BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Home Bible Study: John

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
grant
02:11 / 20.09.07
Perhaps the relationship between Logos and Theos can be interpreted as the relationship between Language and Consciousness?

That's a very interesting idea - but I'm hanging up on the analogy between Theos and Consciousness.

Is it worth pointing out that Theos and Logos are the roots of the word "theology"?

Logos, translated here as "Word," also has all those other meanings - logic, reason, study/analysis.

If you *really* want to have fun with line-by-line translation of John, check out this. I'd need to know more Greek to really get the whole benefit of this, but it's pretty comprehensive in Latin & English, too.

Anyway, I suppose this verse, drawing that line between Logos and Theos, is what opens the door for, like, Aquinas to turn Aristotle into Catholic doctrine.
 
 
EvskiG
13:57 / 20.09.07
Before we wade into the Book of Signs (John 1:19-12:50), thought I'd just offer a note about the whole "Father" thing, which we've already seen in John 1:14 and 18 and will see over and over again.

Referring to God as "Father" wasn't unique to Jesus. It wasn't common in Jewish prayer of the time, but it wasn't unusual, either. A couple of examples: Malachi 2:10 ("Have we not all one father?"), Berakhot 5:1 (ancient holy ones spent an hour preparing for prayer "in order to direct their hearts toward their Father who is in heaven").

Also, from what I understand, subjects of the Roman Empire (like the Jews of Jerusalem at the time) were supposed to refer to Caesar as "Father," so it was a common patriarchal term of respect at the time. It didn't necessarily mean "my own personal Dad and progenitor."
 
 
grant
14:39 / 20.09.07
Isn't that meaning what Jesus was messing with, though, the little subversive? "It is true that he is my father, therefore I act as a son acts?"
 
 
EvskiG
15:38 / 20.09.07
Assuming that there was a historical Jesus, and that he actually said some of the things attributable to him, very well could be. (If we view him as a literary character instead, and attribute intent to that character, I'd say so.)

Finally, on to the meat of the story!

19 This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who are you?'

20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, 'I am not the Messiah.'

21 And they asked him, 'What then? Are you Elijah?' He said, 'I am not.' 'Are you the prophet?' He answered, 'No.'

22 Then they said to him, 'Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?'

23 He said,
'I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,
"Make straight the way of the Lord,"
as the prophet Isaiah said.

John the Baptist, preparing the way. And once again the text (i) makes clear to the reader that John the Baptist is not himself the Messiah and (ii) references Jewish scripture.

To the Jews, the Messiah (Moschiach (משיח)), is the leader who will deliver the Jews to freedom, independence, and peace. Paradise on Earth.

The Messiah supposedly is heralded by Elijah the prophet. Jews still open their doors on Passover in the hopes that Elijah will stop by to announce the Messiah.

So the priests and their assistants, who I presume heard about John going around baptizing people, are asking him if he's the Messiah or his herald. He says no.

(Reminds me a bit of the famous story of the Buddha:

A young man asked Buddha "What are you? Are you a god?"

"No," replied Buddha.

"Well, are you a prophet?" he further queries.

"No," Buddha says.

"Well, what are you?" he pleads.

"I am awake." Buddha replies.)

Levites, by the way, are members of one of the tribes of Israel who traditionally were employed as temple servants. Hereditary assistants to the Kohanim, the hereditary priests, who also are Levites but are supposedly descended from Aaron, Moses's brother.

As it happens, I'm a Levite. (If you believe this stuff has been tracked accurately over 2000+ years, that is.) My mother's line were Kohanim, my father's were Levites, the lines are patrilineal, so I'm a Levite. As my father says, we're the temple janitors.

If you meet a Jewish person named Cohen (or Kahn, or Kovacs, etc.) chances are he or she is a Cohen. If you meet a Jewish person named Levi, chances are he or she is a Levite.
 
 
grant
17:52 / 20.09.07
A note in the NAB says "priests and Levites" meant Sadducees in this context. Hey, that Wikipedia article says J the Baptist was Levite himself!

I'd forgotten about Levi & Cohen being janitor & priest - that's pretty cool.

Elijah (or rather not-Elijah) also turns up at the end of the gospel, on the cross.
 
 
EvskiG
18:55 / 20.09.07
While John has John the Baptist say he isn't Elijah, Matthew (11:12-14) says he is: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." (Also Matthew 17:10-12) Another example of the Gospels appropriating and retconning the Old Testament for their own purposes.

Just realized that Stanley Lieber and Jacob Kurtzburg (Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, that is) might have had Elijah in mind when they created Galactus's herald, the Silver Surfer. No surfboard, but he does ride a chariot of fire. (2 Kings 2:11: "As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.")
 
 
EvskiG
01:49 / 21.09.07
Oh -- and John the Baptist's quote from Isaiah:

He said,
'I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness,
"Make straight the way of the Lord,"
as the prophet Isaiah said.

Is rendered in my Tanakh translation (Isaiah 40:3) as

A voice rings out:
"Clear in the desert
A road for the Lord!
Level in the wilderness
A highway for our God!"

As I understand it, Isaiah doesn't mean "get things ready for the Messiah!" Instead, he's referring to the Jews returning to Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity. "The Presence of God left the land with the exiles; now it will return with them."

(After destroying the First Temple, the Babylonian Empire shipped most of the leading Jews out to Babylon as captives. King Cyrus (or Xerxes) of Persia -- the dude from 300 -- beat the Babylonian Empire and allowed the Jews to return home.)
 
 
grant
15:41 / 21.09.07
So we've kind of talked about John recognizing Jesus as the after-water figure with the baptism by spirit and the apparition of the dove.

There's also the business with John twice calling Jesus "Lamb of God" which is an odd phrase, I think.

And there's introduction of the patron saint of Greece and Scotland, who brings his brother Simon, who Jesus calls Cephas, which means Petros which means Rock, which the NAB says isn't recorded as a personal name until this mention.

I'm fascinated by Andrew just because he's such a high-profile saint but is barely mentioned at all. (And Andrew was my confirmation name.)

I'm still eager to get to the wedding....
 
 
EvskiG
15:52 / 21.09.07
It seems like a few people have favorite parts of John they want to discuss, and are bored by other parts.

So perhaps we should just skip to the interesting parts and backfill if and when the discussion slacks off.

Anybody want to start?
 
 
Andrue
19:44 / 21.09.07

Perhaps the relationship between Logos and Theos can be interpreted as the relationship between Language and Consciousness?

Hmmm, re-reading that it feels like my interpretation is actually Gnostic in a sort-of-Luciferian kind of way (but with Jesus kind of merging into the liberatory interpretation of Lucifer)...


I had a similar reading of the Johannine-Genesis mixture. If we look at it culturally it makes sense, too. Looking at Philo's writings, in which he tried to combine Aristotelian and Jewish thought, it would only make sense that a group of off-shoot Jews that wanted to Hellenize/appeal to the non-Jewish sectors, would want to work in a sense of the rational/conscious mind as part of creation. I've heard extremely contradictory accounts of pre-Roman Jewish ideas of soul/body (as contradictory as there was no sense of a split to there was a definite sense of a split), but the Christians definitely keyed into this idea whole-heartedly.


Before we wade into the Book of Signs (John 1:19-12:50), thought I'd just offer a note about the whole "Father" thing, which we've already seen in John 1:14 and 18 and will see over and over again.
Referring to God as "Father" wasn't unique to Jesus. It wasn't common in Jewish prayer of the time, but it wasn't unusual, either. A couple of examples: Malachi 2:10 ("Have we not all one father?"), Berakhot 5:1 (ancient holy ones spent an hour preparing for prayer "in order to direct their hearts toward their Father who is in heaven").
Jesus also goes as far as saying all peacemakers are the children of God, right (Matthew 5:9)? I always found that line interesting, as theologically for Christians, there's a great focus on Jesus as the one and only son of God. This leads into, at least partially, my reading of Jesus as not claiming he is a direct Son of God, but more a prophet that is bringing about a new covenant (the water/fire issue). What also gets generally overlooked is that Jesus speaks "with authority," as kind of first-hand God-voice, but so did all of the other prophets. They spoke as if they were God, not just speaking for God.

While John has John the Baptist say he isn't Elijah, Matthew (11:12-14) says he is: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." (Also Matthew 17:10-12) Another example of the Gospels appropriating and retconning the Old Testament for their own purposes.

Just realized that Stanley Lieber and Jacob Kurtzburg (Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, that is) might have had Elijah in mind when they created Galactus's herald, the Silver Surfer. No surfboard, but he does ride a chariot of fire. (2 Kings 2:11: "As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.")

The John the Baptist/Elijah thing is interesting, especially due to the deviations between Matthew and John that you're pointing out (my two favorite Gospels). I'll try to keep focused on John, though. I think that along with the New Covenant issue, John was going for something more along the lines of a continuation of the Jewish epic and generalizing it out to non-Jews, as opposed to classically held Jewish conceptions of end times, which are heavily associated with Elijah. In contrast, Matthew’s gospel (and, really, the other two synoptics as well) seem to be explaining the Jesus phenomena in terms of the classic Jewish end times, and the difference between the Jesus phenomena and the pre-conceptualized events are just a “Oops! Surprise!” from God.
 
 
grant
13:53 / 22.09.07
Off topic: We're not Bible geeks. This dude is a Bible geek.

On topic: John 1:37 may be alluding to John, son of Zebedee, who I think is generally accepted (well, by some) as the (notional) author of this gospel. The unnamed disciple is sort of a motif in this book.

At any rate, I'm eager to get to the wedding! John 2:1-11...

Three days after Andrew and Disciple #2 (and Simon Peter and Philip and plain-speaking Nathaniel) decide to stick around this kooky new teacher, they go to a wedding at a place called Cana (which the notes say isn't named in the Old Testament - does this mean that it's a new subdivision, or just a podunk town out in the sticks somewhere?).

Jesus bickers with his mom.


3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
4 (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."
5 His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."


Which hardly strikes me as Christian, the insolent sod.


6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.


Hey, look! ALLEGORY!

The old wine/new wine symbol as a critique of Judaism has already been brought up, but I think there's a spin to this symbol that's slightly kinder - the idea of transforming the baptism/purification by water to a purification by something fiery (again), but also kind of joyful and fun.

There's also the underlying idea of a contract, I think - the Torah is a book of law based on a covenant, and a wedding is a special kind of covenant. (In Jewish weddings, this is emphasized by the ketubah, which is often created with fine calligraphy and displayed on married couples' walls.)

I like weddings. It's hard to be unhappy at a wedding.

Potent symbol.


7 Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it.

9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom


Is it possible to do a brief summary of the theology of the Song of Solomon here? Because "bridegroom" is not some random figure in biblical symbolism.


10 and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."

11 Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

As if they didn't already....

Nice bit of head-hitting with the "Hey! He did SIGNS! These are those!" here.
 
 
Andrue
19:45 / 22.09.07

Is it possible to do a brief summary of the theology of the Song of Solomon here? Because "bridegroom" is not some random figure in biblical symbolism.

I hadn't really considered that. I like the idea though, especially if we look back to the beginning of John, and what he added to creation. Here, if we tie in the Song of Solomon (which, according to some sources, is an allegory about the relationship between God and his People), Jesus is then the middleman that facilitates the relationship -- the one that has transformed the ritual waters into something to be enjoyed by everyone. He, in a way, made the wedding into something more (dare I say?) graceful. A party with good wine throughout -- a kinder, gentler, more happy relationship.
 
 
EvskiG
20:35 / 23.09.07
Later in the story (John 3:29), John the Baptist compares Jesus to a bridegroom and himself to the groom's best man.

Lots of interesting stuff going on in this story.

First, it's clear that Jesus is fun at parties. Since it suggests that he approved of celebrations and wine, the story has been used over the centuries to oppose Christian puritanism and teetotaling.

Second, the water into wine trick -- and the related loaves and fishes trick -- probably are modeled on similar stories from the Old Testament: Elijah in 1 Kings 17:1-16 (multiplying jars of flour and oil) and Elisha in 2 Kings 4:1-7, 42-4 (multiplying vessels of oil and bread).

Third, the water into wine bit isn't just a run-of-the-mill miracle but, as per John 2:11, a Sign -- one of the things that supposedly shows that Jesus is divine or the Messiah. (Not sure why water into wine is any more likely to be a sign of divinity than, say, Elijah and Elisha's bits, or other cool stuff by Moses, Daniel, Samson, etc.)

As for the text:

Interesting that Jesus's mother isn't named, here or anywhere else in the Gospel of John.

Jesus acts like a bit of a dick, saying his hour hasn't yet come. His mother wasn't saying it was time for him to be resurrected, or even asking him to perform a miracle -- she just mentioned that they were out of wine. Jesus could have gone to the local wine merchant, or taken a collection among the wedding guests for another round.

As for the jars, that's a lot of water (120-180 gallons) turned into a lot of wine -- must have been some party.

Despite Grant's comments, I think it's pretty clear that the steward's commentary about inferior and good wine, and the text's emphasis that the water jars are stone and used for "Jewish rites of purification," are very clear and calculated shots at Judaism.

The inferior wine served first and good wine served second, representing the teachings of Judaism and Christianity respectively, were addressed above. (Contrast with Luke 5:33-39, where Jesus says "no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, 'The old is good.'")

As for the jars, this is one of the many situations where the Gospels distort and exaggerate Jewish concerns with ritual purity. First, the text flatly states that the jars are intended for water for "Jewish rites of purification." Second, the text notes that the jars are stone, rather than clay or wood, which means that they wouldn't become unclean by contact with an unclean person or object. Third, Jesus implicitly criticizes these rites by changing the water (which, again, is in special containers intended for Jewish rituals of purification) to booze for a wedding.

(Think of Aleister Crowley going to a Catholic wedding and changing a huge supply of holy water into margaritas. Same idea. Mildly insulting to the Church? I think so.)

So why does the text emphasize that these are jars for Jewish purification rites rather than plain old water jugs? Well, John was trying to sell Christianity to non-Jews who didn't want to follow the Jewish dietary laws, and certainly didn't want to get circumcised. Seems to me that he wanted to emphasize to his audience of potential converts that Jesus and Christianity, unlike Judaism, didn't require abiding by those fussy and potentially burdensome Jewish rules.

And perhaps that they knew how to have a good time at a wedding.
 
 
grant
19:04 / 24.09.07
Despite Grant's comments, I think it's pretty clear that the steward's commentary about inferior and good wine, and the text's emphasis that the water jars are stone and used for "Jewish rites of purification," are very clear and calculated shots at Judaism.

Oh, there's an undeniable element of that.

By the way, I *think* I know things about big tanks of water for ritual purification, but I'd like to be sure - are these stone vessels for religious preparation or is this taking place in a mikvah or are the two things not mutually exclusive? Because there might be a layer of symbolic strangeness about turning a menstrual bath into another red liquid.
 
 
EvskiG
21:07 / 24.09.07
I *think* I know things about big tanks of water for ritual purification, but I'd like to be sure - are these stone vessels for religious preparation or is this taking place in a mikvah or are the two things not mutually exclusive?

In theory, the jars might have been intended for filling a ceremonial purification bath, or mikvah (which was used by both men and women on certain occasions). But mikvaot have to be fed by rainwater or naturally flowing water, and can't use water that has been pumped or carried in a vessel (like a jar).

On the other hand, the jars might have been intended for handwashing, which was done before eating (good First Century hygiene!) and certain other events. For this sort of washing the water can be in a vessel, but it has to be poured by another person, which would be awkward with such huge stone jars. Also, it's baffling to assume that someone had so many empty stone jars sitting about.

Of course, even assuming that the story had some grain of truth, it's possible that the authors of the Gospel of John exaggerated the size or number of the jars for one reason or another. Or that they simply made the story up, and (as non-Jews) didn't know enough about Jewish ritual washing to get the details straight.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
12:31 / 01.10.07
So, um, any thoughts on my earlier post re: the farewell discourses being teachings taught only to the Apostles, and the apparent contradiction in ch18 v20?
 
 
grant
15:06 / 01.10.07
I *so* haven't got there yet. Sorry.

What happens next? What happens next?
 
 
EvskiG
16:20 / 01.10.07
What part do people want to talk about first?

The part of Chapter 1 we skipped? The rest of Chapter 2? Or Chapters 13-18?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:22 / 01.10.07
13-18! Thirteen through eighteen. Yes. Please.


...I mean, if you really want my opinion.
 
 
grant
18:11 / 01.10.07
Well, what else is there in 2?
 
 
EvskiG
19:53 / 01.10.07
Jesus and the moneychangers in the Temple.

(Some say this story shows Jesus, like many other Jews of the time, being upset that Caiaphas -- a Jewish high priest appointed by the Romans -- had moved the vendors previously located on the Mount of Olives into the Court of the Gentiles.)

Oh -- and a reference to Jesus's brothers in John 2:12.
 
 
grant
14:21 / 02.10.07
I can't think of the moneychangers without thinking of Jesus Christ Superstar. Ow. Get it out of my head.


Get out!
 
 
grant
14:27 / 02.10.07
Which part of Ch 1 got skipped? I thought it was all touched, albeit glancingly....
 
 
EvskiG
15:17 / 02.10.07
From 1:24 forward. John the Baptist and the Disciples.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:46 / 02.10.07
Well (catching up here, didn't have much net access last week) we passed over the first disciples. Not loads to digest there apart from Jesus' first words to them (and his first in this gospel: "what do you seek?" (1:38).

That and the renaming of Simon to Peter (Cephas = stone/rock). An echo of Abram/Abraham? Some commentators have pointed out that Peter hardly fit his new name, even up until Jesus's crucifixion, being quite changeable in nature. It was only after the resurrection that Peter became the steadfast rock upon which the church could be built.

Further to Andrue's first post in this thread: when Jesus meets Nathaniel he says "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you", which is apparently a common metaphor for meditation on scripture. Prior to this Nathaniel also speculates "whether anything good can come from Nazareth" - a reinforcement of Jesus' lowly origins.

The link above also points out that This section of John shows four ways of coming to Jesus: Andrew came to Jesus because of the preaching of John; Peter came to Jesus because of the witness of his brother; Phillip came to Jesus as a result of the direct call of Jesus and Nathaniel came to Jesus as he overcame personal prejudices by a personal encounter with Jesus ("come and see").

As well as four different witnesses testifying to the identity of Jesus: John the Baptist testified that Jesus is eternal, that He is the man uniquely anointed with the Holy Spirit, that He is the Lamb of God, and that Jesus is the unique Son of God; Andrew testified that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ; Phillip testified that Jesus is the One prophesied in the Old Testament and Nathaniel testified that Jesus is the Son of God and the King of Israel.

I've been thinking about the "lamb of god" thing. I'm not sure if it's always merely an invoking of Jesus sacrificial role or to what extent it relates to the Lord as shepherd? Anyone?
 
 
EvskiG
00:28 / 03.10.07
John the Baptist testified that Jesus is eternal, that He is the man uniquely anointed with the Holy Spirit, that He is the Lamb of God, and that Jesus is the unique Son of God.

Funny thing. While that's a common interpretation often pushed by those who want to claim that Jesus was the ONLY "Son of God," it's flatly contradicted by the text.

John the Baptist doesn't actually say that Jesus is the UNIQUE Son of God -- he says (in John 2:34)

"And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God."

Where "Son of God" sometimes has been interpreted as "the elect of God" or "God's chosen one."

And, as others have noted, in the Jewish tradition the title "Son of God" can be applied to an angel (bene elohim -- literally, "sons of gods"), a king, Israel, a judge, or a just man.
 
 
grant
15:08 / 04.10.07
Just to further the "Lamb of God" thing, the idea of God-as-shepherd is present in the Psalms, some of which are older than Genesis (as far as we know). I don't know the age of Psalm 23 off the top of my head, but it's at least very, very old (and would have been old when Jesus was alive).
 
 
EvskiG
15:58 / 04.10.07
One other thing about the Lamb of God.

There are lots of references to the celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover in the Gospels. (After all, the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.) This holiday remembers and commemorates the Hebrews' (supposed) escape from their bondage in Egypt.

One critical part of the story of Passover is the Ten Plagues God inflicted on Egypt for refusing to let the Jews out of slavery. The last of those was The Slaying of the First Born -- God's killing of the first born sons of the Egyptians.

To keep the Angel of Death from visiting Jewish homes and killing Jewish first-born sons, the Torah says that God told Moses to instruct the Jews to put lamb's blood on their doorposts: "And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt."

So the Blood of the Lamb (so to speak) spared the Jews from death. As a result, before the destruction of the Temple (in 70 C.E.) Jews traditionally ate lamb as part of the Passover meal. (Now they just include a lamb shankbone as part of the Seder Plate.)

So Jesus could be seen as the paschal lamb whose own death saves the Jews (or, later, humanity) from death. In fact (unlike the Synoptic Gospels), the Gospel of John has Jesus die on 14 Nisan, the day the paschal lambs were to be slaughtered.)

Interestingly, while there were all sorts of rules governing the Paschal Lamb, as far as I know Judaism saw its death as a pretty standard livestock sacrifice, and (unlike, say, a scapegoat or a kapparot chicken) didn't view its death as atoning for or substituting for anyone's sins.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:30 / 07.12.07
Went to the first carol service of the season last night. At one point the obligatory John 1 was wheeled out and I felt I appreciated and reflected on it a lot more as the result of this thread - so thanks all!

In other news: BUMP! Know the wedding scene has largely been covered above, but it's worth mentioning that this is the last time Mary speaks in John until the crucifiction. Also, I don't know if this is an entirely modern interpretation of mine, but does anyone else see the water into wine become something of a mirror for creation, if wine and blood are considered analagous (it only struck me when I remembered that blood and seawater share the same buffering system)?

Moving onto the second half of John 2 we find the moneychangers in the temple. It takes place just prior to passover, and opens with a mention of Jesus travelling with his mother and bretheren(KJV)/brothers(NIV) as well as his disciples (more evidence that the idea that Jesus's had siblings was hidden by teh Churchzor is, well, slightly flawed). Presumably Jesus has already been evicted from Nazareth by this point (Luke 4:16-31) as they all stayed in Capernaum (the site of several events within the gospels, and a place that Jesus later condemns in Luke 10:15/Matthew 11:23 for it's inhabitants continual refusal to believe in him, despite all they have witnessed) for a few days, possibly whilst Jesus taught on the sabbath.

Then Jesus headed onto Jerusalem, with at least some of his disciples (possibly including some picked up at Capernaum, depending on how this lies with the synoptics). They head into the Temple, which is described as essentially a market, filled with dealers selling sheep, oxen and doves, along with money changers. He drove out the livestock, overturned the money changers' tables, and tersely told those who sold doves to leave (is this a more lenient treatment given the symbolic purity of doves?). Then (in the first prophecy reference in John?), verse 17 says, His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." (psalm 69 v9). That's one of David's contributions, set in what appears to be one of his lowest points, but I'm having touble seeing it as prophecy myself. Does it seem a little shoehorned to anyone else?

He's then upbraided by people about his actions, they demand proof of his authority. His reply, destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days.

20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

So even at this early point John is highlighting that belief for his disciples only kicked in at the point of resurrection, and that though many claimed to believe early on, their faith was poor and not to be counted on. Is this merely a critique of humanity or a sidelining of many of Jesus' early followers (almost all Jewish, obviously)? Is he lauding the value of faith to reinforce those who do have it, or is there something else that can be gleaned from this section?

Oh, should have linked to it earlier but here's an old thread on John the Baptist Tuna Ghost started. Short, but jam packed with quality from both Tuna and Ember (consider this a barbecrush).
 
 
grant
16:52 / 07.12.07
On doves: I think they were being sold for certain kinds of sacrifices in the Temple.

More later!
 
 
jentacular dreams
14:23 / 08.12.07
Presumed as much, along with the calves and lambs?
 
 
EvskiG
16:06 / 14.12.07
Here's a bit from the chatty, quirky, and slightly dated Jews, God and History:

"It was a long-established custom in those days to sell sacrificial doves and pigeons outside the Temple, just as it is the custom to sell candles and crosses inside churches and cathedrals today. As Jewish pilgrims came from many lands to offer sacrifices in the Temple, it was also a custom for vendors to make change from one currency to another as a service to these pilgrims. . . . Jesus objected, not to the making of change, but to the handling of money on Temple grounds, just as he might object to the custom of handling money inside churches and cathedrals today when collection plates or baskets are passed to worshipers.

When Jesus arrived at the Temple, smashing the tables of the vendors and driving the money-changers down the Temple stairs, those Jews who wanted these services were as outraged as Christians would be today if someone were to storm into their churches during Easter services, smash the candles and crosses offered for sale, and drive the gentlemen passing the collection plates down the church steps."

(For what it's worth, Jews don't collect money or pass a collection plate at temple, and more religious Jews don't carry money into temples, or carry anything on the Sabbath.)

And here's Amy-Jill Levine in The Misunderstood Jew:

"Caiaphas had moved the vendors previously located on the Mount of Olives into the Court of the Gentiles, and some Jews, including Jesus, objected. The issue then is not economic exploitation, but a change in the way the sacrificial system was run."

That is, if you believe any of it actually happened.

Insanely busy now. More later.
 
 
EvskiG
16:12 / 14.12.07
Oh -- here's more than anyone ever really wanted to know about Temple sacrifices. And here's what's replaced them.
 
 
grant
17:54 / 14.12.07
I'm suspecting this:

Of fowls, turtle-doves and pigeons were to be offered, but only in exceptional cases as holocausts and sin-offerings; they were not accepted as thank- or praise-offerings nor as a public sacrifice.

is why doves had a special status.

That's also a different level to the dove symbolism in Christianity.
 
 
grant
14:23 / 16.12.07
So, in the NAB translation, John 2 ends:
24
But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all,
25
and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well.

and John 3 starts with the bit about being born again.

The note in the NAB says that there's an ambiguity between again and from above, and that Nicodemus grabs the wrong end of the stick:

[3] Born: see the note on John 1:13. From above: the Greek adverb anothen means both "from above" and "again." Jesus means "from above" (see John 3:31) but Nicodemus misunderstands it as "again." This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.


This is followed by another word game about "wind" and "spirit," two meanings of the Greek pneuma.

4
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
6
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
7
Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'
8
The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

There's something about this scene that reminds me of the street theater sequence in Billy Jack, where the hippies, like, stick it to the Man by messing with his head.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply