Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

When segments and fragments overlap, a "mere" look at each fragment at different times may not reveal certain relationships. Jay Raskin (Christs and Christianities, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915), looked from a "Film Perspective" at the NT and analyzed material in terms of "Awkward Breaks". Where a smooth story is suddenly broken into an awkward moment, perhaps a Redactor caused it. The Religio-Political story makes sense to the Orthodoxy but the story itself is now hopelessly jumbled.

Recent Posts have asked whether John was arguing against Mark or whether John was an independent witness. In looking over a section I have seen several times before, I notice that the entire Motif has been subject to apparent modification, perhaps many. The results may challenge my own version of the Story in key respects. This is a Deconstruction of John 18. It may get lengthy - I keep seeing things in this.

John 18: 3 - 8 (RSV):

[3] So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
[4] Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"
[5] They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
[6] When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
[7] Again he asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
[8] Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go."

Although I hate the "Oral Tradition" argument, does it appear that there are 2 versions here?

1. "Jesus" is with Judas and after the question "Whom do you speak?", the "Officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees" fall to the ground after hearing "I am he".
2. The second time, "Jesus" adds something that is interesting: "If you seek me, let these men go." Uhhh...NO! "These men are accomplices and you are a threat to the State." I don't want to get too wrapped up in this one. The first part may be standard reference to the REAL Judas, Cestius. The second part reads in a quite different manner. I Spy something else.

[10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
[11] Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

Again, there are (at least) 2 Threads running through these verses. "Simon Peter" (a character different from Peter) struck the High Priest's slave, cutting off his ear. Note the following:

[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?"

As I have pointed out, "Kinsman" is a term from the Ordering of the Greek Court. Such an ordering was installed by Herod, probably after learning of it from Nicholas of Damascus. I believe it is used elsewhere, in the "Banquet" Story, where you must "move up" from your lowly place and be "Honored" by your "Friends". Verse 26 may not be correctly labeled as someone being a "Kinsman" but I tend to think it is. If this person whose brother was a "Kinsman" was a slave then there are some interesting social dynamics at work here.

2. Verse 11 is complex and deserving of a PhD thesis. The violence part is a pointer to the Military Part. Perhaps this:

Josephus, War..., 2, 14, 3:

"However, Cestius, when he had quieted the multitude, and had assured them that he would take care that Florus should hereafter treat them in a more gentle manner, returned to Antioch. Florus also conducted him as far as Cesarea, and deluded him, though he had at that very time the purpose of showing his anger at the nation, and procuring a war upon them, by which means alone it was that he supposed he might conceal his enormities; for he expected that if the peace continued, he should have the Jews for his accusers before Caesar; but that if he could procure them to make a revolt, he should divert their laying lesser crimes to his charge, by a misery that was so much greater; he therefore did every day augment their calamities, in order to induce them to a rebellion..."

I'm getting distracted.

[14] It was Ca'iaphas who had given counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

This is from the Roman Program where the Romans are TELLING you what they are going to. John 11+.

Luke 22: 38 (RSV):

[38] And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

I hesitate to use Luke here in an exposition of John but there is an important point that is helped by Luke. Again:

[11] Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

Two swords.

[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.

So Simon Peter cuts off the ear and "Jesus" tells Peter to put his sword in its sheath. Simon Peter and Peter are 2 separate individuals.

[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.

Peter is outside the door to the "Chamber of the Flames" ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of ). That is, he is in the section where the Priests may sit and sleep (Chamber of the Hearth). The "Maid" is outside as well. Peter is brought into the Chamber of the Flame. Peter is therefore Priestly material (He is a child here.)

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[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.
[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?"

Here is some manipulation. The High Priest asks a question and it is an awkward response (See previous Post). Let us move verse 20 down a few spots and see if this make better sense:

[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.

Question asked, question answered. Smooth. At the answer, a thug gives a swat in the chops and again, the movement is smooth.

Why was this passage switched around? Look at verse 20 as the end of this exchange:

"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".

Uh, oh. That is not with the Program, especially in Mark. "Jesus" does speak in secret. He speaks in parables so that the people will not understand.

"Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."

Further,

"I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple".

If we allow a little leeway with "synagogues" where would he teach? In Galilee, certainly. That's where the Priests are given settlements to live, which harkens back to Hasmonean Glory. A minor assertion, perhaps, but in alignment with teaching IN THE TEMPLE. That's where the act of violence against the money-changers occurred. No garrison of soldiers, Roman or Herodian (or Priestly if the "Jesus" character was seen as a Rebel) would have allowed such a thing to happen.

[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?"

Simon Peter is outside the Sacred Chamber of the Flame. He's allowed. "Are you not ALSO one of his disciples?" Where was the kinsman standing? Just inside the door perhaps?
***
I should stop now. Mebbe more later. I could stretch this thing out with Teeple and others. This gets quite complex. Nonetheless, there are some major make-overs made in these few verses. I could possible agree with a "Two Source Theory" for the non-Roman actions. I could even see this as a repudiation of Mark although I still think that John corrects Mark, since they had the same Source Documents in front of them.

Deep stuff.
More later,

CW

John 13: 6 - 9 (RSV):

[6] He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?"
[7] Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand."
[8] Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
[9] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

I won't advocate dropping verse 7 as Interpolation - yet. I believe I know the real story here. If we do drop verse 7 for a moment, look at the difference in the 2 characters:

[6] He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?"
...
[8] Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
[9] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

Peter is slightly appalled at this. Again, there is something radically different about the scene. It has nothing to do with a "Jesus" and a new foot washing device for later generations - see below.

Note the behavior of "Simon Peter". His response is child-like. Compare with: "Shall we bring fire down from the sky and destroy them?" or "Let's all go and die with him". Now, I am quite certain that there children around here in this and other scenes. Whether "Simon Peter" is a child here is for another day. This scene is an illustration of an Obsession. This is a follow-up from Peter saving the Priest, sinking up to his knees in blood and water. The obsession should be with Peter but it is the Priest who must wash the feet of Peter, who saved him.

The Priestly character is not Peter. Peter is not Simon Peter. There is a problem:

John 18:

[10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
...
[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.

Clearly there is an assertion behind this that Simon Peter and Peter are one-and-the-same. That assertion must be false. Peter is from another Story, another era. His Story is from the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE and the follow-up 12 years later. This Story has been moved up to, presumably, the thirties.

John 18: 4 - 11 (RSV):

[4] Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"
[5] They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
[6] When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
...
[7] Again he asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
[8] Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go."
...
[9] This was to fulfil the word which he had spoken, "Of those whom thou gavest me I lost not one."
...
[10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
[11] Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

As above, there appear to be two stories here - The first time of "Whom do you seek?" and the second time when the request is made to let his people go. This, of course, is a Set Piece. In a Real World, the followers might have been cut down where they stood. We are invited to believe that this was Pre-Ordained and the "Jesus" character is to be isolated so that he could be murdered later.

Who then, was not lost? "Peter". "Simon Peter". Verses 10 - 11.

Yeah, OK, it may be a reach. Nonetheless, it appears that an editorial decision was made to combine a known character, Peter, with a new character, Simon Peter into one.

Are there any other clues that would allow us to more confidently claim that an Editor or Redactor made the assertion of Simon Peter and Peter being the same person? I think there are.

More later,

CW

Atwill:

1. "Atwill" is not a curseword, contrary to some people's ideas around these parts.

2. Joe Atwill constructs a unified Story of the Empty Tomb Fragments that were distributed among the Gospels. If you use the sun as an "Objective Marker", you may assemble a Story that is free from contradiction. Atwill constructs his story from a "Roman Comedy" POV - The Players in this comedy come and go before dawn and continue until just after sunrise. I agree with almost all of this. Our possible disagreements here would be trivial. Others looking at it for the first time can be quite dismissive since the Comedy of Errors involve mistaking Simon Peter and others for angels, etc..

3. Joe Atwill, Caesar's Messiah, ISBN-13: 978-1461096405, pp. 139+:

"Thus, a single individual in the tomb tells the women to "tell his disciples' and, specifically, to tell "Peter," that Jesus "goeth before you" in Galilee. Notice that this is yet another binary chance. If the "angel" had instructed the women to tell "Simon Peter" and not "Peter" then the logical linkage between the version in John and the other three would be destroyed.

"In other words, within the combined version of the story this individual can only be "Simon Peter" and it would be, thus, contradictory for him to instruct the disciples to give a message to himself. However, it is not contradictory for Simon Peter to give a message to "Peter" if "Simon Peter" and "Peter" are different individuals. The author provides two methods by which a logical reader can learn that "Simon Peter" and "Peter" are separate characters.

"One method the author uses to reveal that "Peter" and "Simon Peter" are separate individuals is having the version of the visit to the tomb given in Mark, where the single "young man" asks the group of women to tell "Peter" that Jesus has "risen," occur later in the day than the version of the visit to the tomb given in John, in which the first person to go into the tomb is "Simon Peter." These facts create the following logical progression:

"In the Gospel of John, which begins earliest, "Simon Peter" is the first person to enter the tomb.

"The "young man" in the tomb tells Mary Magdalene to tell "Peter" that Jesus has risen, showing that "Peter" has not been in the tomb yet.

"Therefore, "Simon Peter" cannot be "Peter." "

4. The problem here is that this is from the Empty Tomb material. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+empty+tomb

The Empty Tomb is a grafted story and that means that the pieces were spliced into the Gospels AFTER the Gospels were finished. Or rather roughly finished, at any rate. Yet, within the Empty Tomb material, "Peter" and "Simon Peter" can be identified as separate individuals. If Peter and Simon Peter can be identified as separate individuals in the Grafted Empty Tomb story AND ALSO in material that is presented before the Empty Tomb material, there is trouble in the Organization of the NT Gospels, for Simon Peter and Peter are presented as the same person:

[10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
...
[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?"

Next: Teeple

CW

Charles Wilson wrote:

Although I hate the "Oral Tradition" argument, does it appear that there are 2 versions here?
1. "Jesus" is with Judas and after the question "Whom do you speak?", the "Officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees" fall to the ground after hearing "I am he".
2. The second time, "Jesus" adds something that is interesting: "If you seek me, let these men go." Uhhh...NO! "These men are accomplices and you are a threat to the State." I don't want to get too wrapped up in this one. The first part may be standard reference to the REAL Judas, Cestius. The second part reads in a quite different manner. I Spy something else.

I too dislike the appeal to oral tradition to explain the differences between Mark and John in the Passion Narrative and see no reason to do so here. I think the differences are readily explicable in terms of the different aims of Mark and John apparent throughout the Passion Narrative (and the rest of their gospels for that matter). John has a number of differences that form a pattern moving in the same direction.

John is generally considered to have a higher christology than the Synoptic Gospels, especially Mark. This is particularly noticeable in the Passion Narrative where the two texts are largely describing the same events in the same order. Jesus seems to be in control of events in John, far more so than he is in the Mark. To put it another way, it might seem that in Mark the Passion is something that is done to the Jesus, but in John it’s something Jesus does. Mark’s Jesus is a human being who subordinates himself to the will of God (and thus serves as a model for Christian discipleship). John’s Jesus is a divine being who descended from heaven for no other reason than to execute God’s plan.

Mark 14-15	John 18-19	Comment
44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him.	4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” 5 They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus replied, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”	Mark’s Jesus is identified to the authorities by Judas, who betrays him with a kiss, and taken into custody. John’s Jesus forestalls this by stepping forward to ask them their business and identifies himself. They are unable to take him into custody until he lets them.
50 All of them deserted him and fled.	Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.” 9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, “I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me.”	Mark’s Jesus is deserted by his followers. John’s Jesus commands the authorities to let his followers go.
[Out of sequence] 32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.”	Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”	What is the context for understanding the cup to which Jesus refers in John? Mark’s Jesus is a man who doesn’t want to die, but resigns himself to doing the will of God. He becomes distressed and agitated and prays to God to let him escape his fate. John’s Jesus asks a rhetorical question anticipating a negative answer. God’s plan (Jesus’ crucifixion) must go forward; Peter is wrong to resist it.
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death. 65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him over and beat him.	19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest	Who is on trial here?
	8 Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. 9 He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore said to him, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”	John’s Jesus tells Pilate: “You’re not in charge here.”
21 They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.	So they took Jesus; 17 and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.	18 Mark’s Jesus is too weak to carry his own cross (he is presumably incapacitated by the scourging he received in Mark 15.15). John’s Jesus is strong enough to carry his own cross and helps bring about his crucifixion by doing so.
34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”	28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.	Mark’s Jesus dies asking why God has forsaken him. John’s Jesus gives up his spirit after saying “it is finished” or “it is completed” (or, more idiomatically, “my work here is done”).

Perhaps the most interesting theological difference between Mark and John here is the issue of the cup. In Mark, Jesus is a human being who has a will that is different from God’s will, but he recognizes that he must subordinate his will to God’s. In John, we are not told that Jesus would have liked to avoid his fate. Jesus does not have a will of his own that is distinct from God’s will. In John 10:30, Jesus says: “the Father and I are one.”