Thomas II

Is there anyone here that would disagree that this last exchange of Jesus and the Pharisees is a course against them? If you disagree,state why...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

You are right about the ending being funny. It is only on the rest of the text that we disagree. I think it is intended to be funny throughout.

In regards to the important "of age" question: Note this from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=bar%20mitzvah

n the Mishna.

Pirke Avot 5:25

He (Yehudah ben Teyma) would say: "A son of five years old for reading, twelve for Mishna, thirteen for Mitzvah, fifteen for Gemara, eighteen for Chupah, twenty to earn a living ...."

This passage was taken to mean that a male's legal responsibility began at age 13. After this time, he can sign contracts, make up a minyan (religious quorum), and generally start doing actions with real consequences.

In ancient Judaism, thirteen was considered the age at which a boy became a man with full legal responsibilities and rights in the community. I know of no text where "of age" would refer to thirty or any other age within the Jewish Community. If you have such a text, I invite you to present it.

I now partially agree with you that the parents are probably not lying about the boy being "of age" (thirteen). When we assume this however, we have to note that he must have been a member in good standing of the synagogue community and the people must have known him to be blind. I mean it is not likely that there were so many blind members of the synogogue that other members would not be able to identify him and testify that he had recovered his sight. It is therefore baffling that they need to go to his parents to resolve the identity question:

19: and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"
20: His parents answered, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
21: but how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself."
22: His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.
23: Therefore his parents said, "He is of age, ask him."

It is clear that the parents are refusing to identify Jesus as the healer of their son. Would identifying Jesus as the healer of their son be equivalent to confessing him the Christ? Or were they afraid that if they revealed Jesus was the healer, the next question would be "Do you think he is the Christ" and the parents would have to confess. The first option that saying that Jesus healed their son is the same as saying he is the Christ seems absurd. Healings and healers were quite common, a simple healing, even a miracle one could not be equated with being the Christ. The boy/man has just said that Jesus is a prophet and there were absolutely no reprecussions to him.

We really have to assume that the parents were afraid of further questioning leading to the revelation that they were in fact followers of Jesus. This would also explain how the disciples of Jesus got the information that the boy/man was blind from birth. Being followers of Jesus, the disciples would know that they had a blind son.

The boy/man, afterwards,does confess Jesus as the Christ and gets thrown out of the synagogue. Thus we have to assume the parents were telling the truth about him being thirteen. This happens in these lines:

33: If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out.

It is interesting what happens next. Jesus hears that the man has been thrown out of the synogogue and Jesus hunts him down.

35: Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of man?"
36: He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
37: Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you."
38: He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him.

We may take it that Jesus and/or his movement specifically went after outcasts from the synogogue and asked them to join their movement.

Now notice that when first asked about the Jesus, the man says that he is a prophet.

17: So they again said to the blind man, "What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?" He said, "He is a prophet."


The answer and the question has to been seen in the context of the discussion in John, chapter 7:

40: When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This is really the prophet."
41: Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?
42: Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"
43: So there was a division among the people over him.
44: Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

So why does the man change his mind about Jesus being a prophet and make him confess him as the Christ. It seems apparent that the conversation that Jesus had with the man (:35-37) converting him did not happen after he was tossed from the synogogue, but before. Otherwise the man simply switches his position on this essential point for no reason. The narrative only makes sense if Jesus talks to him between the time he says that Jesus is a prophet and the time that the man confesses Jesus as the Christ.

So what we have here is a situation where Jesus has two followers who have a son who may or may not be a blind man/boy. The Son claims to be a healed blind boy. Upon first interogation, he says only that Jesus is a prophet. After a visit from Jesus, he says that Jesus is the Christ. At this point he is thrown out of the synogogue.

We must now look again at the parent's testimony:

18: The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight,
19: and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"
20: His parents answered, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;

The Jews are asking the parents to identify the boy/man as their son who had been born blind. The Jews do not ask if the parents had a son that was born blind. What the Jews are asking is if this is the son who was born blind.

Now we have to assume truthful testimony on the part of the parents. What we also have to assume is cunning testimony, as they show their cunning by refusing to answer how he was healed. The testimony would be cunning if the family had two sons, one that was born blind and one that was born seeing.

We may suppose that Jesus performed his actions on the blind son and told him "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am." It was the other "seeing" son, certainly a younger son, who was not yet a member of the synagogue community, who returned from the pool.

This explains why people thought it was not the blind son but someone who looked like him. Some people were not fooled by the conman's switch tactic.

The original text was not only fictional and hilarious, but it exposed the type of scams in common usage at the time to "cure the blind." It really does open our eyes as was intended.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Julian

Jay, do you have any views on Egerton Gospel and its possible relationship to GJohn?

Julian

PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

I don't really have anything special to say about Egerton. As noted by others, it seems closer to John than anything else, although it seems to be using the souce material differently.

My procedure generally in analyzing the text is to look at breaks and jumps in the narrative and to try to figure out what could have caused them. This procedure results in quite unexpected results, for example, the first hypothesis in the book Evolution of Christs and Christianities (EVOCC.COM) that the original gospel text was a very funny play written by a woman.

Unfortunately, Ergerton is just a few broken fragments and so there's little in the way of narrative breaks and jumps to analyze.

The document does appear to me to be first century.

Is there something in particular you find special about it?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thomas II

Jay,

At least we agree about the last two statements of Jesus as being a curse...
Regarding the other stuff I'm gonna have to disagree with you about your interpretation,so we are gonna have to agree about this disagreement because I don't see it as comical. I do agree that the Pharisees were ridiculous, but in NO WAY was the man a minor.
Anyway,the main issue of this thread,though, is the issue of Jesus and the Apostles using curses and spells or anything resembling magical arts...
It is obvious they did uses them...and the Apostles were so "curse happy" that Jesus had to tell them to cool it a bit...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

I'm afraid that we can't agree to disagree because I made a mistake in my reading of the text. I have to erase my parents-with-two-children hypothesis.

A key point to understanding the whole passage comes from understanding what the parents are testifying to and what they are lying about. Before we can do that we have to understand the position of "the Jews" towards the blind. The important passage which I now believe is mistranslated in all the English text and the Vulgate is this text:

24: So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner."
25: He answered, "Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see."
26: They said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
27: He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?"
28: And they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
29: We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from."
30: The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.
31: We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
32: Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind.
33: If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out.

Notice that the man suddenly starts preaching to the Jews about God at line 31. This is totally out of place as the man is a poor beggar and has no background in theology.

It seems to be correct at this point in the text because the Jews' phrase in line 34 is "and you would teach us." This seems to be refering to the argument the man has just given. However, accepting this we are still left with the sudden transformation of beggar into a Jewish teacher.

Now if we take the first part of line 34 and place it after line 30, we get the Jewish teachers teaching the man and it makes sense.


24: So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner."
25: He answered, "Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see."
26: They said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
27: He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?"
28: And they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
29: We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from."
30: The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.
34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?"
31: We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
32: Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind.
33: If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
And they cast him out.



This now makes even less sense as the Jews seem to be promoting Jesus as coming from God. However, when looking at the original Greek, the sentence contains an interesting double negative.
ei mh hn outoV para qeou ouk hdunato poiein ouden

The sentence actually says If he were not from the way of God, he could not do nothing.

Here is the rules on double negatives in Greek from the Wikopedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative)

Double negatives are perfectly correct in Ancient Greek, sometimes expressing an affirmation, sometimes strengthening the negation. With few exceptions, a simple negative (οὐ or μή) following another simple or compound negative (e.g., οὐδείς, no one) results in an affirmation, whereas a compound negative following a simple or compound negative strenghens the negation.

* οὐδείς οὐκ ἔπασχε τι, no one was not suffering something, i.e., everyone was suffering.

* μὴ θορυβήσῃ μηδείς, let no one raise an uproar, lit. do not let no one raise an uproar.

The above applies only when the negatives all refer to the same word or expression in a clause, so in

οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀκοντίζειν οὐκ ἔβαλον αὐτόν, it was not on account of their not throwing that they did not hit him,

all the negatives operate independently of each other.

The expression "ei mh hn outoV para qeou ouk hdunato poiein ouden"
matches the exception to the double negative rule and should be treated as a positive.

So the line in 33 should be read, "if this man was not from God, he could do something. Putting in this correction, we get this:

30: The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.
34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?"
31: We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
32: Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind.
33: If this man were not from God, he could do something."
And they cast him out. [/I]

The Jews cast him out because they believe that the man was blind from birth and since no holy man since time began has ever cured a man blind from birth, Jesus must not be a holy man (a man from God).
This makes sense, the Jews regarded blindness from birth as evidence of a sin. Why else would God make a man blind. To cure such a man would be to go against the Will of God. By curing the man blind from birth, Jesus has proven to the Jews that he is not from God.

We can now understand the testimony of the parents. The parents testified that the boy/man was born blind in order to help the Jews convict Jesus. That is the lie that the parents told because they were afraid of the Jews.

In fact the man does not testify that he was born blind. Note these lines.

24: So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner."
25: He answered, "Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see."

The Jews now know that Jesus is a sinner because he has cured a man born blind from birth (from the parent's testimony). The implication here is that the man was not actually born blind.

The fact that the text tells us in the beginning that the man was born blind (a negative point against Jesus in the earlier text) indicates that the text has gone through a number of rewrites before arriving at this state.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Julian

Well, I find lots of things special about it. In the context of your theory I am wondering about the following issues if you think it is connected with GJohn in some fashion.

1) If GJohn is based on an earlier satirical play, is Egerton also based on this play?

2) Is GJohn based on Egerton which is based on a play?

3) Are both based on a play?

And probably other questions but I think you get my drift. It would seem essential in your theory that you either explain the role and position of Egerton or reject its connection with GJohn.

Julian

PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

Egerton is a little like John, a little like the Synoptics and a little like nothing else. It is intriguing, but also frustrating that we are dealing with just fragments.

John and Mark, I believe both base their structure on the original play, but they change the scenes, cut material, move them around, and certainly add other material, to make their own theological points.

It seems to me that all three of the things you suggested are possibilities. Without more material, it is difficult to judge.

In my book (Evolutions of Christs and Christianities, at Evocc.com) I use a lot of analogies to early motion pictures. For about 15 years after movies started being projected (1895-1910), the projectionist had the right to determine the order of shots in movies. Each projectionist cut up the shots in the films in whatever way he felt the audience would enjoy them. Thus for many early films we have a number of different versions. This same process may be at work here, where each church community changed the material to fit their particular circumstances. If we find an early film cut several different ways, we can make an educated guess as to the intentions of the original filmmaker based on the way the different versions are cut. If we had more of Egerton it would be extremely helpful.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thomas II

So we agree that "the blnd man" is a man and not a child. His demeanor is too adult for a child.
I can not see,no pun intended, where the hilarious part is...
It is true that the blind man becomes a bit preachy and sarcastic for an uneducated blind man from birth, so there is a bit of a doubt there...but it's not conclusive...
Possible about the rewrites...
So you also say that the man was not born blind?
Was he blind at all? (because at this point just about anything is possible!)

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thomas II,

I'm still not sure if the earlier text had him as a boy or a man. Jesus does cure a possessed deaf and dumb boy, a young girl named Tabitha in Mark's Gospel, and predicts the curing of a man's young son earlier in John. We may assume that Lazarus is a young boy living with his sisters Martha and Mary (unless, we want to promote the idea of a gay Jesus). I think this fits in with these other "curing of the young" miracles. The bringing in of the parents and the idea of being "of age," I still think may be indications that he is a youth rather than what we consider an adult. However, this issue now seems relatively unimportant in determining the tone and meaning of the scene.

Yes, the text does seem much more serious when the issue revolves around Jesus undoing the work of God by making a person punished with blindness (at birth) by God to see. The question, "Is he doing or undoing the work of God?" is certainly a basic and serious question in this context.

There are two objections raised to the miracle in the text: 1) Is this actually the blindman and 2) Did Jesus do or undue the work of God by giving him sight.

I assume the two questions represent two drafts of the story. In the first draft, the man is cured thus proving that Jesus is the Light of the world. We may suppose that this is simply part of a list of miracles that Jesus has to fulfill to prove he is the Christ.

The question is naturally raised how do we know that the man was actually blind. Could he not have been faking blindness to get money for begging? One could bring in witnesses to say that they have seen him blind and begging. The problem with this is that people don't really look closely at a blind man, so perhaps it was just someone who looked like him. The definitive solution to the problem is to bring in the man's own parents to testify.
Once the parents are brought in for identification purposes, we have the question of when did he go blind.

Now the interesting thing is that the text tells us that the parents were lying when they said that he was born blind from birth. This would indicate that in an ealier draft or version, the parents must have testified that he was not born blind from birth. Whatever way he became blind was apparently not convincing enough. Perhaps, opponents argued that the parents lied because they were ashamed to admit that he was born blind at birth. This is probably where the first draft ended.

At this point, a writer figured out that it would be better to say that the man was blind from birth. So, the writer changed the story around, and instead of the parents lying and saying he was not born blind at birth (the opponent's contention) the writer agrees that the parent's were lying, but claims they were lying (for fear of the Jews) when they said the opposite that he was born blind at birth.

Now making him blind at birth raises the whole question of God punishing an innocent child by making him blind at birth.

This now becomes the central question of the story.

So we have two stories: 1) A simple miracle story in which Jesus cures a blind man to prove he is the Christ and 2) a more complicated story in which Jesus and the Jewish leaders argue over the nature of his miracle.

Now, look at the ending:

34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out.
35: Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of man?"
36: He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
37: Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you."
38: He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him.
39: Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
40: Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, "Are we also blind?"
41: Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,' your guilt remains.

The phrase "You have seen him and it is he who speaks to you" is odd. It should be "You see him now." The implication is that the man has seen him in the past, but he is only hearing him now.

From this, we can reconstruct the original story.

A blind man dreamed he saw the Son of Man and told the Pharisees what he would look like.
34: They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out.
35: Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of man?"
36: He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
37: Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you."
38: He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him.
39: Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
40: Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, "Are we also blind?"
41: Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,' your guilt remains.

Thus we get three drafts: 1) a joke about the blindman, Jesus and the pharisees, 2) A story in which the Man/boy's parents testify that the man/boy was not blind from birth, and 3) The current rather serious version.


Warmly,

Philospher Jay