Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion
- Thread starter Mars Man
- Start date
The Denial by Peter Scenes--John 13
JOHN 13
2-----The evening meal was underway, though it was not yet time to eat, they were at the table.
4~11--Jeshua washed the feet of his disciples. As much of John, this monolog is more obviously kergymatic in nature than in any attempt to relate a historical event--even if something similar may have happened.
12-----Jeshua returns to the table and continues talking.
27~30-Judas Iscariot leaves the room. ( it so appears from the context at least)
33~35-Jeshua mentions going where the disciples cannot go.
36-----Peter asks Jeshua where he is going, and Jeshua answers.
37-----Peter asks a second question, brought on by that reply, then objects by saying that he'd surrender his soul on Jeshua's behalf.
38-----Jeshua responds to that.
I will post that dialog tomorrow--it's late now--and I would hope that those who would like to follow along, or discuss it, would check out that presentation given in the writing entitled 'John'.
I hope to then, discuss the differences and the possibilites historical reporting. See you all later !!:wave:
JOHN 13
2-----The evening meal was underway, though it was not yet time to eat, they were at the table.
4~11--Jeshua washed the feet of his disciples. As much of John, this monolog is more obviously kergymatic in nature than in any attempt to relate a historical event--even if something similar may have happened.
12-----Jeshua returns to the table and continues talking.
27~30-Judas Iscariot leaves the room. ( it so appears from the context at least)
33~35-Jeshua mentions going where the disciples cannot go.
36-----Peter asks Jeshua where he is going, and Jeshua answers.
37-----Peter asks a second question, brought on by that reply, then objects by saying that he'd surrender his soul on Jeshua's behalf.
38-----Jeshua responds to that.
I will post that dialog tomorrow--it's late now--and I would hope that those who would like to follow along, or discuss it, would check out that presentation given in the writing entitled 'John'.
I hope to then, discuss the differences and the possibilites historical reporting. See you all later !!:wave:
The denials of Peter scene
The story of Luke's narrative sets the scene of Jeshua talking to his disciples from verse 25 of chapter 22. In verses 28~30, he is telling them of making a covenant with them for a kingdom in which they--those disciples there--would be judges over the twelve tribes of Israel.
Then, while still in that same flow of monolog, attention is directed towards Simon Peter with the request that when he returns, he should strengthen the others. (One interesting note here is the assumption of story knowledge on behalf of the reader, which can be observed in the author's formation of the story--of course that clicks with the opening of that narration's purpose; 1:1~4) It is at this point that in the communication that Peter avows loyalty to Jeshua to which the latter informs Peter that a rooster would not crow until he would have denied him (Jeshua) three times. At verse 39 they go out from the upper room and over to the Mount of Olives.
The story flow of Matthew and Mark have Jeshua and his disciples going out to, or towards the Mount of Olives before Jeshua informs them that they would be stumbled. (on that night [in Mark]) These disagree with Luke in that 1, the topic came up in conversation most obviously after they had left the upper room, and 2, the concepts involved in the communication's introduction and content are distinctly different from Luke's and include strong non-reoccurrent elements. Mark's narrative differs from Luke's (and Matthew) in that Jeshua tells Peter that before a rooster would crow twice, he would deny him three times.
The story flow of the narrative written in John's name is yet altogether different from that of the synoptical view. It agrees with Luke's narrative in that the scene under discussion occured while at the table during the Passover meal. The communicated context, content, and emotion all disagree with Luke's narrative as well.
Up to this point, if we take Luke's report to be historically accurate in detail, we can clearly see the other reports to be historically incorrect. The follow-up portion of this scene in each narrative should also be checked, and weighed in to help form the overall picture. (although it can easily be guessed, that each overall context of each writing adheres well to itself, so that the follow-up verses regarding the fortold event agree with its introduction as looked at so far.)
I will form a conclusion on this soon enough, and if any one following along would wish to do the same, we can each present our conclusions and the case backing them up. I feel it is not in the interest of the nature of this thread to make too much attempt to argue beyond that--we are all sharing and learning.
The story of Luke's narrative sets the scene of Jeshua talking to his disciples from verse 25 of chapter 22. In verses 28~30, he is telling them of making a covenant with them for a kingdom in which they--those disciples there--would be judges over the twelve tribes of Israel.
Then, while still in that same flow of monolog, attention is directed towards Simon Peter with the request that when he returns, he should strengthen the others. (One interesting note here is the assumption of story knowledge on behalf of the reader, which can be observed in the author's formation of the story--of course that clicks with the opening of that narration's purpose; 1:1~4) It is at this point that in the communication that Peter avows loyalty to Jeshua to which the latter informs Peter that a rooster would not crow until he would have denied him (Jeshua) three times. At verse 39 they go out from the upper room and over to the Mount of Olives.
The story flow of Matthew and Mark have Jeshua and his disciples going out to, or towards the Mount of Olives before Jeshua informs them that they would be stumbled. (on that night [in Mark]) These disagree with Luke in that 1, the topic came up in conversation most obviously after they had left the upper room, and 2, the concepts involved in the communication's introduction and content are distinctly different from Luke's and include strong non-reoccurrent elements. Mark's narrative differs from Luke's (and Matthew) in that Jeshua tells Peter that before a rooster would crow twice, he would deny him three times.
The story flow of the narrative written in John's name is yet altogether different from that of the synoptical view. It agrees with Luke's narrative in that the scene under discussion occured while at the table during the Passover meal. The communicated context, content, and emotion all disagree with Luke's narrative as well.
Up to this point, if we take Luke's report to be historically accurate in detail, we can clearly see the other reports to be historically incorrect. The follow-up portion of this scene in each narrative should also be checked, and weighed in to help form the overall picture. (although it can easily be guessed, that each overall context of each writing adheres well to itself, so that the follow-up verses regarding the fortold event agree with its introduction as looked at so far.)
I will form a conclusion on this soon enough, and if any one following along would wish to do the same, we can each present our conclusions and the case backing them up. I feel it is not in the interest of the nature of this thread to make too much attempt to argue beyond that--we are all sharing and learning.
The Denial by Peter Scenes
For this discussion, I'll state once more, I am holding Luke's Gospel narrative as being accurate--and would like to point out that this is for the sake of argument alone, so as to have a base from which to compare.
The focus of this thread has been with, of, and on, primarily up to now, the text of the Christian writings in Greek, and on the historicity of what is communicated therein.
In looking at the several accounts of the scene in which Peter is said to have disowned, denied, or forsaken Jeshua on Nisan 14, at least three counts of historical error1 are found there, namely:
1. The chronological order of where the conversation leading to the pronouncement of Peter's denial by Jeshua had taken place at.
2. The conversational context and communicative format--that is the subject matter in the conversation in which the pronouncement had occured, and the formula itself.
3. The actual words spoken. (again, leaving some margin for translation from Aramaic to Greek)
It is seen by scholarship at large that the gospel accounts are best to be considered bio-historiographs. (The Earliest Gospels, pp 5~12; The Survival of Mark's Gospel: A Good Story? --SBL Journal Vol 123, No. 3, 2004; pp 501~3) Especially it is agreed on by all, basically that the latter portion, from the going up to Jerusalem for the last time, is in chronological order by all writers. Many kergymatic elements have most obviously been mixed in, as one would expect for religious stories and writtings of the Greco-Roman world, yet the over all genre is most clearly biography within the flow of historical events.
My conclusion is thus: the reports by the several sources, regardless of what written or oral sources they may have come from, contain historical error in that in the flow of time, only one choice of the several given in the above three points can be a possible actual event in that specific time frame.
I would be interested in hearing conclusions based on the evidences of the text and history presented in those texts at that point. I do ask for seriousness and fair respect in any comments and/or conclusions, please.
For this discussion, I'll state once more, I am holding Luke's Gospel narrative as being accurate--and would like to point out that this is for the sake of argument alone, so as to have a base from which to compare.
The focus of this thread has been with, of, and on, primarily up to now, the text of the Christian writings in Greek, and on the historicity of what is communicated therein.
In looking at the several accounts of the scene in which Peter is said to have disowned, denied, or forsaken Jeshua on Nisan 14, at least three counts of historical error1 are found there, namely:
1. The chronological order of where the conversation leading to the pronouncement of Peter's denial by Jeshua had taken place at.
2. The conversational context and communicative format--that is the subject matter in the conversation in which the pronouncement had occured, and the formula itself.
3. The actual words spoken. (again, leaving some margin for translation from Aramaic to Greek)
It is seen by scholarship at large that the gospel accounts are best to be considered bio-historiographs. (The Earliest Gospels, pp 5~12; The Survival of Mark's Gospel: A Good Story? --SBL Journal Vol 123, No. 3, 2004; pp 501~3) Especially it is agreed on by all, basically that the latter portion, from the going up to Jerusalem for the last time, is in chronological order by all writers. Many kergymatic elements have most obviously been mixed in, as one would expect for religious stories and writtings of the Greco-Roman world, yet the over all genre is most clearly biography within the flow of historical events.
My conclusion is thus: the reports by the several sources, regardless of what written or oral sources they may have come from, contain historical error in that in the flow of time, only one choice of the several given in the above three points can be a possible actual event in that specific time frame.
I would be interested in hearing conclusions based on the evidences of the text and history presented in those texts at that point. I do ask for seriousness and fair respect in any comments and/or conclusions, please.
I would say that those differences between the narratives are rather minor, and don't constitute any type of error, just a slight variation in point of view. John's account seems to have the most variation, but it is unclear to me whether he is recounting the same set of conversations-- or is even trying to record them verbatim. The timeline however- I don't think I am understanding the discrepancy- is seems like you could still construct a logical working timetable.
Thanks for your comments, sabro san. I would say that yes, we could say that the differences are minor in one sense of the term, yet effectually create a major difference in another way.
I will see if I can work through that one more time there, on the time line matter. Of course, I do understand your idea there, yet would tend to think that the better option ends up at the point of considering each writer to be attempting to convey a single event at a single point in time.
Having said that much, though, our goal here is to explicate, discuss, and, in our more recent addition, to present our conclusions free from need to really argue beyond that, and then move on. (as you know already, I'm sure) I'll get back here tomorrow or Tuesday. Thanks !!
I will see if I can work through that one more time there, on the time line matter. Of course, I do understand your idea there, yet would tend to think that the better option ends up at the point of considering each writer to be attempting to convey a single event at a single point in time.
Having said that much, though, our goal here is to explicate, discuss, and, in our more recent addition, to present our conclusions free from need to really argue beyond that, and then move on. (as you know already, I'm sure) I'll get back here tomorrow or Tuesday. Thanks !!
I have a source for a timeline ("The Day Jesus Died"), but it is one scholar's interpretation and the scholar/historian is probably a Christian and probably had as his agenda the production of a clear and sensible timeline, not some attempt to disprove or discredit his sources. On the other hand it does seem like good scholarship and there are probably a dozen like it. I could look for it if you like...
My son's machine just threw my post out into the universe in a trillion nano-spects of information particles....I guess.....I'll go on over to the uni and do it again......
Yes, I think it would be good to see if you can find that timeline. The presentation of data is important in a discussion/presentation format like this--I think, at least.
Again, I would agree with your basic thought there, that the producer of any historical timeline of events based on just any one of the available stories, would run aground, and so, some degree of assumption and at other times, supposition, will naturally be found.
I have and always will say that one should approach these texts in a natural and neutral position--which of course is difficult based on the conditioning already present when we were born. (If it were the year 120, and we fun across some letter or codex that someone has, there would be [based on the best evidence] not pre-conclusion in the eye of society at large nor even by those who actually possessed the documents.)
Anyway, the matter, as I know you understand, that I'd emphasize, is that one should firstly make an attempt to see each document as it is, without any need to assimilate it into the other documents dealing with the same story. In this process, there is neither an effort to disprove nor to contest.
I'll get back a bit later today...:wave:
Yes, I think it would be good to see if you can find that timeline. The presentation of data is important in a discussion/presentation format like this--I think, at least.
Again, I would agree with your basic thought there, that the producer of any historical timeline of events based on just any one of the available stories, would run aground, and so, some degree of assumption and at other times, supposition, will naturally be found.
I have and always will say that one should approach these texts in a natural and neutral position--which of course is difficult based on the conditioning already present when we were born. (If it were the year 120, and we fun across some letter or codex that someone has, there would be [based on the best evidence] not pre-conclusion in the eye of society at large nor even by those who actually possessed the documents.)
Anyway, the matter, as I know you understand, that I'd emphasize, is that one should firstly make an attempt to see each document as it is, without any need to assimilate it into the other documents dealing with the same story. In this process, there is neither an effort to disprove nor to contest.
I'll get back a bit later today...:wave:
Last edited:
I do hope to hear from you sabro--or any that have any other data on positions taken regarding the story at this point.
If we go by the theory, which I'll admit has probably more going for it at this time, that the works of Luke and Matthew were taken in one degree or another from a work attributed to Mark, it does lead in the direction of the conclusion that later hands in that tradition didn't accept some of the orginal story, and so added on to. (Later hands embellished in some places it is well understood too) If this were the case, we would at least be left with the dilemma of having to make a value judgement on the reason for or validity of the changes and additions.
This is just to highlight the fact that from a single strand of history, a variety of threads developed throughout the Mediterranean area producing oral traditions and texts. It is also to shed light on my general procedure of taking Luke as a base--the writer claims correctness, and comes before John.
Luke has the conversation header injected in the midst of a monolog that takes place during the passover meal as: (basically direct translation from the Greek & using YOU for plural second person)
"Simon, Simon look! the Satan demanded YOU to sift like the wheat. I though made supplication about you in order (that) not should be left out the faith (of) you. and you, when having returned make firm the brothers (of) you"
Taking Mark, for example, the conversation header is given after having left the upper room where the passover meal had been eaten, and is set as follows:
All YOU will be stumbled because it has been written I shall smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered. but after raising up me I shall go before you into the Galilee"
The two scenes are different time-wise and language-wise and it can be said that due to that, there is often an attempt to fill in missing data. However, it cannot be denied that if we were to have come upon only one of the documents, there would be neither the need nor the room to do so.
I'll post this much here.
If we go by the theory, which I'll admit has probably more going for it at this time, that the works of Luke and Matthew were taken in one degree or another from a work attributed to Mark, it does lead in the direction of the conclusion that later hands in that tradition didn't accept some of the orginal story, and so added on to. (Later hands embellished in some places it is well understood too) If this were the case, we would at least be left with the dilemma of having to make a value judgement on the reason for or validity of the changes and additions.
This is just to highlight the fact that from a single strand of history, a variety of threads developed throughout the Mediterranean area producing oral traditions and texts. It is also to shed light on my general procedure of taking Luke as a base--the writer claims correctness, and comes before John.
Luke has the conversation header injected in the midst of a monolog that takes place during the passover meal as: (basically direct translation from the Greek & using YOU for plural second person)
"Simon, Simon look! the Satan demanded YOU to sift like the wheat. I though made supplication about you in order (that) not should be left out the faith (of) you. and you, when having returned make firm the brothers (of) you"
Taking Mark, for example, the conversation header is given after having left the upper room where the passover meal had been eaten, and is set as follows:
All YOU will be stumbled because it has been written I shall smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered. but after raising up me I shall go before you into the Galilee"
The two scenes are different time-wise and language-wise and it can be said that due to that, there is often an attempt to fill in missing data. However, it cannot be denied that if we were to have come upon only one of the documents, there would be neither the need nor the room to do so.
I'll post this much here.
Last edited:
I have checked Barne's Notes on the New Testament By Albert Barnes, 1982; p 128 ss34. That commentator does start off his explanation of that case with a couple of suppostions which are like assumptions, which is fair in itself if all else holds up. Barnes does claim that Mark and luke give two crowings before the third denial, but that simply seems to be based on saying that the term 'this day' refers to something different than 'this night', but the argument is very obviously groundless.
It seems to me that in trying to put all the information available into one single story so that all the elements of each individual story are feasible historical events on that Jewish day, is admitting that no single source was concerned with being true to history.
Again, I wish to stress, that if we were to take Luke as being accurate, points covered by the other sources would have agree with Luke to the degree of accuracy being held. In this mode of reasoning, I stand by my conclusion that the other sources amount to historical inaccuracy, in other words, error.
I will move on to the next point in line.
It seems to me that in trying to put all the information available into one single story so that all the elements of each individual story are feasible historical events on that Jewish day, is admitting that no single source was concerned with being true to history.
Again, I wish to stress, that if we were to take Luke as being accurate, points covered by the other sources would have agree with Luke to the degree of accuracy being held. In this mode of reasoning, I stand by my conclusion that the other sources amount to historical inaccuracy, in other words, error.
I will move on to the next point in line.
Mitsuo
The Great
I applaud you Mars Man for starting this thread! I will start to add my two cents in, but I need to read all of it first before I get into the depth of things.
I will say this though. Coming from opinion and some biblical reading that the bible is a book of morals and lessons. I do believe in God though. I find the people in there real too. But I find a lot of the Bible to be symbolic. The part where Jesus was tempted by the devil with Wealth and Power. I think Jesus knew he could have it. It says that Jesus turned his back to the devil and declined his offer. Now, I think what it's saying is that Jesus turned his back to his own thinking. We all have the "devil" within all of us. He thought about the power, and shook it off so to speak. (I can't remember the whole thing)
Well, I will be back to post after I catch up on the tedious reading that is waiting. Again, I applaud you for this thread. I love Analyzing.
I will say this though. Coming from opinion and some biblical reading that the bible is a book of morals and lessons. I do believe in God though. I find the people in there real too. But I find a lot of the Bible to be symbolic. The part where Jesus was tempted by the devil with Wealth and Power. I think Jesus knew he could have it. It says that Jesus turned his back to the devil and declined his offer. Now, I think what it's saying is that Jesus turned his back to his own thinking. We all have the "devil" within all of us. He thought about the power, and shook it off so to speak. (I can't remember the whole thing)
Well, I will be back to post after I catch up on the tedious reading that is waiting. Again, I applaud you for this thread. I love Analyzing.
After having checked Vines notes on NT Greek, and Harper's Bible Commentary, I have come up with no new information. It appears, at this moment, that the pleading of the apologists belies the fairness of taking the written documents as being independent witnesses which, as scholarship greatly overall endorces, is even built upon itself--both Luke and Matthew's writers 'correcting' the earlier Mark.
It stands to me, therefore, that my earlier postition on the Peter Denial scene is the most probable. I would hope that those who have arguments for the opposite share the details involved in the reasoning behind them.
Now, the other points which I had highlighted in that post on page 13 of the 'Christianity: Conceptions/mis~' thread was the awkwardness of trying to piece together the whole scene while leaving all individual reports in tact as whole contexts. The repeating of the immediate denial context was next in line and I will comment on that in general since it has been covered already--for those who have looked at it very carefully.
There is the tendency by apologists to contend that there had been two points of denial--one by just Peter himself, during the meal, and then later while on the way (or at) the Mount of Olives. While this could be a thinkable scenario, it would yet be quite unlikely that no mention of there having been two events, the second being more emotional and involved than the first.
In the narrative of John, we'll see that it is understandable that the author is claiming that the apostle John had been resting (they ate in a reclining postition) next to Jeshua, and within speaking range of Peter. [John 13:21~25] According to that context, then, it is most reasonable (taking the story to be historically accurate at this point, for argument's sake) that Peter would have been able to hear what John had been able to hear. And taking the claim that the author of Mark had written down what he had heard Peter teach (being his interpreter), it is strange that Mark would not have heard that point during the meal as well. [Mark's account gives it as having happened after having left from the upper room, you may recall]
I'll stick with this much for this post, but will continue. Again, I do hope that arguments presented will be done so with backing.
It stands to me, therefore, that my earlier postition on the Peter Denial scene is the most probable. I would hope that those who have arguments for the opposite share the details involved in the reasoning behind them.
Now, the other points which I had highlighted in that post on page 13 of the 'Christianity: Conceptions/mis~' thread was the awkwardness of trying to piece together the whole scene while leaving all individual reports in tact as whole contexts. The repeating of the immediate denial context was next in line and I will comment on that in general since it has been covered already--for those who have looked at it very carefully.
There is the tendency by apologists to contend that there had been two points of denial--one by just Peter himself, during the meal, and then later while on the way (or at) the Mount of Olives. While this could be a thinkable scenario, it would yet be quite unlikely that no mention of there having been two events, the second being more emotional and involved than the first.
In the narrative of John, we'll see that it is understandable that the author is claiming that the apostle John had been resting (they ate in a reclining postition) next to Jeshua, and within speaking range of Peter. [John 13:21~25] According to that context, then, it is most reasonable (taking the story to be historically accurate at this point, for argument's sake) that Peter would have been able to hear what John had been able to hear. And taking the claim that the author of Mark had written down what he had heard Peter teach (being his interpreter), it is strange that Mark would not have heard that point during the meal as well. [Mark's account gives it as having happened after having left from the upper room, you may recall]
I'll stick with this much for this post, but will continue. Again, I do hope that arguments presented will be done so with backing.
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
Sorry to chage the subject MM, but what do we make of the newly translated Gospel of Judas?
Tsuyoiko said:
My dear Martian sister, I wouldn't really say that that's changing the subject, but simply that that's adding a different dimension to it.
Let me take a good look at it first, although, for now, I'd say that it has about as much right to early Christian literature as any of the Gospel accounts do. The findings Oxy findings clearly provide that much !!
Thanks for the input to the thread !! And yes, Mars lives on !!!!!
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
I found a bit more.
The 'Gospel of Judas' manuscript dates from the third century, but is thought to be the same work mentioned by Irenaeus in 180CE.
James Robinson, chief editor of the Nag Hammadi scriptures, claims that the translation will tell us nothing new, and that it is just capitalising on the release of The Da Vinci Code movie.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-02-gospel-of-judas_x.htm
Other scholars claim that it shows Judas in a much more sympathetic light than we are perhaps used to.
The Vatican are not impressed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401799.html
The 'Gospel of Judas' manuscript dates from the third century, but is thought to be the same work mentioned by Irenaeus in 180CE.
James Robinson, chief editor of the Nag Hammadi scriptures, claims that the translation will tell us nothing new, and that it is just capitalising on the release of The Da Vinci Code movie.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-02-gospel-of-judas_x.htm
Other scholars claim that it shows Judas in a much more sympathetic light than we are perhaps used to.
The Vatican are not impressed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401799.html
I would say at the moment, that the various comments contained in the sites given are correct, at the moment. I'm in no position to challenge them, but, from what I have seen, would say that the text of that gospel would make no new waves in biblical scholarship (based on what I have seen so far) and thus may well be just in time for Christmas--where 'Christmas' means big bucks. I'll check that out with others.
Mitsuo
The Great
Would you agree that the bible is very gender bias. I mean to go as far as to say that women were made out of the rib of man. I think that made women think that men were the superior gender back then, which made it easier for men to treat women the way they wanted.
I don't know if that was mentioned. I still have to read more. You guys are in so much more depth than me. I have to read some things over again. Sorry, if I make any stupid comments. Im trying to keep up and do my best.
later
I don't know if that was mentioned. I still have to read more. You guys are in so much more depth than me. I have to read some things over again. Sorry, if I make any stupid comments. Im trying to keep up and do my best.
later
Good point there Mitsuo Oda san, and fair enough. I'll probably go into some detail on it a bit later (go to hit the sack now) but for now, would say yes, it does show that the culture in which it had been written was female bias. The NT improves the OT, to whatever degree, however. Nice to see you posting here again.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
I've heard that there are calls within Christianity to make Judas more 'friendly' and not the figure of hate that he has been for the past 2000 years. The argument goes that he was predestined by God to betray Jesus, so in actually fact he isn't really evil, just an instrument of God. Brings up the idea of predestination and do you really have free will within a Christian life. Mind you you could say the same for Judaism and Islam
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
I heard that too - in this Times report that says the campaign is being led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller. Then I saw this in the second link I put above:Mycernius said:
So I'm not sure what to believe!
This thread has been viewed 6643 times.