The gospel of John an independent witness?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:41 pm

Mark 14: 27 - 31, 53 - 70 (RSV):

[27] And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'
[28] But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
[29] Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."
[30] And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."
[31] But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same.
...
[53] And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.
[57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,
[58] "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
[59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
[60] And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"
[61] But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
[62] And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
[63] And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?
[64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.
[65] And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.
[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

John 13: 36 - 38, 18: 36 - 38, 71 - 72 (RSV):

[36] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward."
[37] Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."
[38] Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times.
...
[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
...
[NOTE: 19 - 23 shows evidence (to me) of tampering. I have moved verse 20 back to the place that appears to give the most sense to the Scene]

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
...
[24] Annas then sent him bound to Ca'iaphas the high priest.
...
[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.

We've already passed the MEGO Length for a Post (My Eyes Glaze Over). Let's strip out Non-Essential material here. Let's also be nice. Add or subtract as you wish, just explain your Logic and Reasoning.

I am having a really big Jay Raskin day. He has a Note from his book, Evolution of Christs and Christianities. Note 214 states:

"We must also note that the cock crowing in John is out of place. As mentioned, in John's Gospel, the phrase "cock crow" just means "sunrise". It is not a literal cock crow. In Mark, it makes sense. Peter starts to weep, so the cock crow brings about a realization on Peter's part that he has betrayed Jesus. Here, there is no reaction to the cock crow. The cock crow here shows no narrative function. The listener already understands that it is night and Peter has betrayed Jesus. The cock crowing is superfluous and adds nothing to our understanding. Whoever added it was just trying to harmonize the two gospels."

Raskin is wrong concerning "narrative function" but even where Jay misses, his point is so important. To understand what Peter's Denial means, we have to see why:

Mark 6: 47 - 49 (Moffatt):

[47] Now when evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and he was on the land alone.
[48] but when he saw them buffeted as they rowed, (for the wind was against them) he went to them about the fourth watch of the night walking on the sea. He meant to pass them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and shrieked aloud;

Compare with:

Mark 13: 33 - 37 (RSV):

[33] Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come.
[34] It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
[35] Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning --
[36] lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
[37] And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

If you would understand what I see, you have to understand that in this Source Story, the descriptions are all describing One Story. Josephus gives the "External Story" on Antiquities..., 17, 9, 3+ and Wars..., 2, 1, 3+. The "Internal Stories" are the Stories of the NT rewritten and Transvalued into the story of a savior/god. Therefore:

Mark 14: 27 - 28 are Post-Dicted. The Story of what happened at the Passover of 4 BCE is already known. It MAY be from the "Second Coming", 12 years later, when an adult Peter comes with the Priest who listened to Jairus and knowingly went to his death.

[54] And Peter had followed [The Priest] at a distance, right into the [courtyard of the high priest] Euphemism for "The Chamber of the Hearth"; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
This is in the Chamber of the Hearth. Priests may sit and even sleep here.

[28] But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
After the week of Service, each Mishmarot Group rotates back to their assigned Settlement in Galillee. "Immer" is assigned Jabnit, down the street from Meiron. The Priest is from Immer. Peter is a child in this first Story.

[29] Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."
[30] And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."
[31] But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same.

This is a Set-Up. The Priest is leading a Coup. Remember the youth who wore a linen garment until it was pulled off and he ran away naked? This is here. Now. This is rewritten for the New Religion.

[58] "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

This is True but not to the point right now. The Passover of 4 BCE occurs during Bilgah's Service and three days later, when Immer begins their Service, the Temple Apparatus will be rededicated. There is HUGE tension in the Stories due to Passover and the High Sabbath that begins the Festival. Later.

[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus the Priest."

Note the use of "And", linking fragments. Peter is "below" in the Chamber of the Lambs or the Bath and then is warming himself.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of

"...Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1)."

On this view Peter has made his way to the Chamber of the Hearth (BTW, apologies for writing "Chamber of the Flames".)
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

If this is a rewrite - and I believe it is - then there MUST be a reason that Peter denies what is plainly in front of him. Why would he Deny the Priest?
We now move to John. John "completes" what is written in Mark. The Chamber of the Hearth is where you sit, sleep, relax.

[36] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward."
[37] Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."

Simon Peter cannot follow "NOW". Somewhere in the creation of the NT, "Peter" and "Simon Peter" had to be fused into a single character. SP cannot go into the Chamber of the Flame NOW. Could Peter? The Coup is beginning. Peter will lay down his life for the Priest won't he?

[38] Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times.

Post-Diction. Jay is wrong here but is he ever correct. There is an important part of this Time Line.

[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,

Part of the Set-Up. Notice the Play up to the next action:

[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.

Peter is IN THE CHAMBER OF THE FLAME!

[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Everyone listed is STANDING as you must if you are in the Chamber of the Flame.

[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.

Simon Peter is allowed to stand here. He is not the focus. As examined earlier, the word "Kinsman" is from the Ordering of the Greek Royal Court. I take this as a clue that this is indeed inside the Chamber of the Flame.

Why does Peter deny the Priest? Even in an Un-Transvalued Story, it seems weird. Why?

Peter is about to see a "Ghost":

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 2 - 3 (in Part):

And here it was that a great many of those that desired innovations came in crowds towards the evening, and began then to mourn on their own account, when the public mourning for the king was over. These lamented those that were put to death by Herod, because they had cut down the golden eagle that had been over the gate of the temple. Nor was this mourning of a private nature, but the lamentations were very great, the mourning solemn, and the weeping such as was loudly heard all over the city, as being for those men who had perished for the laws of their country, and for the temple. They cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was.

3. At these clamors Archelaus was provoked, but restrained himself from taking vengeance on the authors, on account of the haste he was in of going to Rome, as fearing lest, upon his making war on the multitude, such an action might detain him at home. Accordingly, he made trial to quiet the innovators by persuasion, rather than by force, and sent his general in a private way to them, and by him exhorted them to be quiet.[[NOW look at Luke 19: 39 - 40!]] But the seditious threw stones at him, and drove him away, as he came into the temple, and before he could say any thing to them. The like treatment they showed to others, who came to them after him, many of which were sent by Archelaus, in order to reduce them to sobriety, and these answered still on all occasions after a passionate manner; and it openly appeared that they would not be quiet, if their numbers were but considerable. And indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to he celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship; some of these stood in the temple bewailing the Rabbins [that had been put to death], and procured their sustenance by begging, in order to support their sedition. At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief; nor did it appear to Archelaus that the multitude could be restrained without bloodshed; so he sent his whole army upon them, the footmen in great multitudes, by the way of the city, and the horsemen by the way of the plain, who, falling upon them on the sudden, as they were offering their sacrifices, destroyed about three thousand of them; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed upon the adjoining mountains: these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival...

Peter denied the Priest and would have denied anyone else including a Jesus. Jesus would have denied Jesus. The choice is "Stay inside" or "Get hacked to bits". Which would you choose?

Peter, however is not done.

Matthew 14: 29 - 30 (RSV):

[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

Here is how we know that there was another Source Document. Peter leaves the safety of this area and leaves to save the Priest. The Priest should have been murdered by the soldiers - "They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost". Through a Miracle, this Priest is saved. John the Baptist was not.

That's a Story for another day.

CW

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:53 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:46 am
Michael BG wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:15 am
Are you saying that hidden in the gospel is a source which all of them had access to, but none of then used in a methodologically manner but picked different sentences from the source and it is only if we pick different sentences from the four gospels can we see this hidden source?
I'm probably going to break this up into multiple responses.
Very nice cancellations here, MBG. But first...:

On the subject of Sources, the question is "How much is hidden?" Josephus hides things. The Jannaeus material (esp. with Demetrius Eucerus) is very hidden. Other support material includes Tacitus, Suetonius and the rest.
I feel you are bashing me over the head with your theory.
Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:41 pm
Mark 14:

[54] And Peter had followed [The Priest] at a distance, right into the [courtyard of the high priest] Euphemism for "The Chamber of the Hearth"; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
This is in the Chamber of the Hearth. Priests may sit and even sleep here.



[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.

Simon Peter is allowed to stand here. He is not the focus. As examined earlier, the word "Kinsman" is from the Ordering of the Greek Royal Court. I take this as a clue that this is indeed inside the Chamber of the Flame.

Why does Peter deny the Priest? Even in an Un-Transvalued Story, it seems weird. Why?

Peter is about to see a "Ghost":

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 2 - 3 (in Part):



Peter denied the Priest and would have denied anyone else including a Jesus. Jesus would have denied Jesus. The choice is "Stay inside" or "Get hacked to bits". Which would you choose?

Peter, however is not done.

Matthew 14: 29 - 30 (RSV):

[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

Here is how we know that there was another Source Document. Peter leaves the safety of this area and leaves to save the Priest. The Priest should have been murdered by the soldiers - "They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost". Through a Miracle, this Priest is saved.
My simple question was tell me what from Mark 14:53-55, 66-72 and John 18:16-18, 25-27 you think were in your source and why. It is really difficult to tell if you have answered this or not.

I think you have rejected all of Mark 14:71-72. I am surprised you have kept “the other disciple” in Jn 18:16, “Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold” in Jn 18:18, and “whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" in Jn 18:26. I still think you have too many maids. Should there be any maids?

The High Priest in Josephus seems to being attacked by the multitude and not the soldiers. Do you assume that the High Priest is Joazar ben Boathus? And if so what does Josephus tell us about him?

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:53 pm
I feel you are bashing me over the head with your theory.
I apologize. It is not my intention. I'm trying to keep the Posts more limited in length. I begin and complementary points pop into my head and I write them. The Source Story I see is interconnected in all sorts of ways. I try to show these connections, that's all.
My simple question was tell me what from Mark 14:53-55, 66-72 and John 18:16-18, 25-27 you think were in your source and why. It is really difficult to tell if you have answered this or not.
Mark 14: 53 - 55: The first sentence here is telling of "Jesus" being led to the meeting with the HP and others. "And Peter followed..." Here is where the Chamber of the Hearth/Flame Story starts.

Mark 14: 66 - 72: ALL of this is in the Story. Let us follow your lead here:

John 18: 16 - 18: All of this is in the Story. I am asserting that Mark has chosen to write about Peter SITTING. In order to get into the Sacred Area you must first go through the area where you may sit. Follow the 2 "Jewish Encyclopedia" URLs and you will see that Priests could come and go, sit, sleep, etc. There WAS a hierarchy here but you could apparently be Off-Duty here.

John tells the part of the Story where Peter makes it into the Chamber of the Flame. You must be admitted into this sacred area. Since Peter makes it into the Chamber of the Flame, he must have Priestly Origins (Where Simon Peter does not?). This points to a Source Document - "From the fact that the "Jesus" stories were written from Source, it does not follow that the "Source Stories" were about "Jesus".

John 18: 25 - 27: "Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself". Here is a problem and his name is "Simon Peter". Does "Simon Peter" = "Peter"? No. Not to me. Others disagree. The rest of 25 - 27 are part of the Story.
I think you have rejected all of Mark 14:71-72.
No. I would guess that the Source Original is telling about the moments before and up to the beginning the Coup of Passover, 4 BCE. (Lightly beating you over the head...): The soldiers are smashing their way into the Temple area. Mark and John have to write the limited description of the Events at Cock-Crow and make it appear that Peter is betraying "Jesus" when he is actually hearing the screams of the murdered on the other side of the door. Mark takes this very seriously. As Jay Raskin points out, in John it is the equivalent of looking at a clock on a wall.
I am surprised you have kept “the other disciple” in Jn 18:16
This is very important to the Story! Can you answer if this "Other Disciple" is named in the Original? The fact that there is mentioned the "Other Disciple" leads me to believe that this person was named since he is allowed into the "Chamber of the Flame". I cannot say with certainty but it does point to an "Original Source".
...“Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold”
Absolutely necessary although you may not want to go down this road. Where have we seen "Charcoal fire..."?

John 21: 9 (RSV):

[9] When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish lying on it, and bread.

Now, I do not know if the fire that warmed the Priests at the Chamber of the Hearth/Flame was a Charcoal fire. I will make this suggestion: "Charcoal fire" may mean something else, something Military in nature, if you will look at it that way.

...in Jn 18:18, and “whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" in Jn 18:26. I still think you have too many maids. Should there be any maids?
"Garden" has another meaning in John as well. Another day.

MAIDS?!?? Oh yes and a possible Cultural Marker, on the level with "Your accent gives you away".

Pretend that you are watching an Adventure Movie with "Number One" about to ***Sizzle*** some underling for failing miserably at carrying out some stupid atrocity.
Q: Who takes out the trash?

So, here we are at the door to the Chamber of the Flame. Who opens and closes the door that leads to the Sacred Chamber of the Flame? It's important for what we read earlier:

"One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" "
Q: Is a "servant" always a slave? As stated earlier, "Kinsman" is the highest rank a person could attain in the Greek Ordering of the Court. Somebody figure this out! To me, it is "Ranking Term" but what of the Ordering of the High Priest's Inner Circle?
The High Priest in Josephus seems to being attacked by the multitude and not the soldiers. Do you assume that the High Priest is Joazar ben Boathus? And if so what does Josephus tell us about him?
To sound Skollerly about it, I take no position on it. I dunno. Raskin has unpacked some marvelous analysis about the High Priests and Jesus and Mary but I just have no idea other than to say that I haven't played "Match'em up" with High Priests names around 4 BCE and 9 CE. It's taken everything I have to see this much of the Story.
***
Thank you very much, MBG. Great Qs. I hope I've answered them to your satisfaction.

CW

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:43 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:53 pm
I am surprised you have kept “the other disciple” in Jn 18:16
This is very important to the Story! Can you answer if this "Other Disciple" is named in the Original? The fact that there is mentioned the "Other Disciple" leads me to believe that this person was named since he is allowed into the "Chamber of the Flame". I cannot say with certainty but it does point to an "Original Source".
The use of the words “the other disciple” in Jn 18:16 implies that Peter is a disciple.
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm
...“Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold”
Absolutely necessary although you may not want to go down this road. Where have we seen "Charcoal fire..."?



Now, I do not know if the fire that warmed the Priests at the Chamber of the Hearth/Flame was a Charcoal fire. I will make this suggestion: "Charcoal fire" may mean something else, something Military in nature, if you will look at it that way.
I think you have missed my point. If the chamber of the Flame always has a fire going in it, then there is no need for anyone to “make” it when Peter is there.
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm
...in Jn 18:18, and “whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" in Jn 18:26. I still think you have too many maids. Should there be any maids?
"Garden" has another meaning in John as well. Another day.

MAIDS?!?? Oh yes and a possible Cultural Marker, on the level with "Your accent gives you away".

Again, I think you have missed my points. How and when did Peter cut off an ear? I thought you said Peter was 4 at the time!
How did all these women get into the Temple?
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm
The High Priest in Josephus seems to being attacked by the multitude and not the soldiers. Do you assume that the High Priest is Joazar ben Boathus? And if so what does Josephus tell us about him?
To sound Skollerly about it, I take no position on it. I dunno. Raskin has unpacked some marvelous analysis about the High Priests and Jesus and Mary but I just have no idea other than to say that I haven't played "Match'em up" with High Priests names around 4 BCE and 9 CE. It's taken everything I have to see this much of the Story.
If there is no historical record of a High Priest having to flee at this time (c. 4 BC) then it must raise questions over what you think is going on. (Would I be correct to assume that your theories were given birth after read Jay Raskin rather than being his theories?)

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:03 pm

Hello MichaelBG. This may be short!
Thank you for looking at this. There are still things to look at in order to get a complete and consistent view of the NT
...
To begin the answer to your points:
Michael BG wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:43 pm
The use of the words “the other disciple” in Jn 18:16 implies that Peter is a disciple.
Correct. In fact, I believe the Original was a Story about Peter. Peter is the main actor in this Story. He saves a Priest as a child (See below) and the Priest comes back 12 years later to meet his death. As there are 2 versions of the Preparation Day, there are 2 Stories of Peter that have been combined into one. It is extremely difficult to separate the 2 Stories consistently.
Michael BG wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:03 pm
Now, I do not know if the fire that warmed the Priests at the Chamber of the Hearth/Flame was a Charcoal fire. I will make this suggestion: "Charcoal fire" may mean something else, something Military in nature, if you will look at it that way.
I think you have missed my point. If the chamber of the Flame always has a fire going in it, then there is no need for anyone to “make” it when Peter is there.
I could go with almost anything you posit here. It gets hot in the summer, there's probably no need for a fire. Passover comes in the Spring and there are times when a fire would be need to be built. Again, there is something about "Charcoal fire..." that warrants examination. This episode occurs during the "Roman Warming" era and there was a Famine during Herod's reign. "Is it hot? Is it cold?" I dunno. If this entire Chamber of the Hearth/Flame has value, it was cold enough to have to have a fire. I have no idea if there were attendants who took care of that.
Michael BG wrote:
...in Jn 18:18, and “whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" in Jn 18:26.
Again, I think you have missed my points. How and when did Peter cut off an ear? I thought you said Peter was 4 at the time!
How did all these women get into the Temple?
In the first Story, Peter is older than 4, probably just younger than 12 - 13. He must be small enough to make it into and through the Narrow Door in order to get into the "Realm of Heaven". He must "...turn as a child..." in order to do that. (The Priest needs to be small as well!) In the second Story, he is 12-ish + 12 = around 24. Read the foot-washing episode in John 13. Peter is 23/24 here (Notice "Simon Peter" in this as well and the "smeared" dialogue between the Priest and the 2 "Peter" characters.).

The subject of the maids is interesting. The Chamber of the Flame was a sacred Place. Would attendant women be allowed? I don't know how I could answer that question. It would take supposition and guess to decide unless there is a sentence somewhere in some Jewish writing that would decide the issue and I am not aware of such a statement.

Now, it is quite possible for the High Priest or the Roman Functionaries to have had "maids" in their buildings. Part of the NT rewrite focuses on Caesarea and maids could have been at the doors to the Roman Rulers. In 9 CE that person was Coponius. The point being, the Story has Peter getting into the Chamber of the Flame as the soldiers are ordered in. The door must have had some size and heft to it. There also had to be some "Guards" to keep the Riff-Raff out. The Story consistently states "Maid". "Maid" it is.
***
I have cut out the "Malchus Ear" Story fragments (No pun intended) and am putting the fragments together to see what has been manipulated. I'll Post on that soon.

Thanks again, MBG.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:10 pm

Is John 18:40 evidence that John has Mark open in front of him rather than he is using a shared source?
Then they cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
ἐκραύγασαν οὖν πάλιν λέγοντες, …
they-cried-out then again saying,
Mk 15:13
And they cried out again, "Crucify him."
οἱ δὲ πάλιν ἔκραξαν, …
(the) yet again they-cried-out
These are the first and only mentions of Barabbas in John’s gospel and it is the only time John has “the Jews” ask for Barabbas to be released, unlike Mark where in 15:11 it is implied that the crowd request Barabbas to be released at the urging of the chief priests, so that it makes a little more sense that the crowd are crying out again (v 13) after it being implied that they had already done it in verse 11.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5737
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:50 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:10 pm
Is John 18:40 evidence that John has Mark open in front of him rather than he is using a shared source?
Then they cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
ἐκραύγασαν οὖν πάλιν λέγοντες, …
they-cried-out then again saying,
Mk 15:13
And they cried out again, "Crucify him."
οἱ δὲ πάλιν ἔκραξαν, …
(the) yet again they-cried-out
These are the first and only mentions of Barabbas in John’s gospel and it is the only time John has “the Jews” ask for Barabbas to be released, unlike Mark where in 15:11 it is implied that the crowd request Barabbas to be released at the urging of the chief priests, so that it makes a little more sense that the crowd are crying out again (v 13) after it being implied that they had already done it in verse 11.
That is a very interesting observation, but what I do not understand about your methodology is how you think that something like this can help determine whether John was using Mark or Mark's source. We can see for ourselves that Mark has two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν, but how do you know that Mark's source does not have two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:43 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:50 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:10 pm
Is John 18:40 evidence that John has Mark open in front of him rather than he is using a shared source?



These are the first and only mentions of Barabbas in John’s gospel and it is the only time John has “the Jews” ask for Barabbas to be released, unlike Mark where in 15:11 it is implied that the crowd request Barabbas to be released at the urging of the chief priests, so that it makes a little more sense that the crowd are crying out again (v 13) after it being implied that they had already done it in verse 11.
That is a very interesting observation, but what I do not understand about your methodology is how you think that something like this can help determine whether John was using Mark or Mark's source. We can see for ourselves that Mark has two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν, but how do you know that Mark's source does not have two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν?
Indeed. I haven’t been able to make a case that this second crying out is Marcan editorial work. So, it is possible that this is only evidence of a shared source. Therefore I am forced to conclude along with you that the answer to my question is likely no. Also, I think John uses πάλιν more often than Mark and so its use here is not evidence of direct dependence.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5737
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:15 am

Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:43 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:50 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:10 pm
Is John 18:40 evidence that John has Mark open in front of him rather than he is using a shared source?



These are the first and only mentions of Barabbas in John’s gospel and it is the only time John has “the Jews” ask for Barabbas to be released, unlike Mark where in 15:11 it is implied that the crowd request Barabbas to be released at the urging of the chief priests, so that it makes a little more sense that the crowd are crying out again (v 13) after it being implied that they had already done it in verse 11.
That is a very interesting observation, but what I do not understand about your methodology is how you think that something like this can help determine whether John was using Mark or Mark's source. We can see for ourselves that Mark has two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν, but how do you know that Mark's source does not have two instances of crying out, linked by a πάλιν?
Indeed. I haven’t been able to make a case that this second crying out is Marcan editorial work. So, it is possible that this is only evidence of a shared source. Therefore I am forced to conclude along with you that the answer to my question is likely no. Also, I think John uses πάλιν more often than Mark and so its use here is not evidence of direct dependence.
Thank you for clarifying. :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5737
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:49 am

Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:43 am
Also, I think John uses πάλιν more often than Mark and so its use here is not evidence of direct dependence.
In NA28 there are 26 instances of πάλιν in Mark and 45 in John. That sounds like a pretty big difference, but one has to consider that Mark is only around 72% as long as John; 26 is about 58% of 45, so the difference is less impressive than at first glance.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply