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: 1386
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun May 27, 2018 9:19 am

Some notes --

1. [21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.

Compare with:

Luke 2: 36 - 38 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

So Hannah looks for the Redemption of Jerusalem. Later, there are those who look to the Redemption of Israel.

There is a large amount of discernable History here. I believe that she is Queen Salome, not some "Queen Alexandra" ("...as she was called by the Greeks..."). Josephus never explicitly states that Jannaeus and his Queen underwent a Levirite Ceremony, marrying his brother's wife to provide progeny. This "Anna" was, if correctly translated, a virgin, hardly a possibility with Jannaeus' brother married to a "Salome" for some time. The Greek parentage argument was a smear, written about in Josephus as having occurred during a banquet with Hycanus. He was attacked by the Pharisee "Eleazar" and told to give up the High Priesthood due to a female relation being a "Comfort Girl" to the Greeks.

"...she was a widow till she was 84." No one here believes this bit of "Numerology" but if you count back from 8/9 CE, you get to 76 BCE, the year of the Ascension of Salome at the death of Jannaeus. The Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE occurred and two complete Mishmarot Cycles finds the Priestly Rotations duplicated and back at Jerusalem for Passover. This is the Story of the Priesthood and the Hasmoneans and they are looking for the Redemption of Jerusalem - and Israel.

TRANSVALUATION.

The creation of the "Jesus" character smears the specific Political Groupings and places it on the back of this character:

[21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.

The Priestly Story gets rewritten to the story of a savior/god. The Passover Coup HOPES to find the Temple destroyed and the Re-Dedication of a Temple not built with human hands on the second Sabbath of that week: [Tuesday night/Wednesday], [Wednesday night/Thursday], [Thursday night/Friday]---Weekly Sabbath.

2. Luke's "Empty Tomb" Section:

[1] But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.
...
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
[3] but when they went in they did not find the body.
[22] Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
[23] and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.

Plz see: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=GRAFTED+STORY+EMPTY+TOMB

Matthew:

[1] Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag'dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.
[2] And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.

Mark:

[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
[3] And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
...
[7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

John:

[1] Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
[2] So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
[3] Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
[4] They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
[5] and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
[7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
***

Our much respected Poster Michael BG opened the Post with this:
He states that the Old Testament testimonies are different and the author of John wouldn’t have rejected the ones used by the synoptics if he had been aware of them. However, he also states that John and Luke shared some source or sources. I have not been convinced.
The purpose of the OT quotes foreshadowing the coming of "Jesus" are later, after the Transvaluation.

[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke's version, illustrated in these 3 sections are an attempt at creating an "Internally Consistent' version. If he "testifies" to Truth and Matthew's version is true, then Luke would have mentioned the Great Earthquake and the rolling away of the stone. He does not.

Luke is aware of the Original. Hannah is preaching for the Redemption of Jerusalem. This is Hellenistic in outlook (Where's outhouse when you need him?). The New! Improved! Jesus character has appropriated Jannaeus and is preaching for the Redemption of Israel.

When "Jesus" becomes "Universal" in John (He always existed and he created everything) the authors of John found their own Set of Scriptures. John answers Mark and the Synoptics and underneath the Twin Superstructures, at the Base, lies the Story that both rewrote.

More later, if I can,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Mon May 28, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2778
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by DCHindley » Mon May 28, 2018 6:34 pm

CW,

I think the idea being conveyed was that "from her virginity" she was married for seven years (and I'm sure they *did it*) until he died. So, say, age 13 + 7 yrs with husband = age 20+ years. Now she's 84, so that means 64 years of widowhood without ever remarrying.

I do not think the account was meant to imply that she remained a virgin even when married, unless one wants to go some twisted plot like she was a child bride (like Mohammed's youngest wife, about 6-7) and raised in the man's house but the marriage was never consummated (in Mohammed's case the child continued to live with her parents until aged 9-10 years, when the marriage was consummated). I don't want to discuss Mohammed's situation, out of respect for those of Islamic persuasion, but just mention it because one *could* go that way trying to explain *this* account.

But all in all, it only says she has lived 84 years, all but 7 of which were unbothered by any requirement to please her husband's needs, so she could hang out in the temple and pray a lot.

DCH

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon May 28, 2018 9:11 pm

DCH --

I'll start a new Thread if this gets too far afield from the OP.

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Alexandra":

"That Alexandra, the widow of Aristobulus I., was identical with her who married his brother Alexander Jannæus, is nowhere explicitly stated by Josephus, who no doubt took it for granted that the latter performed the levirate marriage prescribed by the law for the widow of a childless brother deceased. Josephus' statement ("Ant." xv. 6, § 3), that Hyrcanus, Jannæus' eldest son, was eighty years old when he was put to death by Herod, in 31 B.C., must be erroneous, for that would set the year of his birth as 111 B.C., and Jannæus himself was born in 125, so that he could have been but fourteen when Hyrcanus was born to him. It is difficult to understand how a thirteen-year-old boy married a widow of thirty..."

As one vulture said to another while munching on a dead clown, "Does this taste funny to you?"

I do believe that Josephus is intentionally covering over the Truth by omission here. The idea has been around for thousands of years: If a brother dies childless, it is the Duty of the surviving brother to take the wife of the dead brother and make babies with her. Josephus passes over the explicit statement of marriage to a "Salome, who was called Alexandra by the Greeks". This is a continuation of the Racial slur given by Eleazar at a Banquet for Hyrcanus. If this Branch of the Hasmoneans is compromised by filthy, uncircumcised Greek soldiers, they cannot be High Priests. Further, Jannaeus would be 13 to be a daddy here. It's possible but...

Now, it would make more sense to have Jannaeus marry "a" Salome, a different Salome than "Salome Alexandra". What would that mean? (I am not implying that "Hannah" maintained her virginity even when married to Jannaeus.)

Someone knows something and there is a message here in Luke 2. Queen Salome was not "Salome Alexandra". Salome married Jannaeus and was virginal, probably through the wedding day ceremonies but not much farther. The "84 years" does not have to be Purely Historical although I believe it is close enough. It is a Time Marker, looking back from the Preparations for the Passover of 9 CE. Count back 84 years from 8/9 CE and you get...the Death of Jannaeus and the Ascension of Queen Salome. Of the Hasmoneans, of Jehoiarib, of the House of Eleazar.

For those with Calendrical Interests, there was a Temple Slaughter in 4 BCE at Passover. Two complete Mishmarot Cycles = 12 years = 9 CE (Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered). Bilgah and Immer Serve at the Temple for Passover in 4 BCE AND in 9 CE.

If you can take a flyer and assume that the "...half hour of silence in heaven..." represents the Rule of Salome, you can relate the descriptions in Revelation to an alignment game of "Match'em Up" with Salome and the Citadels and the identity of those who came through the Great Tribulation as reported by Josephus. Josephus doesn't care about this very much.

To tie-in with the OP, John doesn't refute Mark. John adds to and corrects Mark:

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

John 1: 15, 27 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
***
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

This is Hasmonean material with a lot of the Priesthood. Mishmarot. Bilgah and Immer. Once the creation of the savior/god has been made, the relationship between Hannah and Salome and Jannaeus and the Hasmoneans has been lost. Priesthood? Wazzat?

John 1: 36 (RSV):

[36] and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

Whatever could that mean?

CW

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by andrewcriddle » Wed May 30, 2018 11:01 am

Brown in Death of the Messiah has a detailed discussion of whether or not the resemblances between Mark and John over Peter's denials indicate knowledge of Mark by John.

Brown concludes that this is not a standard Markan intercalation and the structural resemblances between Mark and John can be explained if both had access to two pieces of pre-Gospel tradition: a/ Jesus after his arrest was interrogated by the High Priest in the middle of the night b/ After the arrest of Jesus Peter repeatedly denied Jesus in the middle of the night. John and Mark independently put these two pieces of tradition together in a continuous narrative,

Andrew Criddle

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed May 30, 2018 12:34 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:01 am
Brown in Death of the Messiah has a detailed discussion of whether or not the resemblances between Mark and John over Peter's denials indicate knowledge of Mark by John.
Thnx! Will try to track it down.
Brown concludes that this is not a standard Markan intercalation...
Thus, an insertion of Text?
...[T]he structural resemblances between Mark and John can be explained if both had access to two pieces of pre-Gospel tradition:

a/ Jesus after his arrest was interrogated by the High Priest in the middle of the night
b/ After the arrest of Jesus Peter repeatedly denied Jesus in the middle of the night. John and Mark independently put these two pieces of tradition together in a continuous narrative.
I have a problem with "pieces of tradition" since it covers a multitude of sins and explains nothing, esp. since a "non-standard Markan intercalation" is asserted. I believe that something else is going on here and it doesn't depend on "night/day" motifs, although in the Grand Scheme of Things, the night time action is essential to the "Real Story".

Mark 14:

[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.

Matthew 26:

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."

Luke 22:

[54] Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house. Peter followed at a distance;
[55] and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."

Peter is outside in the courtyard and he is sitting. Mark is ambiguous on the "Sitting" part but with that we shall find out, it is permissible that Peter is sitting, even if Mark uses indirection.

Look at John:

John 18:

[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.

Every person in John is standing. Why?

This part of the Tale may not need 2 Sources, only one.

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Temple, Administration and Service of", http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of :

The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. 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)..."

Mark is not being repudiated. Matthew, Luke and John are adding to the Story. John is adding much more information:

[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?"

This is interesting. This servant is a kinsman and "kinsman" signifies an Ordering of the Greek Court: "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and Highest, "Kinsman". This person is not to be played with. He means Serious Bidness. Only the Sacred Few are allowed in and it is so Sacred that they must stand. Peter is allowed in.

There is more but I should prolly start a New Thread.

Thanx, AC.

CW

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by neilgodfrey » Thu May 31, 2018 2:23 am

DCHindley wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 6:34 pm
CW,

I think the idea being conveyed was that "from her virginity" she was married for seven years (and I'm sure they *did it*) until he died. So, say, age 13 + 7 yrs with husband = age 20+ years. Now she's 84, so that means 64 years of widowhood without ever remarrying.

I do not think the account was meant to imply that she remained a virgin even when married, unless one wants to go some twisted plot like she was a child bride . . .

But all in all, it only says she has lived 84 years, all but 7 of which were unbothered by any requirement to please her husband's needs, so she could hang out in the temple and pray a lot.

DCH
If that passage in Luke originated in the mid second century (very likely in my view) then the idea of a married couples avoiding sexual relations -- permanently -- was very highly honoured. Acts of Paul and Thecla come to mind at the moment, but I am sure I have come across Christian documents from around the same period expressing the same view. Christian wives who avoided sex with their husbands had a special place of honour in the eyes of many Christians. Marcionites, iirc, taught the value also of married couples refraining from sex, period. (Not just for a time.)

Especially from the second century through to late antiquity the body and bodily pleasures were denigrated. Conversely what was valued was punishment and neglect of the body -- as we come to see with some Christians seeking out persecution, even death, and eventually the monastic movement.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Ulan
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ulan » Thu May 31, 2018 8:24 am

I always thought there wasn't really any need to persecute Marcionites in order to get rid of them. They were simply outbred.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11483
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 31, 2018 8:47 am

But given the fact that there was a clear distinction between 'full Christians,' catechumen (those who were undergoing instruction to become Christians) and a large swath of 'layity' or believers in early Christianity I have always thought the Marcionite celibacy thing has been completely misunderstood. I don't think there would be that much of a difference between the 'inner' understanding of Roman Catholicism (and its celibate priesthood) or the external portrait of the Greek Orthodox priesthood (dressed in the garb of the eunuch priests of Artemis). Indeed there were enough eunuch priests in Byzantiums that by law the only priests which nuns could see were eunuch priests https://books.google.com/books?id=J5LrD ... 22&f=false. I think the Marcionite church was the source of this distinction:

1. eunuch priests
2. catechumen who were not only baptized by ritually castrated
3. a large body of 'regular' folks who married and carried on and whom the priesthood basically used to keep the church financially solvent
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Thu May 31, 2018 9:37 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:01 am
Brown in Death of the Messiah has a detailed discussion of whether or not the resemblances between Mark and John over Peter's denials indicate knowledge of Mark by John.

Brown concludes that this is not a standard Markan intercalation and the structural resemblances between Mark and John can be explained if both had access to two pieces of pre-Gospel tradition: a/ Jesus after his arrest was interrogated by the High Priest in the middle of the night b/ After the arrest of Jesus Peter repeatedly denied Jesus in the middle of the night. John and Mark independently put these two pieces of tradition together in a continuous narrative,

Andrew Criddle
Thank you Andrew; “can be explained” doesn’t necessary mean that it should be explained that way, or it is the best way to explain it.
Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 12:34 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:01 am
Brown in Death of the Messiah has a detailed discussion of whether or not the resemblances between Mark and John over Peter's denials indicate knowledge of Mark by John.
Thnx! Will try to track it down.
Brown concludes that this is not a standard Markan intercalation...
Thus, an insertion of Text?
...[T]he structural resemblances between Mark and John can be explained if both had access to two pieces of pre-Gospel tradition:

a/ Jesus after his arrest was interrogated by the High Priest in the middle of the night
b/ After the arrest of Jesus Peter repeatedly denied Jesus in the middle of the night. John and Mark independently put these two pieces of tradition together in a continuous narrative.
I have a problem with "pieces of tradition" since it covers a multitude of sins and explains nothing, esp. since a "non-standard Markan intercalation" is asserted. I believe that something else is going on here and it doesn't depend on "night/day" motifs, although in the Grand Scheme of Things, the night time action is essential to the "Real Story".

Mark 14:

[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.

Matthew 26:

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."

Luke 22:

[54] Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house. Peter followed at a distance;
[55] and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."

Peter is outside in the courtyard and he is sitting. Mark is ambiguous on the "Sitting" part but with that we shall find out, it is permissible that Peter is sitting, even if Mark uses indirection.

Look at John:

John 18:

[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.
Mark has the Peter story broken into two
14:54
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.
And
14:66-72

John also has the story in two parts:
Jn 18:15-18
And
18:25-28.

Matthew follows Mark
Mt 26:58, 69-75

Luke has put the story back together
Lk 22:54c-62.

It is possible that Mark had access to an historical tradition about Peter being challenged as a follower of “the Nazarene, Jesus". However as already pointed out the breaking of the story into two is likely to have been done by Mark and carried on my Matthew and most likely by John. In fact John has improved the story by making the break at a different point between denials one and two and three. It is a natural break because Peter moves between denials one and two.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu May 31, 2018 12:11 pm

Image

Thank you, MBG.

I've got a L-O-N-G way to go here. Look at the layout of the Temple ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... literature ). I am trying to separate possible strata of Composition and and part of this is Historical/Archaeological.

In the upper middle on the right is the circle with the identifier "Chamber of the Hearth". Dividing this area is a line, evidently a wall with a door. On the outside - the right half - is the Chamber of the Hearth. Here, Priests sit, sleep and take a break. Go through the door and you are in the Chamber of the Flame. This is a Sacred Area and the Priests are not even allowed to sit.

Peter makes it into Chamber of the Flames. He is of the Priestly Culture, even if he might be a child in this part of the Story (I believe that Peter is a child here). Even the Door Maid is outside of the Chamber of the Flame.

This identification is hidden with the movement of "Jesus" and the "Simon Peter" character. These characters move to the High Priest's house and back, to Pilate's Praetorium:

John18: 28

[28] Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

[NOTE: Another Clue that someone knows something:

[33] Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
...
[38] Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him.

'Jesus" is unclean.]

The purpose here appears to be that the Real, Physical Story cannot be "Scrubbed" but it can be hidden. It is hidden by minimizing the Real part and replacing it with the Movements of "Jesus", Peter and the insertion of the "Simon Peter" character.

CW
Attachments
Temple-Chamber of the Hearth.jpg
Temple-Chamber of the Hearth.jpg (82.54 KiB) Viewed 5916 times

Post Reply