• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Ichneumonwasp said:
Why the frick is Judas so prominent in this gospel? Is he a re-working of the episode with the golden calf? He is clearly associated with money.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking alot about Judas, trying to figure out why he is so prominent in John's Gospel. The obvious is that John's Jesus is in control. Jesus knows when he picked Judas to be a disciple, he would be betrayed by him (6:70-71). At verse 13:27, Jesus gives permission to Judas (now Satan's agent) to hatch his evil plan. It fits the idea that John's Jesus is a divine being. Everything happens according to plan. Also, the light/dark symbolism is evident again in verse 13:30 which states:" So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night." Judas has now left the light and gone into darkness.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing a way to place the Judas character in the Mosaic traditions being re-told in the Gospel of John.

Looking through Bart Ehrman's works, I see he wrote a book entitled The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. I'm going to quickly run to the library and see if he only covers the Gnostic Gospel text itself, or if he also gives an overview of Judas in the Bible. Either way, I'm sure it'll be a good read...
 
Greediguts said:
I've been thinking alot about Judas, trying to figure out why he is so prominent in John's Gospel. The obvious is that John's Jesus is in control. Jesus knows when he picked Judas to be a disciple, he would be betrayed by him (6:70-71). At verse 13:27, Jesus gives permission to Judas (now Satan's agent) to hatch his evil plan. It fits the idea that John's Jesus is a divine being. Everything happens according to plan. Also, the light/dark symbolism is evident again in verse 13:30 which states:" So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night." Judas has now left the light and gone into darkness.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing a way to place the Judas character in the Mosaic traditions being re-told in the Gospel of John.

Looking through Bart Ehrman's works, I see he wrote a book entitled The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. I'm going to quickly run to the library and see if he only covers the Gnostic Gospel text itself, or if he also gives an overview of Judas in the Bible. Either way, I'm sure it'll be a good read...
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm admittedly stretching a bit far with the golden calf bit. But he is clearly protrayed as being associated with money (or the desire for money) and "worshipping" at a different altar, so to speak, as the Israelites did with the golden calf; and he is also associated with the Jewish leaders who pay him -- those in the darkness, they who are blind.

I'd love to hear what Ehrman has to say about the gospel of Judas. I've never read that one -- either the gospel or his book (or even Elaine Pagel's take on it). I'm still intermittently working through "Lost Christianities" and the companion "Lost Scriptures". Some of the early Christian writings were, um, creative, to say the least. I'm also slowly reading Eusebius' "History of the Church". I gave up on "Who Wrote the New Testament?" Seems a bit far-fetched to me; way too much conjecture without solid evidence to back up the claims.
 
Bart Erhman gives a great explanation of the possible reasons for Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

Basically, Bart points out that in the earliest Gospel (Mark) Jesus never says he is the messiah publicly, until his trial. It would appear that, privately, Jesus taught the disciples something else. He points to this verse, which appears in Mark and Luke (which therefore comes from the earlier "Q" source):

"Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of glory, you [disciples] also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28 - slight variation Luke 22:30)

Bart feels this is a historically accurate quote. Later Christians would not put these words into Jesus' mouth since they knew Judas to be the betrayer. They would not imagine him to be a future ruler.

So Jesus, privately, was telling his disciples that he was the messiah and that each of them would rule parts of the Kingdom of God. Now Jesus meant messiah as what the term meant in ancient Israel. The messiah was a mortal, appointed by God, to rule over his Kingdom on Earth (the writers of the Gospels, did not understand this, since Jesus was dead, and they began to change what the term "messiah" meant). The only people who would think Jesus was the messiah who died and was raised are people who already thought he was the messiah before his death. No one at the time thought the messiah was supposed to die and be resurrected....that was secondary. The disciples thought Jesus was the messiah before he died, becuase this is what Jesus taught them.

So back to Judas. Jesus has promised each disciple that they will help him rule God's kingdom (a very appealing dream for a group of guys who were more-or-less illiterate and powerless). Bart sees two possible explanations for the "betrayal".

1) In the earliest account (Mark 14:44), Judas instructs those arresting Jesus to take him away "securely" (sometimes also translated (too loosely according to Bart) as "under guard"). An odd statement. It may be that Judas wanted to keep him safe. He wanted Jesus to be questioned, and when the Romans saw he held no real political objectives, they would see him as another prophet with big dreams, and release him.

Or

2) Judas starts to doubt everything he has been taught and realizes he won't be ruling a kingdom anytime soon. They all made the trip to Jerusalem hoping this would be it. Instead, Jesus begins planning for his own death. Judas feels he's been hoodwinked and rats Jesus out to the authorities, saying Jesus told them that he was the messiah - which then becomes an act of political insurgency. Pontius asks him if he's the messiah. Jesus says yes. End of Jesus.

Bart points out that every Gospel states that Jesus had "King of the Jews" written on his cross. This would be Judas' betrayal - telling the authorities what Jesus had been teaching in private.
 
Last edited:
To resurrect the dead..................................


Just bought Ehrman's book yesterday but have only read a chapter and a half, so I haven't reached his treatment of Judas in John's gospel yet.

I also picked up Elaine Pagels' "Beyond Belief" about the gospel of Thomas. I had heard that she thought John's gospel was a reaction to Thomas but never heard the explanation why. Actually, it's kind of intersting. I'm only a little way into the book, but the basic idea seems to be that the Johannine group wrote not only in reaction to the changes in proto-orhtodox views of Jesus -- no imminent kingdom -- but also in reaction to the other views of Jesus emerging out of the first century. Specifically, the view in Thomas is that Jesus provides light to the world -- as in John -- but this is a light that is in everyone (the divine spark, if you view Thomas as fully gnostic, or just a divine internal presence otherwise). John, on the other hand, repeatedly avows that Jesus is the only light and that no one can reach the father except through the son -- in direct opposition to Thomas where everyone has the light within themselves. Interesting idea. I need to read more and look again at both of those gospels.

This fits very well, though, with the basic premise that the proto-orthodoxy was created by fights between different Jesus groups -- why we end up with those seemingly paradoxical creeds.
 
Oddly enough, I had picked up the same book by Elaine Pagel just a few days ago. I'm about half-way through but I am enjoying it so far. I too need to go back to John's Gospel and look at the verses re:"Doubting Thomas".

The Gospel of John continues to suprise me....

Favorite Jesus quote in the Gospel of Thomas so far is:

Jesus said, "Foxes have their dens and birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lie down and rest."

Somewhat Dr. Seussian...

In fact didn't The Kids in the Hall do a sketch called the Dr. Seuss Bible??

Answered my own question. Yep, it's here.:D
 
Sounds like I will have to pick up Pagels' book as well.

The most striking difference I had noticed between John and the other gospels is the role of Jesus. In the other three, it seems like it is assumed that Jesus is the messiah along the lines of the Old Testament prophets. In other words, it is this world that matters and his task isn't finished until he returns to take vengeance, lead armies, or whatever else is expected of a messiah (similar to the themes in Revelation).

In John, he explicitly denies being a messiah, prophet, or king. Repeatedly. Instead, his role is strictly as the sacrifice, and he makes it fairly clear that only he can be sacrificed (see the comments to Peter the night before the crucifixion), and only his sacrifice can make a difference. In addition, this world isn't important, but the next one is. Without Jesus, there is no next world.

I will definitely have to read the Gospel of Thomas to see how these themes play there.
 
She has a very nice discussion in the early part of the book concerning the difference between the redemptive qualities of sacrifice and the strictures of a particular belief.

Jesus fits into the sacrifice dynamic, and one point she makes is that with ancient sacrifices everyone could participate in the benefit of the sacrifice by eating the meat. The Eucharist seems to serve the same function in John's gospel -- he is the bread of life and the water (wine, blood) of life -- and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to receive the redemptive benefit in John.

Makes me wonder a bit about why the Eucharist was so important in the synoptic gospels. There is clearly something more than just Jesus being the soon to be returning king in those works.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
She has a very nice discussion in the early part of the book concerning the difference between the redemptive qualities of sacrifice and the strictures of a particular belief.
Click to expand...


I am looking forward to reading it.

Jesus fits into the sacrifice dynamic, and one point she makes is that with ancient sacrifices everyone could participate in the benefit of the sacrifice by eating the meat. The Eucharist seems to serve the same function in John's gospel -- he is the bread of life and the water (wine, blood) of life -- and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to receive the redemptive benefit in John.
Click to expand...


But this statement comes in a speech outside of the Passover feast (where it is found in the synoptics). At the last supper in John, Jesus does the whole pedicure/monologue thing instead. Rather than participating in a sacrificial ritual with his disciples, he is the sacrifice.

Makes me wonder a bit about why the Eucharist was so important in the synoptic gospels. There is clearly something more than just Jesus being the soon to be returning king in those works.
Click to expand...


From what little I have read, it seems more as if the last supper was meant to represent the end of the Jewish tradition (Passover) with the coming of the messiah rather than the institution of a new tradition (Eucharist). In all three gospels, Jesus makes a point of saying that the last supper is the very last time he will partake of wine (implying this will be the last Passover, no further rituals are needed) until the new kingdom is established.
 
Hokulele said:
But this statement comes in a speech outside of the Passover feast (where it is found in the synoptics). At the last supper in John, Jesus does the whole pedicure/monologue thing instead. Rather than participating in a sacrificial ritual with his disciples, he is the sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Right, but her point about the way sacrifice worked -- at least as I understood it -- is that people would participate in its benefit by eating what was sacrificed. So the Eucharist, which I still maintain is prominent throughout all of John's gospel (not just peeking in at the last supper as in the synoptics), is the act of people participating in Jesus' sacrifice. It's almost as though there is no need to have Jesus introduce the Eucharist at the Last Supper in John because he has been discussing it or showing it throughout the gospel -- I am the bread of life, the water of life, water into wine, etc.



From what little I have read, it seems more as if the last supper was meant to represent the end of the Jewish tradition (Passover) with the coming of the messiah rather than the institution of a new tradition (Eucharist). In all three gospels, Jesus makes a point of saying that the last supper is the very last time he will partake of wine (implying this will be the last Passover, no further rituals are needed) until the new kingdom is established.
Click to expand...



Yes, I agree. That makes a lot more sense. I still have problems, though, with when these books were supposed to have been written -- after 70 generally -- since this was 40 years after Jesus' death and the expectation of the coming kingdom must have begun to wane by then (the expectation had clearly diminished by the time John was written since Jesus has a whole new tale to tell). It appears from Paul's letters (at least First Corinthians) that the last supper was remembered more as a communal meal that included bread and wine as symbols, I guess, of the promise of a new Passover (believers to be passed over at the end times while everyone else perished) -- possibly why the story was always set at the Passover in the synoptics. In John's gospel, though, we see what appears to be our view of the Eucharist -- a participation in Jesus' sacrifice by eating his body and drinking his blood.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Right, but her point about the way sacrifice worked -- at least as I understood it -- is that people would participate in its benefit by eating what was sacrificed.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. If you have the stomach to plow through Leviticus, sacrificial meat is generally reserved for the priestly caste, free men, or other restricted groups. Once God is pleased with the priests (men, non-slaves, whatever), the benefits are then distributed to the population as a whole.

So the Eucharist, which I still maintain is prominent throughout all of John's gospel (not just peeking in at the last supper as in the synoptics), is the act of people participating in Jesus' sacrifice. It's almost as though there is no need to have Jesus introduce the Eucharist at the Last Supper in John because he has been discussing it or showing it throughout the gospel -- I am the bread of life, the water of life, water into wine, etc.
Click to expand...


What makes this troubling to me is that it puts emphasis on the notion of sacrifice and sharing, but it never actually happens in John. It is almost as if the disciples are left hanging (unlike the Synoptics).

Yes, I agree. That makes a lot more sense. I still have problems, though, with when these books were supposed to have been written -- after 70 generally -- since this was 40 years after Jesus' death and the expectation of the coming kingdom must have begun to wane by then (the expectation had clearly diminished by the time John was written since Jesus has a whole new tale to tell). It appears from Paul's letters (at least First Corinthians) that the last supper was remembered more as a communal meal that included bread and wine as symbols, I guess, of the promise of a new Passover (believers to be passed over at the end times while everyone else perished) -- possibly why the story was always set at the Passover in the synoptics. In John's gospel, though, we see what appears to be our view of the Eucharist -- a participation in Jesus' sacrifice by eating his body and drinking his blood.
Click to expand...


The way I see it, the Synoptics saw Jesus as a messiah who would return as king in the near future and take action. As such, followers of Christ did not need to take action on their own, but wait for him to provide (much as he provided the metaphorical nourishment at the Last Supper).

In John, and later in the Epistles, Jesus is simply the sacrifice that sets up the possibility for a new world (in heaven?), and screw what is happening/has happened on this earth. No messiah required. In a sense, the Jesus of John and Paul is more demanding in that he won't be coming back to help, you have to save yourself through faith.

Revelation seems to harken back to the original Synoptics, which is why I can't believe anyone would think that the John of Revelation is the same as John of the Gospels.
 
I may be completely wrong for thinking so, but it seems to me that the Eucharist is so important for the Johannine community that having Jesus institute it at the Last Supper would have been simply redundant. It was certainly unnecessary, because it inspires the rest of the gospel. This gospel, at least to me, is immersed in the Eucharist -- its symbology and its role as involvement in the sacrifice of Jesus. We first hear the Baptist proclaim -- look there is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world -- and move on from there with bread, water, and wine symbols throughout. I don't think this group needed to have a story of Jesus implementing a special ritual because that ritual was part and parcel of who they were. There is no need to speak of it explicitly because it is simply understood; or so it appears to me.

The foot washing, to me, looks like the old Jewish motif of the younger supplanting the elder -- because this group, I think, saw itself as the inheritors of true Judaism. They were the younger brother who superceded the elder (Judaism 1.0) because they saw God through Jesus and got the religion right -- much as Muslims see their version as the one true, uncorrupted belief.

The sacrificial meal, I think, would have followed along the lines of Greek and Roman sacrifice and/or the Passover sacrifice -- in which everyone participated -- not the routine sacrifices in Judaism that fed the priestly class. Jesus is clearly identified as the Passover lamb in John, even being killed at the time that the lambs are killed on Preparation day.
 
Last edited:
I guess then the question would be, when was it instituted? Or possibly, when did the Johannine community believe it to be instituted? After Jesus' death? If Jesus didn't explicitly start the Eucharist tradition (as he did in the Synoptics), who did?

I also saw the phrase "Lamb of God" as a nod to the story of Abraham and Isaac.

I am really going to have to pick up the Pagels' book when I am at the library today.
 
Hokulele said:
I guess then the question would be, when was it instituted? Or possibly, when did the Johannine community believe it to be instituted? After Jesus' death? If Jesus didn't explicitly start the Eucharist tradition (as he did in the Synoptics), who did?

I also saw the phrase "Lamb of God" as a nod to the story of Abraham and Isaac.

I am really going to have to pick up the Pagels' book when I am at the library today.
Click to expand...


It's a great book, but much of this is how I piece it together rather than how she does so.

My guess is that the Eucharist as we know it grew out of the communal meals as it became more clear that the kingdom was not going to arrive and the surviving Jesus movements had to find a new way. This John group seems to have found one solution. The gnostics found another. Marcion found a third. Etc.

Again, this is all my speculation based on reading what others have written, so it may be pure bunk, but it makes sense to me that the earliest communities expected the coming kingdom, but they had to change into more philosophical movements in order to continue when Jesus didn't come back, much like what the Adventist church had to do after the Great Disappointment. I think the John group turned Jesus into the ultimate sacrifice (and even a divine one), and so turned the meal into a a "sacrificial meal", consuming Christ. Marcion came up with two gods. The gnostics split into a thousand different directions. And they all had to respond to one another. Pagels argument is that the John group largely wrote in response to the Thomas group, who were either gnostic or proto-gnostic.
 
I have read a bit about Marcion, and now I have the Pagels' book. I can see the gnostic texts are going to keep me busy for some time. Thanks for your interpretation. More reading and pondering ahoy!
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I may be completely wrong for thinking so, but it seems to me that the Eucharist is so important for the Johannine community that having Jesus institute it at the Last Supper would have been simply redundant. It was certainly unnecessary, because it inspires the rest of the gospel. This gospel, at least to me, is immersed in the Eucharist -- its symbology and its role as involvement in the sacrifice of Jesus. We first hear the Baptist proclaim -- look there is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world -- and move on from there with bread, water, and wine symbols throughout. I don't think this group needed to have a story of Jesus implementing a special ritual because that ritual was part and parcel of who they were. There is no need to speak of it explicitly because it is simply understood; or so it appears to me.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Eucharist is symbolically represented throughout the Gospel, but I don’t believe it’s due to redundancy that the author doesn't have Jesus institute the ritual at John’s version of the Last Supper.

The Gospel points to faith in Jesus (which is the same as faith in God) as what will bring salvation. No rituals, hereditary customs, the teachings of the Temple elite (or the teachings of the Synoptics or Gospel of Thomas) can save you. The Johannine Community wanted to develop a higher Christology. They have to show he continues and then supplants Mosaic tradition, so he is the final Passover Lamb. His work is done. The work gives meaning to the rituals of baptism and the Eucharist, without explicitly commanding their institution, because the ultimate source of both sacraments is Jesus. The Eucharist, as established in the Synoptics, is done to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and death until he returns. In the Gospel of John, again, his work is done. He’s not coming back.

Also, as I had mentioned in a previous post, the verses where Jesus tells people to eat his flesh and drink his blood, could have been additions by the final redactor. You can remove them and the verses flow quite well.

Ichneumonwasp said:
The sacrificial meal, I think, would have followed along the lines of Greek and Roman sacrifice and/or the Passover sacrifice -- in which everyone participated -- not the routine sacrifices in Judaism that fed the priestly class. Jesus is clearly identified as the Passover lamb in John, even being killed at the time that the lambs are killed on Preparation day.
Click to expand...
You can get a sense of what was going on at the early Eucharist celebrations in 1st Corinthians 11:17-34. Scholars date this letter around the early 50s CE. Paul was not happy...
 
Cainkane1 said:
Murdering every man woman and child and animal except for virgin girls is immoral. It shouldn't have happened then and it sure as Hell shouldn't happen now.
Click to expand...


Ummmm....I agree.

Not sure where this is coming from.......:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom