Porphyry said
CEJ said
I read in a source I can no longer recall that ancient baptisms sometimes involved the initiate wearing a sindon to enter the water that he would remove to be dunked naked, after which he would be wrapped in a white robe.
I’m just thinking through this, and I’m sure it’s already occurred to you, but that would fit really nicely with the image of baptism as being buried with Christ so one can rise with him, e.g., in Rom 6:4.
If we could say this was an image of Baptism, intended to be understood by the initiates, there could also be a hint of “putting on Christ” in there too (E.g., Gal 3:27).
I think you are spot on.
JAS said
If it was necessary that all legal cases had to be be built only on witness testimony and evidence that totally agreed, almost no one would ever be arrested or come to trial, or being arrested and coming to trial being convicted. Again, this observation does not mean that we have to accept everything that the gospels and NT (or OT) say at face value, but we need to understand how people see, absorb, remember and transmit accounts.
Sure. But two points: First, the issue I raised in this thread wasn’t immediately whether the Gospels are historically true, rather it’s whether the authors believed it was historically true and whether they intended their readers to accept it as historically true.
Second, the kinds of disparities we see between the Gospels (especially the synoptics) aren’t the sort that arise between confused witnesses with faulty memories.
Mt and Lk are copying extensively from Mark. This shows that Mark is a source, and they are relying on him–there is a documentary dependence: we aren’t talking about oral history or faulty memory. But they are also freely reworking him, not just correcting infelicities in his Greek or incorporating stories he omitted but taking events he relates and fundamentally changing them, sometimes in ways that create narrative problems.
That process of composition, which we can see pretty clearly, is really really hard to reconcile with a desire to present an historically accurate account. The only way I can imaging someone who is sincerely trying to convey an historically accurate account writing in that fashion (freely changing the facts recorded by his source) is if the person had a bunch of conflicting sources that he was trying to reconcile, because those other (lost in this case) sources might give a justification for the author changing the basic facts his principal source relates.
Again, it is really suspicious when the historical facts reported by an author fit a larger theme or agenda of the author a little too perfectly, despite the facts that (a) the historical “facts” the author presents are objectively fairly important events and yet, (b), they don’t get mentioned anywhere else. If the slaughter of the innocents happened as Matthew claims, we would expect some other source (Jewish, Christian, pagan) to mention it, and yet he is the only witness we have of any such event, so it is more than suspicious that this event develops a clearly Matthaean theme about Jesus as a new Moses. Again, if Jesus actual went around historically saying in public things along the lines of “before Abraham was, I am” we’d expect some other Gospel author to have mentioned his saying such things: That is objectively a pretty big deal (as Jn notes in the text). And yet even so, remarkably, it is only John with his Logos theology who has any recollection of these sort of momentus sayings.
Of course biographers, historians, journalists can look at the same events and paint different pictures: They can find different facts noteworthy, and construct different narratives out of the same data. But there are some events that are objectively important and that people won’t just pass over as insignifiant.
If you go to court with a bunch of witnesses, each with a clear ulterior motive, each reporting major important facts that directly advances his agenda but that no one else remembers, it isn’t going to go well for your case.
Porphyry said
Sure. But two points: First, the issue I raised in this thread wasn’t immediately whether the Gospels are historically true, rather it’s whether the authors believed it was historically true and whether they intended their readers to accept it as historically true.
And the obvious answer is that we cannot know based on what we have.
Second, the kinds of disparities we see between the Gospels (especially the synoptics) aren’t the sort that arise between confused witnesses with faulty memories.
I would suggest that you know very little about witness testimony and evidence.
CEJ said
Porphyry said
CEJ said
I read in a source I can no longer recall that ancient baptisms sometimes involved the initiate wearing a sindon to enter the water that he would remove to be dunked naked, after which he would be wrapped in a white robe.
I’m just thinking through this, and I’m sure it’s already occurred to you, but that would fit really nicely with the image of baptism as being buried with Christ so one can rise with him, e.g., in Rom 6:4.
If we could say this was an image of Baptism, intended to be understood by the initiates, there could also be a hint of “putting on Christ” in there too (E.g., Gal 3:27).
I think you are spot on.
If the unnamed young man is meant to be the generic Christian, you might have a primitive model of atonement: he slips away and escapes punishment, while Jesus remains behind and is executed.
I’m reminded of the story of two hikers discussing what they will do if they meet a bear:
Hiker 1: I’d run.
Hiker 2: You can’t outrun a bear.
Hiker 1: I just need to outrun you.
JAS said
Second, the kinds of disparities we see between the Gospels (especially the synoptics) aren’t the sort that arise between confused witnesses with faulty memories.
I would suggest that you know very little about witness testimony and evidence.
Well, that settles it.
Porphyry said
Why do you think 13:1 should be taken with the speech at the end of ch. 12, rather than with the supper and washing of feet that immediately follow?
Because John 13:2 works as a set-up for a new scene. And John 13:3 works to recall the sentiment of John 13:1, the previous scene.
13:1 works as a commentary and closure on Jesus’s speeches in chapter 12.
John 12:34 “Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”
John 13:1 “Jesus knowing that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father …”
Everyone is confused by the remark. That was the point–they couldn’t figure out what Jesus was telling Judas to do.
But to answer you last question, no, John is not implying the meal is about to begin, he has already told us that the meal has started (see Jn 13:2); On your proposal that this meal is the seder, not only is it rather late in the game to send someone out for whatever provisions (note it is plural) were overlooked, it is scarcely likely that the local shops would be open in Jerusalem during the actual passover meal.
Now admittedly, it’s weird on my timeline too–why would you send someone out in the middle of supper to get supplies for a meal that you won’t eat for another 24 hours? It is a bit strange–just go out in the morning. But again, the point is that the whole exchange was weird to the apostles; they were confused and didn’t know what to make of it, and the possibility that Jesus was sending him to buy supplies for the feast was just one of several (incorrect) guesses.
But weird thought it be, it seems more plausible to me that some apostles might have thought Jesus would abruptly send someone out the night before the seder to buy supplies for passover than that he would send someone out during the seder itself to buy supplies for the seder they were already eating at a time when businesses were certainly closed.
As to night immediately falling, it says “it was night (en de nux)” It doesn’t say “night immediately falls” or anything equivalent.
“It was now night” if you like. The point is that it establishes it wasn’t night before Judas had left.
Yes nobody was sure why Jesus had said that to Judas, but two possibilities were that he had gone to buy something for the feast or to give alms to the poor.
Comparing to the Mishnah Pesachim 10 the story makes a lot of sense.
“On the eve of Passover, adjacent to minḥa time, a person may not eat until dark, so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite. Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat. And the distributors of charity should not give a poor person less than four cups of wine for the Festival meal of Passover night. And this halakha applies even if the poor person is one of the poorest members of society and receives his food from the charity plate.”
The feast doesn’t begin til after dark and alms must be given before that. If that’s what Judas is doing he must “do it quickly”.
There is no question that it could mean the day before the Sabbath. The question is whether it only means Friday. We do find paraskue (and the aramaic that stands behind it) being used unambiguously to name the day of preparation for feasts (other than the weekly Sabbath), but, I’m sure you know, they come after the first century.
No, when are they from?
It is an analogous term; even on your interpretation the two uses have related but distinct meanings. In v. 28 the pascha is something one eats, a meal or a food. In v. 39 it is a time, a day or a season. We know that pascha, as used to name a time, was used to refer to the whole feast of unleavend bread. At any rate, even if it was used only to refer to the day of the feast of Passover strictly taken, I believe the preposition is ambiguous and could mean either “on” the passover or more vaguely “at” or “around” the passover.
Luke 22:1 “Was near now the feast of unleavened bread called pascha”
So it has to admitted that everyone was comfortable using ‘pascha’ to refer to the entire week-long festival. Bulls and lambs were slaughtered each day of the festival along with the unleavened bread. So it shouldn’t be assumed that “eating the passover” must mean the meal on the evening of the 14th.
If we’re using vague language of “at” or “around” the passover we’re negating one of the arguments against John agreeing with the synoptics.
The lambs were slaughtered in the afternoon–Josephus says between the 9th and 11th hours (roughly 15:00-17:00). And Jesus wasn’t crucified at noon (according to John); at noon he was still in front of Pilate on trial (Jn 19:14). Per John, he would both have been actually put on the cross and later died sometime after noon but before sundown (roughly 18:00), so he would have died right about the time Josephus says the lambs were being slaughtered.
It was “about noon” when the order to crucify him was given and the soldiers took him away.
The lambs are supposed to be slaughtered at evening or twilight. That is, at the end of the day. It may have been for practical purposes that the slaughtering of tens of thousands of lambs was done from 9th to 11th hour. Josephus also says elsewhere Jews can’t be “obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath-day, nor on the day of the preparation to it after the ninth hour”. Suggesting again that for practical purposes the day is ending at the 9th hour.
If John is free to change what he wants to suit his theological agenda why not say Jesus was put on the cross after the 9th and died before the 11th hour, just like the passover lambs?
I don’t really follow the argument here. I mean, yes, Jesus is the bread come down from heaven for John. And yes, the manna, in Joshua, stopped appearing after passover. Is the argument that the disappearance of the manna at the end of the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness corresponds to Jesus being dead? That is an interesting connection, but it doesn’t seem quite as . . . vivid as Jesus dying at literally the same time that thousands of lambs are being sacrificed a few thousand feet away.
John’s whole Lazarus story is an allegory for the crossing of the Jordan into the new kingdom. In John’s case its crossing over to life after death. Jesus had gone to the other side of the Jordan and would have to cross back there again to bring Lazarus back from the dead. The Jews there had previously tried to kill him and thomas says to the 12 “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
In Joshua when they conquer the promised land it is Eleazar (Lazarus), Joshua (Jesus) and the heads of the tribes who divide out the land by lot. When they had entered the promised land and celebrated the passover, the manna from heaven stopped. John is telling his readers that the kingdom of heaven and life after death had arrived.
Just a couple quick points:
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
Why do you think 13:1 should be taken with the speech at the end of ch. 12, rather than with the supper and washing of feet that immediately follow?
Because John 13:2 works as a set-up for a new scene. And John 13:3 works to recall the sentiment of John 13:1, the previous scene.
13:1 works as a commentary and closure on Jesus’s speeches in chapter 12.
John 12:34 “Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”
John 13:1 “Jesus knowing that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father …”
Everyone is confused by the remark. That was the point–they couldn’t figure out what Jesus was telling Judas to do.
But to answer you last question, no, John is not implying the meal is about to begin, he has already told us that the meal has started (see Jn 13:2); On your proposal that this meal is the seder, not only is it rather late in the game to send someone out for whatever provisions (note it is plural) were overlooked, it is scarcely likely that the local shops would be open in Jerusalem during the actual passover meal.
Now admittedly, it’s weird on my timeline too–why would you send someone out in the middle of supper to get supplies for a meal that you won’t eat for another 24 hours? It is a bit strange–just go out in the morning. But again, the point is that the whole exchange was weird to the apostles; they were confused and didn’t know what to make of it, and the possibility that Jesus was sending him to buy supplies for the feast was just one of several (incorrect) guesses.
But weird thought it be, it seems more plausible to me that some apostles might have thought Jesus would abruptly send someone out the night before the seder to buy supplies for passover than that he would send someone out during the seder itself to buy supplies for the seder they were already eating at a time when businesses were certainly closed.
As to night immediately falling, it says “it was night (en de nux)” It doesn’t say “night immediately falls” or anything equivalent.
“It was now night” if you like. The point is that it establishes it wasn’t night before Judas had left.
Yes nobody was sure why Jesus had said that to Judas, but two possibilities were that he had gone to buy something for the feast or to give alms to the poor.
Comparing to the Mishnah Pesachim 10 the story makes a lot of sense.
“On the eve of Passover, adjacent to minḥa time, a person may not eat until dark, so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite. Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat. And the distributors of charity should not give a poor person less than four cups of wine for the Festival meal of Passover night. And this halakha applies even if the poor person is one of the poorest members of society and receives his food from the charity plate.”
The feast doesn’t begin til after dark and alms must be given before that. If that’s what Judas is doing he must “do it quickly”.
First, of all, I do not see why saying, “it was now night” “establishes it wasn’t night before Judas had left.” (Now there might be some implication that it had grown to be night while they were inside, but I don’t see the implication the the sun sets right as Judas leaves.)
But let’s say that is what it means, and let’s assume as you are arguing that the meal they were gathered to eat was the passover meal.
Well, as you note, it was unlawful to eat “until dark”. Well, they were already eating: we have Jn 13:2, and we also have Jn 13:4 –Jesus rises from supper, then we have Jn 13:25-26 : they were already reclined at table eating well before Judas left.
If this is the evening of the passover meal, if it only grows dark when Judas leaves the gathering, if the apostles think Judas is being sent either to procure supplies for the passover meal that are then gathered to eat or to make the offering to the poor customarily given before the passover meal–why have they been already eating supper the whole time? The episode doesn’t make sense unless we ignore the context. In fact, when it grows dark isn’t even the key issue, it’s when the feast starts: the alms had to be given before the feast, and naturally the supplies for the feast had to be bought before the feast. But the text is clear that the meal had already started before Judas went out.
Robert said
Porphyry said
Well, if secret mark is authentic, that would fit.
Well, as we all know, that’s a pretty big IF.
Just for ships & giggles I just read ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for the first time and, either my Greek has gotten really good in my old age, or they seem to be cobbled together from other phrases that Mark used elsewhere and which were thus extraordinarily easy to read. It doesn’t read like an authentic text that was previously unfamiliar to me. Would even Mark be able to copy his style so well?
That’s an argument I’ve heard others level against it–it copies Mark so well; almost all the vocabulary is found elsewhere in Mark. So it is interesting that that struck you as you read it.
I’m not at all convinced that it is authentic. There ares lots of reason to be skeptical.
It if it is a modern forgery, it is a pretty carefully thought out forgery–Morton Smith really thought about what would be a too good to be true (or too perfect not to be true) find.
The only thing I can think of that would really militate in favor of authenticity is that it has an echo of a peculiar variant preserved in Hebrew Matthew, which, IIRC, there is debate about whether Smith would have known.
But prima facie, the whole thing is deeply suspicious, but I still want to believe it’s real.
Porphyry said
Well, that settles it.
Technically, it should, as it is an obvious enough observation. But I gather you want a somewhat more substantive response. As I have previously noted, my chief area of expertise is Edgar Allan Poe, and there are many similarities in the difficulties of obtaining accurate information even for a writer who lived within the last 300 years. Many recollections were recorded within 30-50 years of his death, and Poe was quite famous, so there is a mixture of what people remembered, often supplemented by something they clearly mis-remembered or just made up. In some cases, there is a clear influence, especially on later accounts, of people who did actually know Poe personally but read material that was readily available. The last of these makes it hardest to know what we can rely on about the accounts. In some cases, we are fortunate to have other sources of information that can be used to verify, to some degree, what was recalled, but it is complicated. And we are lucky to have most of those sources that they might have read, unlike for ancient texts. The number of people who claimed to have been present for the first reading of “The Raven,” from the manuscript, is clearly absurd. It can be hard to know what to make of such accounts. One person, who was indeed a typesetter, recalled setting the poem, but he worked for the wrong journal and he may be remembering setting the text of an essay that Poe wrote afterwards, quoting some of the lines. On the other hand, typesetters sometimes moved around a bit, and it isn’t as if we have perfect records of who typeset what. The bottom line is that what people remember, and how they remember it is extremely complicated, even not taking bald-faced lying into account.
JAS said
Porphyry said
Well, that settles it.
Technically, it should, as it is an obvious enough observation. But I gather you want a somewhat more substantive response. As I have previously noted, my chief area of expertise is Edgar Allan Poe, and there are many similarities in the difficulties of obtaining accurate information even for a writer who lived within the last 300 years. Many recollections were recorded within 30-50 years of his death, and Poe was quite famous, so there is a mixture of what people remembered, often supplemented by something they clearly mis-remembered or just made up. In some cases, there is a clear influence, especially on later accounts, of people who did actually know Poe personally but read material that was readily available. The last of these makes it hardest to know what we can rely on about the accounts. In some cases, we are fortunate to have other sources of information that can be used to verify, to some degree, what was recalled, but it is complicated. And we are lucky to have most of those sources that they might have read, unlike for ancient texts. The number of people who claimed to have been present for the first reading of “The Raven,” from the manuscript, is clearly absurd. It can be hard to know what to make of such accounts. One person, who was indeed a typesetter, recalled setting the poem, but he worked for the wrong journal and he may be remembering setting the text of an essay that Poe wrote afterwards, quoting some of the lines. On the other hand, typesetters sometimes moved around a bit, and it isn’t as if we have perfect records of who typeset what. The bottom line is that what people remember, and how they remember it is extremely complicated, even not taking bald-faced lying into account.
Look, I never denied that witnesses can be amazingly inaccurate. I know perfectly well that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable is mind-boggling ways.
But first, for how many of those alleged eyewitnesses that you were dealing with were you able to show, fairly conclusively, that they were actually cribbing information (sometimes copying verbatim, or at least slavishly following point by point, over extended sections) from a prior written document that they either had committed to memory or had in front of them as they gave their testimony? And in how many cases could you show moreover that they were at points rewriting that prior written document in their own testimony, often in ways that supported their own agendas?
Second, you sort of side step the substantive question–did those witnesses you mention sincerely misremember what they reported or did they deliberately fabricate a story they knew was untrue? Both are real issues with witnesses as you realize: people’s memory can be really unreliable, but people also make stuff up and lie. In sorting through testimony one needs to be aware of both possibilities. What I said was
the kinds of disparities we see between the Gospels (especially the synoptics) aren’t the sort that arise between confused witnesses with faulty memories.
If we considered the specific disparities between the gospels, many of them can’t be reasonably chalked up to confusion and faulty memories, (even “remembering” an event that they had actually only heard or read about from someone else). That’s not to say such faulty memories can’t cause all sorts of problems in testimony of witnesses, and sure, maybe some of the disparities between the gospels, taken alone, could be explained that way, but there are quite a few that just can’t.
Finally, sort of drawing the above together: it is pretty obvious what we have in the gospels are not eyewitness accounts at all. The unreliability of eyewitnesses isn’t directly relevant because we aren’t dealing with eyewitnesses relying on their memories of experiences at all. We are dealing with historians and biographers entirely reliant on prior sources, often prior written sources.
They may be records from eyewitness accounts, at least in parts . . . and that is the trick. A big part of the complication is that we only have these accounts, and not a body of their sources (beyond the extent that they may have copied from each other). It is just too easy to write them off as later fictions totally made up by people who had no real association with Jesus directly. But feel free if you like. You really have no basis for your assumptions about what kinds of accounts come from memories or especially the transmission of memories.
Porphyry said
First, of all, I do not see why saying, “it was now night” “establishes it wasn’t night before Judas had left.” (Now there might be some implication that it had grown to be night while they were inside, but I don’t see the implication the the sun sets right as Judas leaves.)
Well why does John bother to say “it was now night”? It serves in the text to differentiate between the time when Judas was with them to the time when he was not. And the question is whether its related to the statement “what you are about to do do quickly”?
The disciples incorrectly guess he means quickly buy something for the feast or quickly give alms to the poor. Even if night had simply fallen while they were inside this guess by the disciples would still make sense in the context of a passover seder (wrong though it was).
Are the disciples incorrectly guessing that Judas must go quickly before night falls?
But let’s say that is what it means, and let’s assume as you are arguing that the meal they were gathered to eat was the passover meal.
Well, as you note, it was unlawful to eat “until dark”. Well, they were already eating: we have Jn 13:2, and we also have Jn 13:4 –Jesus rises from supper, then we have Jn 13:25-26 : they were already reclined at table eating well before Judas left.
If this is the evening of the passover meal, if it only grows dark when Judas leaves the gathering, if the apostles think Judas is being sent either to procure supplies for the passover meal that are then gathered to eat or to make the offering to the poor customarily given before the passover meal–why have they been already eating supper the whole time? The episode doesn’t make sense unless we ignore the context. In fact, when it grows dark isn’t even the key issue, it’s when the feast starts: the alms had to be given before the feast, and naturally the supplies for the feast had to be bought before the feast. But the text is clear that the meal had already started before Judas went out.
Taking the mishnah as a guide “Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat.“
The text in John says they are reclining at the table there’s no explicit mention of them eating anything. He first washes their feet, cleansing them for the meal. The first mention of food is when Jesus hands a piece of bread to Judas – “after he received the piece of bread Satan entered into him.” The intention here seems to be that this was the first piece Judas had touched at the meal.
“So after receiving the piece of bread he immediately went out. It was now night.“
With Judas gone the feast could begin.
Robert said
CEJ said
Robert said
What’s the variant in Hebrew Matthew?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A couple posts down I quote it.
Thanks! That is interesting I especially like the use of darash. I don’t think Blocker and Viklund realized the significance of that. It’s the same Hebrew root found in the word midrash, which can be seeking out a mysterious meaning in a scriptural text. A house of study is called a a beit midrash. The word can have echoes of teaching as well as of mysterious teaching. Nonetheless, this may all be rather coincidental. But, as I’ve said before, I don’t actually take a position against the authenticity of the letter of Clement; I just don’t see much reason to think that Secret Mark preceded o current version of Mark and it is easy to understand how it might be later.
Smith, in his scholarly treatment of the text, also thought canonical Mark preceded SM, if I recall correctly. I still have his book and could verify, but, hey, I’m enjoying a beer and the good weather. I think he saw it as a 2nd century addition to the text.
As you know, I disagree. I see canonical Mark as needing SM to make sense in many respects.
JAS said
They may be records from eyewitness accounts, at least in parts . . . and that is the trick. A big part of the complication is that we only have these accounts, and not a body of their sources (beyond the extent that they may have copied from each other).
That parenthetical is a big concession. We know what Mt and Lk did with Mk.
And there are other places where, even without the sources themselves, we can make a reasonable inference about what they did to their sources.
feel free if you like. You really have no basis for your assumptions
I honestly don’t understand your supercilious scorn. I’ve posed precise questions; I’ve occasionally proposed answers to those question with reasons for those answers I suggested. If you don’t agree with something in the train of thought, you can point it out where I’ve gone off rather than dismissing it all with a patronizing scoff. You seem to think I have an agenda that I’m not entirely sure I actually have.
The parenthetical is not a big concession, because we really have no idea of what other sources may be lost. Even the admission of Q presupposes some source that is no longer extant. What would a reasonable inference be based on? It certainly is not based on an actual understanding of the complications, some of which I have provided (and which just grow with ancient sources). Arguing from an absence of information is always going to lead to dubious results.
I have no scorn, really, supercilious or otherwise. Your questions can be precise as you like; the answers cannot be. And, really, you have mostly made assertions about memories, assertions that do not even hold up when one follows a complicated news event as it unfolds with modern assets. I cannot prove wrong a train of thought that simply has no foundation. I have no idea whether or not you have an agenda, other than that you seem to be asserting far more than you can support. Too many people read a few books and/or watch a few videos, and think they are going to come here with brand new ideas and solve the deepest mysteries of the origins of the NT. It is fun to speculate, and I fully understand the allure of the game, but the first rule must be to understand the limitations.
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
First, of all, I do not see why saying, “it was now night” “establishes it wasn’t night before Judas had left.” (Now there might be some implication that it had grown to be night while they were inside, but I don’t see the implication the the sun sets right as Judas leaves.)
Well why does John bother to say “it was now night”?
Well, one possibility is setting the scene. He may be distinguishing night from early evening or dusk. Perhaps he is indicating that they have been inside from some considerable time, and now, as Judas comes out, it is truly night and no longer shortly after sunset.
And it is symbolic: the night, the sudden sense of darkness, as you step out of the candle light into the spring night, with only the light of the moon from behind the clouds, nicely adds to the foreboding: the evil plot is now in motion, danger and evil lurk.
The disciples incorrectly guess he means quickly buy something for the feast or quickly give alms to the poor. Even if night had simply fallen while they were inside this guess by the disciples would still make sense in the context of a passover seder (wrong though it was).
Are the disciples incorrectly guessing that Judas must go quickly before night falls?
The disciples don’t guess that Judas has to “go before night falls.” You have invented that. It is simply not in the text. Jesus says to go quickly, there is nothing from Jesus or the apostles about going before night falls.
Taking the mishnah as a guide “Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat.“
The text in John says they are reclining at the table there’s no explicit mention of them eating anything. He first washes their feet, cleansing them for the meal. The first mention of food is when Jesus hands a piece of bread to Judas – “after he received the piece of bread Satan entered into him.” The intention here seems to be that this was the first piece Judas had touched at the meal.
So is it your proposal, then, then they were just reclining around the table . . . just sitting? While they were sitting there. . . just sitting . . . Jesus gets up and washes their feet. And with that done, they resume . . . just sitting? And they keep on . . . just sitting . . . until Judas is given a single bite to eat, and then leaves, at which point they are finally free to eat? Does that seem normal? When you have people over to dinner, do you seat them at your dining room table and just . . . wait for a while . . . kill some time . . . do some things that don’t involve eating . . .until you serve food?
The text from John repeatedly says that they were at supper long before Jesus gives Judas the morsel.
Even if you do think they were just sitting at the table and not eating, would it be normal to describe things that happen in that interval of just sitting (without eating!) as happening “during supper” or if you got up from just sitting around the table (without eating!), would you accurately call that “rising from supper”?
Jn 13:2 “during supper” Jn 13:4 Jesus “rose from supper” and washed their feet. Did John need to say, “while they were masticating their food, Jesus, having swallowed the food he had previously placed in his mouth, rose”?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)