Some unanswered questions from the gospels

[rakovsky]

In the story of Holy Week, Jesus takes his apostles to Jerusalem and says that they should ask a man carrying water where the Master will stay and the man will give them a room. It sounds a bit cryptic. Was it supposed to be miraculous foreknowledge that they would find some random man with a jug who had dining halls to rent?

The gospel doesn't explain the story, but the last gospel provides pretty strong clues to what happened. The man carrying water would have been a servant for the supplier of water to the pilgrims, Nicodemus. In John's gospel, Nicodemus and Jesus meet secretly and they have a discussion on water. We know from the Talmud that Nicodemus was a wealthy owner of the water supply. So pulling together our information resources, we can outline the answer to the question of what happened - Jesus had an arrangement with Nicodemus or could expect that Nicodemus would supply him with a guest room, and he had his apostles ask Nicodemus' servant where the room was. And they knew who Nicodemus' servants were by seeing if they were the ones supplying water to the pilgrims coming for Holy Week.

Looking at the other events of Holy Week, there are other unanswered questions.

What was the deal with Judas? Was he a loyal follower who got disillusioned, and if so, over what? Was he loyal follower who had a secret agreement with Jesus to turn Jesus in to the Romans? Was he a loyal follower who wanted circumstances to force Jesus to reveal his glory (as some have speculated)? Was he a spy and secretly-fake disciple sent by the Sanhedrin? I am inclined to think the latter, because in the gospels, already at the start of Holy Week Judas was making these arrangements with the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over to them.

Here is another question:
What was Jesus expecting to happen regarding his arrest and crucifixion?
It looks as if Jesus was acting as if to indirectly cause them. By acting as a Messianic contender, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, making sermons with veiled references to himself as the Messiah, he could antagonize the Romans as if he was a potential rebel leader. At one point he tells the disciples to get daggers so that they would be numbered as criminals (having them was illegal under Roman rule).
He had repeatedly also made references in sermons to the public and to his disciples that he would get killed. At one point Peter said it wouldn't happen and Jesus told Peter to get away from him, as if it was a temptation by Peter. So it looks like Jesus knew this was going to happen and was at least somewhat open about it. But at the same time there was his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane where he said that he didn't prefer for it to happen.
Then when Jesus, who had no official authority, overturned the tables in the Temple and drove out the moneylenders, wasn't he kind of asking to get arrested by the Temple guards at that point?
And then you have the story of Judas, where Jesus knew he was going to get arrested due to the betrayal and gave Judas a special piece of bread to show the other disciples he was the betrayer. And then he told Judas to go do what he will do quickly. And then in Gethsemane Jesus basically let himself get captured instead of running away.
So many parts of this story show that Jesus was acting with foreknowledge that he was going to get arrested as a rebel. So the next question becomes, if Jesus was indirectly acting in accordance with this outcome, what did he expect could happen if he got arrested? What was his goal?

One hypothesis could be that (A) he hoped for the Jews to rebel to save him from Rome. However, this seems unlikely for a few reasons- he had already antagonized the pharisees, rabbis, and sadducees, not to mention that sometimes mobs had wanted to kill him. He was not an anti-Roman demagogue as far as we can tell. He told the people to pay taxes to Rome, and his followers chose to make the Romans not particularly out to be the "bad guys" in the gospels. The gospels portray things as if Pilate would have preferred to let Jesus go.

Another option could be that (B) Jesus expected Pilate to pardon Jesus or fake Jesus' death. In the gospels, Pilate is described as very sympathetic to Jesus, basically pressured into killing Jesus by the Sanhedrin, and gives Jesus a chance to get pardoned by a crowd. And he washes his hands of it. Jesus had suggested to him that Jesus was not really an earthly rebel against Rome and that these were false accusations. There is also a story, I think in the gospel, that Jesus was admired by Pilate's wife. And the Talmud says that Jesus was connected to the royalty (or governorship), which made it harder to get him killed. Plus, when Joseph of Arimathea asked to get Jesus' body, Pilate granted the request. Jesus had lots of positive relations with the centurions during his ministry and it says that the guards said he was the son of God. Josephus writes that the Romans protected Jesus' brother. So with all this sympathy, maybe Jesus was expecting Pilate to let him go or fake a crucifixion. It would explain why Jesus would allow himself to get arrested if he wasn't expecting to get killed. Theoretically I suppose the option is possible - Jesus could be given a sleeping drink on the cross and then taken down early and transported secretly to another region incognito.

Still, this explanation does not seem fully reliable. What benefit would Pilate get out of it, besides being a nice guy? I guess he could use it as a propaganda tool against the Sanhedrin to show that they arranged for a moral leader to get killed. But I guess Pilate could run that story anyway, so long as there was truth in it and he was nice to the rest of the Christians, besides maybe allowing for Jesus to get poisoned on the cross instead of suffering for days.

The third option is (C) Jesus went through these steps expecting to get crucified, with maybe the only mitigating factor being that he might have gotten poisoned by the mixture the gospels say he was given right before he died. What would his mentality or reasoning actually be if he chose this? Wouldn't that mean that he was actually the chosen Messiah and that God wanted him to do these things that would probably get him killed like he believed the Old Testament said? During his ministry he tried to work lots of miracles like healings and driving out demons. In some areas, it says that he was not able to do the miracles because of the peoples' faithlessness. So after going through his ministry for three years, wouldn't he have a pretty good idea of whether he was really a Messiah with supernatural powers or just another Charismatic/Pentecostal-style "faith healer" like we have today?

Another question is how Jesus died.
A. Did he die quickly from crucifixion after a long beating? B. Did he die from poison given to him on the cross as a drink? C. Did he actually survive the crucifixion, with the drink perhaps serving as an overpowering sedative that would let him get taken down early?
My guess is the first on that list, since he got stuck with a speak and if he was given a sedative so that he was knocked out, it would make breathing even harder, he could not last so long on the cross alive as for word to get to Pilate and Pilate agree to have him taken down.

Another question is what happened to Jesus' body.
I think it was probably buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb like the story says, since we know from Archaeology that sometimes the Romans did allow Jews to bury Romans' crucified victims. But afterwards, did some sympathizers of Jesus secretly take it from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea where it was laying? Did it miraculously reenliven and walk around after the burial, leaving the tomb? Did something else happen?

[outhouse]

Every bit of that was reaching beyond what is known.

Maybe you forget there was no one there at any event that ever wrote a single word, and those that did write, wrote decades later from a different part of the world with their own theological agenda in mind.

You seem tp imply many fictional events could be historical, and nothing you wrote was or is historical.

[rakovsky]

One theory/hypothesis:

I will briefly summarize the argument I made in my book The Judas Brief: Who Really Killed Jesus? (Continuum 2007.)

The Gospel of John indicates that the Jewish authorities feared that the popularity of Jesus would lead to a military reaction against the Jewish people.25 The entrance of Jesus and his entourage into Jerusalem during a crowded holiday festival, possibly in the aftermath of an insurrection led by Barabbas, would have created a volatile situation that could lead to military intervention, riots, and many Jewish deaths. I suggest that the Jewish priests negotiated a three-way deal among Pilate, Jesus and the Jewish authorities and that Judas represented Jesus in the negotiations. The agreement initially held that Jesus would ensure that his followers remain quiet during the holiday by agreeing to be placed under house arrest with the politically influential Jewish priest Annas and that he would be released after the holiday ended.26 When Herod heard about this arrangement he was furious. He wanted Jesus dead27 and forced Pilate to execute Jesus by threatening to bring treason charges against the Governor for allowing an unauthorized person to claim kingship.28 Pilate relented and, despite Jewish pleas to honor the agreement, had Jesus crucified.

Under this scenario, Judas became known as the one who handed over Jesus, and the description attached to him like an Homeric epithet, initially a neutral term, and then, by Gospel times, understood in a negative sarcastic manner.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/jud ... tnote29sym
Not sure how convincing it is though,

[neilgodfrey]

In the story of Holy Week, Jesus takes his apostles to Jerusalem and says that they should ask a man carrying water where the Master will stay and the man will give them a room. It sounds a bit cryptic. Was it supposed to be miraculous foreknowledge that they would find some random man with a jug who had dining halls to rent?

The gospel doesn't explain the story, but the last gospel provides pretty strong clues to what happened. The man carrying water would have been a servant for the supplier of water to the pilgrims, Nicodemus. . . .

Nothing happened except in the imaginations of the authors. The first gospel was re-enacting the motif found in 1 Samuel where the prophet sends Saul on his way with pronouncements of what he was to see/whom he would meet and what he was to do etc .... all as a sign.

The Gospel of John had no room for such piddling signs; all signs (all seven of them) were about the identity of the god become flesh Jesus.

[outhouse]

The Gospel of John had no room for such piddling signs; all signs (all seven of them) were about the identity of the god become flesh Jesus.

Agreed in full

Nothing happened except in the imaginations of the authors

I have problems with certainties, even though our OP is dealing with fictive events.

I think a certainty would be if there were a Galilean and a few followers, they would be sleeping outside, and the Hellenistic authors adding an inn would be building authority as making the people involved seem wealthier then they ever could have been. With your established opinion of divinity building.

[outhouse]

The important point to note in this passage is that it was highly unusual for a man to carry water pitchers, only in Mark and Luke is this used. This is divinity building as it would be a miracle in itself.

Also more noticeable in the large crowds, as well as slave’s employment meaning a rich house fit for a king using a goodman [building authority]

Concepts plagiarized as Neil states from OT text like that in Deuteronomy

[rakovsky]

The important point to note in this passage is that it was highly unusual for a man to carry water pitchers, only in Mark and Luke is this used. This is divinity building as it would be a miracle in itself.

A theory goes that a servant would in fact carry a pitcher in this case because he was a servant of the Water Official of Jerusalem and this instance was the holiday for the pilgrims, thus making it even a mitzvah.
That is, it's not actually just a random man carrying water around to sell, but a official's servant performing a duty for a religious festival.


None of the gospels say who the servant's master was who gave them the upper room.
The synoptics have no mention of Nicodemus, only a cryptic reference to the water carrier.

Nicodemus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicodemus
Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin mentioned in three places in the ... As is the case with Lazarus, Nicodemus does not belong to the tradition of the Synoptic Gospels and is only mentioned by John,

Let's see what is going on: Who could the servant's master be, why is there no reference to Nicodemus in the same books that talk about the water carrier, and why that is left cryptic, and why doesn't John talk about the water carrier but does talk about Nicodemus?

The Talmud explains that Nicodemus(Nakdimon) was a patron responsible for the city's water. He was a Galilean. That is a person who could be responsible for supplying the city's water to pilgrims and using a servant to do it. Someone like that could have a room to supply, be friendly to Jesus as a Galilean, could have a servant supplying water at the gates who Jesus is talking about.

In John's gospel, Jesus talks with Nicodemus about the role of water, they meet secretly, and Nicodemus prepares Jesus' body with oils and spices. A secret Christian like that might not be openly mentioned in gospels while he was still alive, he would be the kind of person with a room to give to Jesus for disciples since he supplied expensive spices for Jesus' burial, and based on the discussion of water, he could have an association with it, thus being the kind of person to supply the city's water or have a water association with the Christians like the servant with the water at the gate did.

Open Forum Question: Who here after reading what I wrote thinks Nicodemus was implied to be the servant's master with the water at the gate who gave the room for the Last Supper, and who here rejects that theory?

[arnoldo]

Some sources claim the unknown person is Mark (see below).
The African Memory of Mark

[rakovsky]

Some sources claim the unknown person is Mark (see below).
The African Memory of Mark

Your source said the African writers thought he "might be" Mark. Interesting option though. There is a Syriac Oriental Orthodox house in Jerusalem that is claimed to belong to Mark as a youth and also to be the Upper Room. In one theory or understanding of the NT, IIRC, Mark was a young man at the time of Jesus' death.

The theories are not contradictory - Mark could have been a boy who lived in but did not own the house, and the master could have been Nicodemus. The unknown SERVANT MASTER and HOUSE OWNER could easily not have been a youth like Mark, but an adult rich enough to own a sizable guest room and provide meals for the guests.

Also there is the issue of whether "John Mark" is "Mark" the gospel writer and is the same as the disciple John or else the writer of John of Revelation. That join is considered to have lived to old age toward the end of the 1st c., just like a young "Mark" or young "John would have.

When [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.[Acts 12:12]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.[Acts 12:25]

For more, see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark
Scholars are not sure whether these are one, two, or three people (John, Mark, and John Mark) with different names.

There could be some confusion from the NT over identities even of known disciples -
Nathanael and Bartholomew and Simon the Zealot,
Jude, Thaddeus, Thomas, "The twin"
Matthew, Levi, Matthai, Zaccheus
Then you get to the two or three "James' " - The Older and Lesser, and the Just.
It can be difficult to sort them all out. The names of the 12 apostles in the gospels are not all the same. Back in the 1st c., so much of the NT would have made more sense (at least putting aside the supernatural issues).

[arnoldo]

Whoever the author of the gMark was it's not out of the question that the writer references himself (herself?) in the gospel narrative. There was (or still is) a forum member who frequently framed his (or her) argument in terms of 20th/21st century americana popular culture which influenced the following; When you read the gMark and read about a unknown man carrying a pitcher of water it's like watching "Stan Lee" selling hot dogs in a X-Men movie.