accordance with the traditions, authoritative rulings, and Decisions of the Temple Priesthood and Sanhedrin.

The sectarian NT writers however, held to a different interpretation and practice regarding Passover observance.
Based upon their reading and understanding of the Passover texts, the ruling Jewish religious leaders were neglecting the word of Scripture to follow vain 'traditions' of men.
The sects focus was upon cleaving to the actual content of the Torah. Those of that Way, looking back at that First Passover, holding that the 14th day of the month began at the sunset that ended the 13th day of the month. (at the completion of 312 hours/78 (4 hour) watches into the month and year)
And that in that original Passover in Egypt (being thereafter commemorated yearly), the lambs were sacrificed and the blood was upon the doorposts and lintel _before midnight_ of the 14th day of the first month. (the beginning of 319th hour of that month and year) and the lamb had to be fully consumed in that same night (the night of the 14th) with nothing left unburned past the 'morning' (of the 14th day) that being at the 324th hour in that month and year. ( Ex 12:10) And no one go out at the door of his house until the morning (Ex 12:22)
The 14th night (12 hours) being Leyil Shemorim the 'Night of Vigils' ...to be observed in all generations (Ex 12:42)

None of this took place on the 15th day of the month, which did not begin until the completion of 336 hours/84 (4 hour) watches into that month and year.

Following Torah, Messiah and disciples observed The Passover ('The Last Supper') -after the sunset (that began the 14th day), and before midnight on the 14th day of the month.
The 'Traditional' Temple cult following Jews did not sacrifice their lambs until the following afternoon (still being the 14th _until sunset) and held their 'Jewish' seder after sunset -on the evening that began the 15th day of the month, thus some 18 plus hours later than that original "midnight" deadline Passover which such seder supposedly commemorated.

The original Hebrew phrase 'bein ervim' not 'at evening', but 'between evenings', permitted the Messiah of the Way to both keep The Passover on the evening of the 14th with his disciples, and to be the 'Passover Lamb' the following afternoon, still 'between evenings' of the 24 hour period that constitutes the 14th day of the month.
Judaism of course puts an elaborate spin on the interpretation of 'between evenings', making them in the afternoon of the 14th day.

There is much more to this, and that is why the Gospels specify at what hour and in what 'watch' various events took place. All on schedule and according to a precise mathematical/geometrical pattern.
I counted off these hours and watches year after year for decades, and it was my custom to stay awake throughout the night of the 14th, not departing from the sanctuary until sunrise on the 14th morning of the year, that is why I am so personally aware of these matters.

Sheshbazzar

Paul N. Anderson addresses this issue in his book, The Riddle of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John.

. . . If the Last Supper really occurred on the evening of the Passover, as presented by the Synoptics, why do none of the Gospels (including the three Synoptics!) present the crucifixion as taking place on the day of the Passover? Therefore, Mark's rendering suffers an internal problem in that it presents the Last Supper as a Passover meal, and yet it does not present the crucifixion as happening on the Passover (the same day, by Jewish reckoning- a detail unlikely to have been omitted if it were based on historical fact). Of course, it could be that Mark and John used different calendars: but the fact that churches early developed a Christian ritual of “rememberance” around the Jewish Passover meal makes it more likely that Mark's crafting of the Last Supper as a Passover meal was rooted in theological interests than in historical reminiscence. . . On these five chronological issues, John's rendering is historically preferable over the Synoptics, and at least the first four imply a knowing corrective to Mark's chronology on the part of the Evangelist. . . John thus sheds light on the evolution of Christian sacremental practice, as Mark presents the Passover meal in order to address the emerging religious needs of his Christian audience. While not all of John's chronological differences from Mark suggest knowing contrast, at least to some degree intentionality is likely.

[Sheshbazzar]

If Paul N. Anderson were participating in this thread I would discuss his misconceptions with him.