I still prefer the textual approach. These early chapters are particularly messy.
Mid-chapter 5 Jesus is preaching in the temple. But then at the beginning of 6 we’re told he goes to the “other side ” of the Sea of Galilee at least implying that he was lakeside. Then in 6 we’re told that Jesus goes up a mountain where he performs the miracle of the loaves and fishes. And then we’re told again he goes up the mountain. Late in 6 the crowds follow Jesus lakeside where he preaches another sermon. At the end of the sermon we’re told he has been speaking in a synagogue. At the beginning of 7 the text implies that Jesus has left Judea to go to Galilee but at the end of 6 he was already in Galilee. Maybe old Bultmann was right and some early copyist scrambled the text. I suspect you guys might be attempting to harmonize a clumsy edit.
Robert said
What makes you think the crowds had left? Throughout this section some were still there who believed in him, some wanted to arrest him, some wanted to kill him, some wanted to stone him.
7:37 It was the last and greatest day of the festival … 7:53-8:2 then they all went to their own homes. But Jesus went to the mount of Olives. At dawn he again came to the temple …
So its after the festival, the usual inhabitants of Jerusalem are there, but the crowds for the festival, which the brothers wanted him to manifest himself to, had by now left.
“He doesn’t go up as the Christ but only as a preacher not revealing who he truly is. “
he came publicly, so how is that in private?
I am not** you do not have permission to see this link ** going up to this feast,
10 But after ** you do not have permission to see this link **his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
he goes up publicly on your reading.
“Going half way through the feast to preach in the temple courts needn’t be understood as attending the feast.”
he came publicly, so how is that in private?
Robert said
As you know, Bren, contrary to your wishes, no critical scholars accept that this pericope was originally part of John’s gospel.
Yes but doesn’t Jesus’s “I am” make more sense if its original. Jesus beginning to preach openly only after the festival crowds have gone home.
Iskander Robertson said
“He doesn’t go up as the Christ but only as a preacher not revealing who he truly is. “he came publicly, so how is that in private?
I am not** you do not have permission to see this link ** going up to this feast,
10 But after ** you do not have permission to see this link **his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
he goes up publicly on your reading.
“Going half way through the feast to preach in the temple courts needn’t be understood as attending the feast.”
he came publicly, so how is that in private?
what gets translated as “not publicly but privately” should be translated as “not openly …” or “not manifestly …”
The brothers wanted Jesus to go to Judea declaring openly who he truly is, or to manifest his true self. It is this he didn’t do.
Although he did do public speaking in the temple courts.
Yes – if the PA is original then the action of ch8 takes place the day after the festival when the crowds have gone home.
Jesus’s I Am statements would therefore make more sense seeing as he told the brothers he wouldn’t go up to the feast and reveal his true self to his disciples.
Robert said
Perhaps. But this issue is not chapters apart:“I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in secret.
Not telling all is different than lying. He was led by the Spirit to go privately, and this happened after the told “his brothers” that he would not be going with them.
I think that the scene suggests that Jesus was not bonded with “his brothers” as tightly as one might expect if “his brothers” here are kin. If this passage is parallel to Mark 6:3, and “brothers” refers to reputed children of a same natural parent, I’m inclined toward the view that these were step brothers (per Lightfoot’s exegesis in his commentary on Galatians) from a previous marriage of Joseph, and thus also step children of Mary the mother of Jesus (although awkwardly, since some of them might have been her same age or even older).
I think that at the foot of the cross, when Jesus tells his mother that the beloved disciple and she are son and mother, that is symbolic. The beloved disciple is intentionally ambiguous and inclusive. In the apocalyptic sense, any and all of Jesus kin, and non kin could/can become one household with the beloved disciple.
Jesus was present at the festival “in secret”, meaning perhaps that his presence is for those with eyes to see, as his presence in the Eucharist. If his brothers had believed, they might have seen him there.
“Judea, because ** you do not have permission to see this link **my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.”
somehow brenc thinks that “i am not going up to ….” means “i am not going as…”
how many other instances where “i am not going to location x ” means “i am going to location x as…”
“Jesus told them… I am not going up to this feast… But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, He also went—not publicly, but in secret.”
–From John 7:6-10
———————————
“I think it is OK to lie… as long as you whisper what makes it true right after.”
–From comedian Maria Bamford (who is open about being diagnosed Bipolar 2, and who was raised in a Christian household, but is not a believer).
I find this bit (min 2:13-3:30) pretty funny, but I’m a Bamford fan.
“Jesus told them… I am not going up to this feast… But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, He also went—not publicly, but in secret.”
but in the christian world “not going” means “going”
and “not publicly” means “publicly”
now i understand that when installing office, it asks you which english do you require for set up?
everyone has their own version of english lol
Iskander Robertson said
what gets translated as “not publicly but privately” should be translated as “not openly …” or “not manifestly …”
says who?
The brothers say – “No one who wants to become a public figure (parresia) acts in secret. If you do these things, show (phaneroson) yourself to the world.”
They ask him to manifest himself or appear or show himself to the world (phaneroson). But this he refuses to do.
When he goes up to Jerusalem he – “went up not openly (phaneros) but in secret”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)