John chapter 9:8-21

Here we are going to run into another situation where there is no reasonable break for much of the chapter. As such, it will be necessary to create such a place in the narrative, which usually makes for an awkward transition that sacrifices continuity. My apologies in advance. We continue on with the story of the Man Born Blind.

Text

8 Οἱ οὖν γείτονες καὶ οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον ὅτι προσαίτης ἦν ἔλεγον, Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος καὶ προσαιτῶν;

9 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι Οὗτός ἐστιν: ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, Οὐχί, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι.

10 ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ, Πῶς [οὖν] ἠνεῴχθησάν σου οἱ ὀφθαλμοί;

11 ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς πηλὸν ἐποίησεν καὶ ἐπέχρισέν μου τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ εἶπέν μοι ὅτι Υπαγε εἰς τὸν Σιλωὰμ καὶ νίψαι: ἀπελθὼν οὖν καὶ νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα.

So his neighbors and those seeing him who was a beggar said, “Is he not the one being seated and begging?” (9) Others said that, “He is (that man, eg)”. Others said “Nay, he is another similar to him.” He said, “I am (he)”. (10) They said to him, “How were your eyes opened?” (11) He answered, “The man who is being called Jesus made mud and smeared my eyes and said to me, ‘Get yourself to the (Pool) of Siloam and wash.’ So I having gone and washed I recovered my sight”.

This was a planned break, but the timing worked out–no thanks to any planning on my part. The last word of Verse 11 is the compound verb ana (up) – blepō (look) >> “to look up”. However, it also has the special and specific meaning of “to recover sight”. Even better, it is used in this manner by a pagan, and even a Classical author named Herodotus. For those unfamiliar, Herodotus is known as the “Father of History” because he wrote a rather long history of the war(s) between Greece as a whole–if abstract–and the the Persian Empire, the most powerful empire in the world at the time. Of course, Herodotus is famous for his digressions, which can often consume many pages, so we get so much more than a simple narrative of what could have been the account of the first Persian amphibious attack in 490 BCE, and then the full-scale invasion launched and led by the Persian king Xerxes himself. There is actually an entire book just on Egypt. Historians are forever grateful for his prolix nature, because he provided so much incidental information. I think of him as the older guy who comes to have dinner and then sits up most of the night telling his stories, but the hosts do not mind in the least so they invite him back the next night. The book is fascinating. So, the point is that “to recover one’s sight” is a legitimate, Classical translation.

Honestly, aside from that, there isn’t a lot of actual information in these four verses. It’s really just narrative to set up the story as a whole. I would wonder, or perhaps I would suspect that these four verses were not part of the original story as it was first told. Rather, I would suspect that these verses were added as the story was re-told. This is exactly the sort of incidental information that gets appended to the main body of the story for dramatic purposes. We all know someone like that: he tells a story, but it takes five minutes of really unnecessary set-up until we get to the actual guts of the story. Then, Herodotus is kind of like that, except he’s entertaining because he’s talking about stuff we don’t–and wouldn’t–otherwise know. But, this is how the narratives of legends grow over time. John wants to establish beyond a doubt that those who witnessed the event have their input to verify the circumstances. 

8 Itaque vicini et, qui videbant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant: “Nonne hic est, qui sedebat et mendicabat”;
9 alii dicebant: “ Hic est! ”; alii dicebant: “ Nequaquam, sed similis est eius!”. Ille dicebat: “ Ego sum!”.
10 Dicebant ergo ei: “Quomodo igitur aperti sunt oculi tibi?”.
11 Respondit ille: “Homo, qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit et unxit oculos meos et dixit mihi: “’ ‘Vade ad Siloam et lava!’. Abii ergo et lavi et vidi”.

12 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος; λέγει, Οὐκ οἶδα.

13 Ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους τόν ποτε τυφλόν.

14 ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἧ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν πηλὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἀνέῳξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς.

15 πάλιν οὖν ἠρώτων αὐτὸν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι πῶς ἀνέβλεψεν. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πηλὸν ἐπέθηκέν μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, καὶ ἐνιψάμην, καὶ βλέπω.

16 ἔλεγον οὖν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων τινές, Οὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ. ἄλλοι [δὲ] ἔλεγον, Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς τοιαῦτα σημεῖα ποιεῖν; καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς.

17 λέγουσιν οὖν τῷ τυφλῷ πάλιν, Τί σὺ λέγεις περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἠνέῳξέν σου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτης ἐστίν.

And they said to him, “Where is he (Jesus)?” He (the man) said, “I don’t know.” (13) They led one previously blind to the Pharisees. (14) It was the Sabbath on the day Jesus made the mud and smeared it on his eyes. (15) So and again the Pharisees asked him how he saw. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed and I saw”. (16) Then some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not with God, that he does not keep the Sabbath”. [But] Others said, “How can a man make such a sign?” And there was a schism amongst them. (17) So they spoke again to the blind one, “Who is it you speak about, that opened your eyes?” And he said that “He is a prophet”. 

First, there is no verb in Verse 13 aside from “they led”. The sentence is rendered in various translations as “They led him/the one who was formerly blind”. It’s better English–I suppose– and it doesn’t affect the meaning of the text,  but it’s not in the Greek.

It is also interesting to note that the Pharisees do not play anywhere near the major role in John that they do in some of the other gospels. They get three one-off mentions in chapters 1-4 and they appear in a single story in Chapter 7, in which the word is used numerous times. There is another single usage in Chapter 8, they mentioned here appear here several times and, in another extended appearance in Chapter 11, twice in Chapter 12, and then they disappear until a single mention in Chapter 18. Why they have faded into the wallpaper here is a good question. It would seem most likely to indicate that the Pharisees themselves as a group had begun to fade from the scene at this point in the history of Judaism, but I would not take my word on that based on this inference of mine. I would not just accept this on my say-so, either. I want confirmation of this from someone who knows much more about the history of Judaism and/or of Judea/Palestine than I do. It’s rather a specialist’s field and not something amenable to speculation by a dilettante such as I.

Really though, there are two main things being put across here. The first is the repetition of the story about Jesus making mud. The magical practice is recounted in Verses 8-11 and then again here in 12-16. That is also worth asking why? As mentioned, I’ve been reading about magic in the Hellenistic world–which includes the history of Rome from about the 2nd Century BCE, after the conquest of the Greek east and its incorporation into the Empire before the beginning of the Common Era. While there were periods when it was generally ignored, it was always held somewhat in disrepute by the more respectable in society. If nothing else, it was low-class; it was common as the British would say with a sniff. It wasn’t something one wanted to emphasize. And yet here we have John repeating the story several times to remind us of Jesus’ reputation as a sorcerer. And Jesus did have this reputation, at least posthumously. We know that he was called such by the pagan Celsus, and that Eusebios disputed the charge and hurled it back at Apollonius of Tyana. I don’t have an answer. The Gnostics were not particularly fond of magic, so we can’t blame them. I just don’t know. 

The other thing is the keeping of the Sabbath. This charge against Jesus has cropped up a couple of times before. In fact, we could almost call it a recurring theme in the gospel at this point. Again we need to ask why this is important. Here I believe the answer is a bit more clear, or at least it’s easier to come up with what could pass for a reasonable explanation. In all instances, “The Jews”, or here The Pharisees condemn Jesus for performing beneficial acts of healing. The purpose here is pretty obvious, IMO. Having endured years of religious instruction at Maple Grove St Michael’s as a lad, I recognize that the teaching was meant to show Judaism at its worst. The Pharisees were more concerned about the Letter of the Law, and not at all with its spirit. John apparently sees the benefit of pointing this out repeatedly. Just as Jesus’ revelation of his identity, this seems to be a theme of the gospel.

I did not translate schism; I left it transliterated because this is another of those words that has taken on a very specific and almost exclusively religious connotation. I say “almost exclusively” because the word is encountered when discussing secular ideologies such as capitalism; in such discussions the term “heresy” also crops up from time to time, but the dichotomy of theology and ideology is largely a distinction without a difference. In English, there is a difference between a “schism” and a “division” outside of the religious/secular context. “Divisions” between opinions are mundane and a dime a dozen; a schism, OTOH, is much more serious, implying a degree of near permanence. So what about here? Should I have left the word untranslated? Or should I have followed suit with the professional translators? Being honest, leaving the term as “schism” in English probably paints too harsh a picture. There is a large-ish group of people and some of them disagree. There is no reason to assume this has hardened into an irreparable split between the groups. That being said, I believe it was worthwhile to have this discussion to demonstrate how words take on meaning in English that are not present in the Greek. Like angellos, or baptismo, or euangelia.  

Now finally we come to the matter of the sign. I teased that a sign was coming at the outset of the previous post; however, we’ve only just now gotten to the sign. I would say that only part of the crowd is calling the healing a sign, but I don’t think that is accurate. Recall that a sign is a step above a miracle, or a “mighty work” or “deed of power”. I often quote that “the sky hung low in the ancient world, and the traffic in both directions was heavy”. That may not be the exact quote, but it the point becomes clear when it is understood that the air and sky and heavens was full of powers of various sorts, generically called daimones, which, whether benign or malevolent were capable of effecting such deeds of power. So while a deed of power was impressive, or at least above ordinary, a sign was entirely a different matter. A sign means something more than the mere suspension of natural laws; bear in mind that natural laws were largely unknown, so their suspension wasn’t that far out of the grasp of most people. Who knows? Some deeds of power may have involved the invocation of unknown natural law rather than their suspension. Wonder workers were not all that uncommon; reading literary works of Rome or Greece we find the character of the wonder worker to be fairly common, a type that most people would recognize.

But a sign takes us to a different level of supernatural significance, largely because it was understood to be significant. It was from God, meant to manifest his will amongst his people. This is why the Jews were so insistent on a sign; The Jews ask for a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:22. This is why the man whose sight was restored asks how a sinner can produce such a sign. For when the disciples of the Baptist asked Jesus if he were the one, the part of the latter’s response was that the blind see; of course this is a reference to Isaiah 35, which I saw labeled as the Joy of the Redeemed. So if Jesus is restoring sight, then that is a pretty clear indication that he is not a sinner. In fact, it’s a pretty clear indication that he is the Messiah, as foretold by Isaiah. So is the formerly blind man being a bit disingenuous when he says that Jesus is a prophet? Or is he afraid of speaking too boldly? 

12 Et dixerunt ei: “Ubi est ille?”. Ait: “Nescio”.
13 Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos, qui caec us fuerat.
14 Erat autem sabbatum, in qua die lutum fecit Iesus et aperuit oculos eius.
15 Iterum ergo interrogabant et eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: “Lutum posuit super oculos meos, et lavi et video”.
16 Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam: “Non est hic homo a Deo, quia sabbatum non custodit! ”; alii autem dicebant: “ Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere?”. Et schisma erat in eis.

 18 Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἦν τυφλὸς καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν, ἕως ὅτου ἐφώνησαν τοὺς γονεῖς αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψαντος

19 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτοὺς λέγοντες, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη; πῶς οὖν βλέπει ἄρτι;

20 ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπαν, Οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη:

21 πῶς δὲ νῦν βλέπει οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἢ τίς ἤνοιξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν: αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσατε, ἡλικίαν ἔχει, αὐτὸς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λαλήσει. 

 So “the Jews” did not believe he who had been blind and whose sight was restored, until they heard the parents of him whose sight was restored (19) and they (“The Jews”) asked them (the parents), saying, “Is he your son, who you say was born blind? So how exactly does he see?” (20) So the parents of him answered and said, “We know that he is our son and that he was born blind. (21) How he now sees we do not know. Ask him. He has (requisite) age, he speaks for himself.”

At the end of the last section, I asked why the formerly blind man referred to Jesus as a prophet, rather than as the Messiah. It now occurs to me that I provided the quote about the blind seeing; it’s not part of the text, so the reference to Isaiah is only in my mind rather than in the story. We will assume John was fully aware of the reference, oblique as it may be. One suspects that this is why the report to the Baptist includes the phrase about the blind seeing in Matthew and Luke. Matthew likely would have been aware of Isaiah; would Q have known? There is a question that deserves to be asked. My hard copy Greek NT has the cross references in the margins, which is immensely helpful in cases like this. Matthew, being the HS scholar that he was, to the point of coming up with “He will be called a Nazarene” likely added the report to the Baptist about the blind regaining their sight as further demonstration of the foretelling of Jesus in the HS.

The question then becomes whether John expected his audience to catch the allusion made here. Naturally, this would require rather a high degree of proficiency and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no overt repetition of the phrase regarding the blind. We have the stark account of the story. In his book Jesus Before the Gospels, Ehrman hypothesizes that the community of John the Evangelist consisted of people with a strong background in Judaism, even if not actually raised as Jews. This community had come to the point where they decided it was time to cut their ties with the Jewish religion and become fully Christians, rather than continue on as Jewish-Christians. It’s an interesting hypothesis and it really helps explain the degree of animosity John expresses towards “The Jews”. If true, one inference to be drawn is that the audience for this gospel probably did have a decent degree of knowledge about the HS in general, and perhaps of Isaiah in particular. We must realize that, as Christians, in some ways Isaiah is more significant for us than it is for Jews, who probably put more emphasis on Ezekiel. Of course, that is a horridly subjective statement on my part, but that has been my overall impression. BUT!! that impression is based on very little evidence, so take what I say with way more than a grain of salt. I cannot even begin to formulate an argument for my position; at best, it’s sort of a vague, hazy, inchoate feeling, not at all something even remotely suitable for a serious scholarly judgement.

The point here is that there is a decent chance that the audience may not have picked up on the reference to Isaiah. We would have to assess just how thoroughly familiar the “average Jew” of the early Second Century was with the HS. I don’t know. Observant Jews would have attended Temple at least some of the time, one would think, but based on the degree of knowledge a lot of the Catholics I grew up with had of the Bible, even regular attendance at church on Sunday was hardly sufficient to impart any deep knowledge. I don’t think I’m atypical of my peers, and there is even reason to think that maybe I got a little more than most; regardless, there have been numerous passages and stories that I had never heard before. And I’m just talking the NT; as for the so-called “Old Testament” as it was known in my youth, well, I got a sketchy outline of some of the major events in the first three books, a few stories here and there about Saul and David and Solomon, Jonah, the Dry Bones of Ezekiel, and the impression that Isaiah was very important. So based on my experience, I wouldn’t really be surprised if many people in John’s ekklesia did not catch the allusion. OTOH, perhaps this group was more robust in their belief and their practice than the standard American Catholic congregation. But then, my experience could have been atypical; perhaps most congregations were/are much more fervent in their learning than the rural parish in rural Michigan where I was raised. 

Because if the ekklesia was as clueless as I’m suggesting as possible, the whole point of the Sign would be lost. The question of the sign was apparently some of “The Jews”, who should be takem as more learned. They would get the allusion; indeed, it’s probably safe to say they did get the allusion since they consider the event before them to be a sign. 

But that was all relevant to the passage above; here the discussion focuses on the man’s parents. They are very cagey about their answers; they apparently understand that there are significant implications to the event, even if they maybe don’t grasp the full depth of the problem. Perhaps they do, which is why they’re so evasive. Or, at least, John is suggesting that they did because while the likelihood that these events transpired is not zero, the odds are very close to that. Given all the back and forth we’ve been hashing out, I think the reasonable conclusion is that John did expect his audience–at least the most learned segment of it–to grasp the idea of the sign as it related to the  “prophecy” of Isaiah. That is, after all, why this is a sign. 

17 Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: “Tu quid dicis de eo quia aperuit oculos tuos?”.  Ille autem dixit: “Propheta est!”.
18 Non crediderunt ergo Iudaei de illo quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius, qui viderat.
19 Et interrogaverunt eos dicentes: “Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc videt?”.
20 Responderunt ergo parentes eius et dixerunt: “Scimus quia hic est filius noster et quia caecus natus est.
21 Quomodo autem nunc videat nescimus, aut quis eius aperuit oculos nos nescimus; ipsum interrogate. Aetatem habet; ipse de se loquetur!”.

John Chapter 6:23-40

ONCE again, we’re starting with the final verse of the last post. It did not receive due attention, and it ties into the continued narrative. That being said, it doesn’t look like there is a good, clean break anywhere between here and the end of the chapter. As we proceed, I’ll have to find what seems to be the best of a bad lot. Time will tell.

In any case, we are on the shore the morning after the boat was teleported from the point where Jesus got aboard to the boat’s destination. The crowd left behind “across the sea” had noticed that the disciples’ boat is gone, and they noted that no one had seen Jesus join them.

At the end of the last post we talked about John’s dependency on the Synoptics. Another bit of an argument just occurred to me this very instant: Why did the disciples have a boat? We know the answer, of course, but an audience hearing only John would not know the reason. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all specifically tell us that Peter and Andrew were fishermen; John does not. in this gospel Jesus calls Andrew in the vicinity of Jerusalem rather than in Caphernaum along the shore of the sea. John apparently assumes that his audience would simply know that. I guess. So, not was John aware of the Synoptics, but John can assume his audience is familiar with them as well.

Text

23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου.

24 ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν ὁ ὄχλος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ἐνέβησαν αὐτοὶ εἰς τὰ πλοιάρια καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ζητοῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 

25 καὶ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, πότε ὧδε γέγονας;

26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.

But another boat from Tiberias near the place where they ate the bread blessed by the Lord. (24) So that the crowd saw that Jesus was not there nor were his disciples, they had embarked on the boat and went to Caphernaum seeking Jesus. (25) And finding him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when were you here?” (= colloquially, Rabbi, when did you arrive?) (26) Jesus answered them and said, “Amen I say to you, do not seek me that you will see signs, but that you have eaten of the bread and you have fed.

Jesus will continue to speak, but have to take a break here to comment. From a narrative point of view, as far as setting a scene that is comprehensible, this fails miserably. The boat arrived; was the crowd–all 5,000 of them–on the boat? Or did they see all this from across the lake? Again, the conclusion to be drawn from the narrative confusion is that John did not feel the need to be clear on the details since he and his audience probably knew them. The storyline is garbled to a degree, but it’s not important.

Aside from that, there is something going on with the sign thing. Remember, the crowd had followed him because they had seen the signs* he performed on the sick. That was why they had followed him from…wherever. That was how they had ended up out…there…wherever, that they needed to be fed via a mighty work. Performing some mental gymnastics and/or pretzel bending we can just about create a reasonable chain of events to get Jesus and the crowd to the mountain. Or not. The crowd did not follow Jesus from Jerusalem, the scene of Chapter 5, to Tiberias, which is a distance of 50+ miles. A large crowd moves slowly. So once again, we have a gap in the time/event line. Jesus apparently performed the aforementioned signs at some indeterminate place between Jerusalem and Tiberias. Recall the account of Matthew in which Jesus healed a leper, the centurion’s slave, Peter’s mother-in-law, and an unenumerated bunch of sick people the morning before he performed the Feeding of 5,000. Presumably these are the signs to which John and Jesus refer in Verse 2 and here in Verse 26. So again, a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the Synoptics is implied. 

Finally there is the issue of sign-seeking. This goes back to Paul, the complaining about Jews needing a sign in order to believe. (In turn, this foreshadows Doubting Thomas.) Is it possible that these regular-if-not-frequent disparagement of sign-seeking reflects a tradition in which Jesus did not perform signs/wonders on a frequent basis? This utterly contradicts my idea that Jesus was eventually executed as a magician who did perform wonders. Is there some kind of development in the idea of what was meant as a sign rather than a wonder? This is an idea that will require a great deal of additional research and development, but I have the sense that John is trying to create, or at least define a distinction between a mighty work and a sign. Or, he is trying to conflate the two categories. I’m not sure which it is he’s doing, and I go back and forth, but at the moment I suspect the latter. in the other gospels the healing of the sick is just that: healing, the Greek word being therapeuein, the root of “therapeutic”. This latter word shows up in the Synoptics, but not in John. That should be an immediate red flag that something is amiss or awry, or at least different. Back in Verse 2 John called Jesus healing sick people “signs”, and now he’s implying the same about the Feeding of 5,000, which certainly is a mighty work. Mostly though, no specific word is used to describe this work, neither dynameis, therapeuein, or anything else. 

*FKA “miracles”

23 aliae supervenerunt naves a Tiberiade iuxta locum, ubi manducaverant panem, gratias agente Domino.

24 Cum ergo vidisset turba quia Iesus non esset ibi neque discipuli eius, ascenderunt ipsi naviculas et venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes Iesum.

25 Et cum invenissent eum trans mare, dixerunt ei: “Rabbi, quando huc venisti?”.

26 Respondit eis Iesus et dixit: “Amen, amen dico vobis: Quaeritis me, non quia vidistis signa, sed quia manducastis ex panibus et saturati estis.

27 ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑμῖν δώσει: τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός.

(Jesus is still speaking:) “Do not make the bread of destruction but the bread of remaining in the life for all time (eternal), which the son of man will give to you. For the father the God (God the father) sealed him (the son)”. 

A brief pause to discuss some vocabulary. The first word of Verse 27 is repeated at the end of Verse 28. It is ergazōmai. The root is ergon/erga, which means “work/works”. “Mighty works” uses the word erga. At the core lies an implication of work, as in labor, as in craftsmanship. So “don’t make the bread” is almost some instruction to a baker. In fact, there is almost the flavour of the master craftsman asking his apprentice about the plan for the next project, or task. The double meaning of erga is should not be lost. Did the audience pick this up? Something that could be considered a pun in Greek? In Jerusalem they may well have done so, but of course it’s impossible to say for certain. 

The other point is the bread of “remaining” in eternal life. Huh? This is a real theological novelty. It almost smacks of the essential goodness of humans as opposed to the humans Augustine describes who are irreparably mangled by the sin of Adam just by virtue of being human. However, that’s a lot of weight to put on a slender reed; however, these are the sorts of stray comments that can–and did–cause all sorts of problems for considered thinkers down the line. I’ve referred to John a a theologian, but that’s a bit of an exaggeration. He did try to address the issue of the relation between Jesus and God, but he really wasn’t trained in pagan philosophy, so issues like categories and universal statements were perhaps not his strongpoint.   

27 Operamini non cibum, qui perit, sed cibum, qui permanet in vitam aeternam, quem Filius hominis vobis dabit; hunc enim Pater signavit Deus! ”.

28 εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν, Τί ποιῶμεν ἵνα ἐργαζώμεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ

29 ἀπεκρίθη [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.

30 εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, Τί οὖν ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμέν σοι; τί ἐργάζῃ;

31 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον, Ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.

32 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν:

33 ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ.

And so they (the interlocutors) said to him (Jesus), “What may we do that we may make the works of God?”   (29) Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, in order that you may believe the one which he sent”. (30) They said to him, “So what sign will you make, so what we may know and believe in you? What do you do? (31) Our fathers ate manna in the desert, according it is to what has been written, ‘I gave bread from the sky to them to eat’.” (32) Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from the sky, but my father gave the true bread from the sky to you. (33) For the bread of God is that coming from the sky and giving life to the kosmos”.

As a kid in a Catholic school, the line in religion class was that Jews did not understand the nature of Jesus’ mission and ministry. Instead of what they got, Jews were expecting an anointed one much in the tradition of the HS. This passage is confirmation of what I was taught. Now, however, the question becomes: were the Jews wrong to expect a messiah who conformed to their expectations? And let’s note that the nuns who taught my religion classes never really seemed to ask this question of us. And, come to think of it, the lay teachers of religion–oddly, all men–never asked this question either. Of course, they didn’t ask because the answer was patently obvious: Yes, the Jews were mistaken to expect something that they expected. IOW, they should have known and/or understood that the rules had changed. Read in those terms, this passage makes a lot of sense. After all, YHWH had sent the manna as is duly noted here. That was, let’s face it, a pretty obvious sign of divine intervention on behalf of the Jewish refugees fleeing from slavery in Egypt, about as subtle as a charging rhino. Why should Jesus not provide something similar?

Does anyone else find Jesus’ answer a bit, well, lawyer-like? In essence, it’s saying that since it wasn’t actually Moses that gave the sign, but God/The Father, why would you expect me to provide the sign? Of course, the actual subtlety of Jesus’ response is perhaps lost on his audience? No, Moses didn’t give the sign, but God did; however, the problem is that the audience is confusing Jesus with Moses, when the correct correlation is that Jesus is the manna, Jesus is the sign given by God to this generation just as the manna was given by God to the forebears of those now listening to Jesus. This observation of mine is hardly anything noteworthy, even if I am impressed with myself for having puzzled through this. This, in short, is the essence of what I was taught all those years ago in elementary and high school. As such, this passage is foundational to the way that Christians separated themselves from Jews. It’s also a necessary step for Christians to explain to pagans why it was that they Jews did not convert en masse. And let’s face it, that’s a bottom-line question that potential converts would ask: Well, if Jesus was a Jew, why didn’t the Jews convert? And the Christians could say, well, they just didn’t get it. A bit slow on the uptake, you know? 

This is a situation in which I wish I had a more comprehensive, or at least deeper, knowledge of scripture. A lot of the stuff that I’ve translated here is stuff I have never read before. I read it, translate, and comment and then move on to the next section, or next gospel, and my retention of previous material is spotty. Back in Mark we had the “Messianic Secret” whereby Jesus did not broadcast his identity, which then provided a plausible reason why more Jews did not convert. Now we have this, where too many Jews just didn’t catch on to what was happening, didn’t understand, or didn’t want to understand who Jesus was. What was the situation in Matthew and Luke? What was their explanation? Regardless, here in John we have a different reason than we had in Mark; in some ways, they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Rather than keeping it secret, Jesus is pretty open about who he is. 

28 Dixerunt ergo ad eum: “Quid faciemus, ut operemur opera Dei?”.

29 Respondit Iesus et dixit eis: “Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum, quem misit ille”.

30 Dixerunt ergo ei: “ Quod ergo tu facis signum, ut videamus et credamus tibi? Quid operaris?

31 Patres nostri manna manducaverunt in deserto, sicut scriptum est: Panem de caelo dedit eis manducare’ ”.

32 Dixit ergo eis Iesus: “ Amen, amen dico vobis: Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de caelo, sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de caelo verum;

33 panis enim Dei est, qui descendit de caelo et dat vitam mundo ”.

34 Εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν, Κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον.

35 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς: ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε.

36 ἀλλ’ εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ ἑωράκατέ [με] καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε.

37 Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,

38 ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με:

39 τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 

They said to him, “Lord, always give us this bread”. (35) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one coming towards me you may not hunger, and the one believing in me shall not ever thirst”.  (36) But I say to you that you have also seen me and do not believe (in me). (37) All which the father gives comes to me, and the one coming to me I will not expel, (38) so that I have come down from the sky not to do my will, but, but the will of the one having sent me. (39) This is the will of the one having sent me, that all which he gave to me lest I should destroy (the things) from him but I will raise/revise it (i.e. as if from the dead) on the last day. (40) For this is the will of my father, that all who (are) beholding the son and believing in him should have life eternal, and I will him on the last day”.  

This is a situation in which I wish I had a more comprehensive, or at least deeper, knowledge of scripture. A lot of the stuff that I’ve translated here is stuff I have never read before. I read it, translated, commented, and then move on to the next section, or next gospel, and my retention of previous material is spotty. Back in Mark we had the “Messianic Secret” whereby Jesus did not broadcast his identity, which then provided a plausible reason why more Jews did not convert. Now we have this, where too many Jews just didn’t catch on to what was happening, didn’t understand, or didn’t want to understand who Jesus was. What was the situation in Matthew and Luke? What was their explanation? That’s what I don’t recall, but I’m reasonably sure that the Messianic Secret was not part of their message.  Regardless, here in John we have a different reason than we had in Mark; in some ways, they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Rather than keeping it secret, Jesus is pretty open about who he is. In fact, he’s flat-out declaring his identity to the assembled crowd, which is predisposed to believing him to be a divine individual since many of them were in the crowd who had witnessed the feeding. 

Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait until the next post to find out why they don’t believe Jesus is the anointed.

To be continued…

34 Dixerunt ergo ad eum: “Domine, semper da nobis panem hunc”.

35 Dixit eis Iesus: “Ego sum panis vitae. Qui venit ad me, non esuriet; et, qui credit in me, non sitiet umquam.

36 Sed dixi vobis, quia et vidistis me et non creditis.

35 Dixit eis Iesus: “ Ego sum panis vitae. Qui venit ad me, non esuriet; et, qui credit in me, non sitiet umquam.

36 Sed dixi vobis, quia et vidistis me et non creditis.

37 Omne, quod dat mihi Pater, ad me veniet; et eum, qui venit ad me, non eiciam foras,

38 quia descendi de caelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam sed voluntatem eius, qui misit me.

39 Haec est autem voluntas eius, qui misit me, ut omne, quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem illud in novissimo die.

40 Haec est enim voluntas Patris mei, ut omnis, qui videt Filium et credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam; et resuscitabo ego eum in novissimo die”

John Chapter 6:15-23

AFTER feeding 5,000, Jesus is forced to flee, which takes us into the story of Jesus calming the sea and walking on the water. Note that there are two distinct parts of the story. The first, calming the storm, is another of the very limited number of pericopes that are found in all four gospels. This immediately imparts a certain amount of weight to the narrative, that all four evangelists considered it necessary to include it. The second part, Jesus walking on the water, is only in three; when this happens, it is almost always that the pericope is in the Synoptics and not in John. In this instance, however, it appears in John but not in Luke. Finally, in Mark and Matthew, the two events are told as separate from the other, occurring at different places in the narrative. Here, in John, the two actions are part of the same continuous story.

Why did Luke leave out Walking on Water? This omission is actually redactionally consistent with the way Luke handles stories in Mark and Matthew. In cases where Matthew provides an abridged version of Mark, like the Geresene Demoniac, Luke will restore the text of Mark, providing an account that is longer and more detailed than Matthew, if not perhaps quite as long or detailed. In those instances where both Mark and Matthew provide full accounts, such as the Prophet Without Honour pericope, Luke will provide an abridged version. So it is here; Luke abridged the stories by leaving out the second, while John’s abridgement combined them into a shortened narrative that leaves out the lack of faith of the disciples.

Since some form of the narrative is part of all four gospels, the implication is that the Feeding of 5,000, the Cleansing of the Temple, and Calming the Sea was something that evangelists believed had to be included. It was too popular, or too well known, to omit. The audience expected it. Or, to modify this a bit, it was something that the evangelists felt to be critical to the overall narrative, the lesson, the message that they wanted to impart. It was a necessary piece of the explanation of who Jesus was and why he was so special and worthy of veneration. This certainly explains why the stories of mighty works* appear in all the gospels, even if the catalogue of these works varies from evangelist to evangelist. And certainly, walking on water is a prodigious accomplishment, as is feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, and such deeds were to be seen as indications of Jesus status as the Logos. Interesting to note, though, is that John does not describe the second of these actions as a “sign”. I would suggest the reason he did not was because it was not performed in front of a live audience as was the Feeding. Despite that, I would suspect that John intended his audience to understand Calming the Sea and Walking on the Water as signs; the term was used twice in Verses 1-14, so the implication seems clear.

*FKA “miracles”

Text

15 Ἰησοῦς οὖν γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἁρπάζειν αὐτὸν ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα ἀνεχώρησεν πάλιν εἰς τὸ ὄρος αὐτὸς μόνος.

16 Ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν,

17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,

18 ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο.

Jesus thus knowing that they wished to come and carry him off so that they made him king, he departed again he to the mountain alone. (16) As it became evening his disciples descended down to the sea, (17) and embarking the boat they crossed (to the other shore of) the sea to Caphernaum. And it had become dark and Jesus had not yet come to them, (18) and the sea rose (in waves) with a great wind blowing.  

For once, the crowd pursuing him is not interested in carrying Jesus off to destruction. This time, they want to make him king because of the great sign he has performed. This is, I believe, one of the few times where the crowd is emphatically and openly behind him, which marks a volte-face since the episode at the Sheep’s Pool back in the previous chapter. Not being familiar with the topography, it’s hard to explain why the crowd could not, or did not, follow him up the mountain; presumably, the path was too narrow and/or steep? But here is where we come up against the other gospels as far as spatial location. In Matthew’s description of the events leading up to Jesus calming the sea, following the Sermon on the Mount Jesus healed a leper, then proceeded to Caphernaum, where Jesus healed the Centurion’s slave, then went to Peter’s house to heal the latter’s mother-in-law so she could make them dinner. And after that, the crowd brought many to be healed in the evening. Presumably they spent the night in Caphernaum, whether at Peter’s house or at Jesus’ own house is not mentioned. As a reminder, Matthew specifically stated that Jesus came and dwelt in Caphernaum (Mt 4:13) and Mark (2:1) says that Jesus had a house there. Getting back to Matthew’s narrative, the next day, the group proceeded along the Sea and Jesus healed all who were brought to him before embarking on the boat Jesus had requested be ready to cross the lake (Mt 8:18). So the crossing started in Caphernaum according to the clues provided in the text. Sticking with Matthew, he sites the episode of Jesus walking on water immediately after the Feeding of 5,000. This latter occurred in a “remote place” (Mt 14:13, REB) where he had traveled to by boat.

In this description, Matthew follows Mark in two important ways. First, the Calming of the Sea is the first of the two events reported; second, this occurs directly after the Feeding of 5,000.  Of course we see here that John did the same. Luke, however, situated his version in an entirely different location, for reasons that are no doubt redactionally consistent with his other decisions not to follow Matthew’s arrangement; or, does that only become necessary when Luke chooses not to follow Matthew’s arrangement of Q material? Or does it matter? And if so, why? My apologies, but the insistence that Luke’s reasoning has to be 100% consistent when he deviates from Matthew’s placement of Q material is a tad…artificial. What happens in situations like this when Luke deviates from Mark? Doesn’t that indicate that Luke may have had his reasons for placing things where he did that were based on other criteria than where Matthew put something? 

In any case, John follows the relative temporal placement of the Calming of the Sea by having it occur directly after the Feeding of 5,000. But he really does not situate the location of the feeding very clearly. In fact, John’s geography is muddled. In Chapter 5, recall, Jesus was in Jerusalem. At the beginning of this chapter, John said that Jesus crossed to the other side of the lake, to the side the city of Tiberias was located. Here is the problem: Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Caphernaum are all on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. It was not at all necessary to cross the lake to get from Tiberias to Caphernaum. It is quite possible that the trip between the two could be made more quickly traveling by boat than walking; in fact, it’s highly likely that the trip by boat was quicker. So what we’ve got here is John using his source(s) without understanding the source(s) or the basic geography of Galilee. The plain meaning of the Greek word <<πέραν>> is “to cross” or “across”, as in being on opposite shores. It would imply crossing from the east shore to the west, making a transit of the middle of the lake/sea. The shoreline between Tiberias and Caphernaum is concave, so there is a sense of crossing what could be considered open water. But, that stretches the meaning. So yes, based on this alone, one can fairly well conclude without too much danger of being gainsaid that John is dependent on the Synoptics. For the life of me, I don’t understand why these sorts of points are almost never raised in discussions of dependence. Like how Luke is redactionally very consistent when treating a pericope found in both Mark and Matthew. 

15 Iesus ergo, cum cognovisset quia venturi essent, ut raperent eum et facerent eum regem, secessit iterum in montem ipse solus.

16 Ut autem sero factum est, descenderunt discipuli eius ad mare

17 et, cum ascendissent navem, veniebant trans mare in Capharnaum. Et tenebrae iam factae erant, et nondum venerat ad eos Iesus.

18 Mare autem, vento magno flante, exsurgebat.

19 ἐληλακότες οὖν ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ πλοίου γινόμενον, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.

20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον.

22 Τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον: 

23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου.

 So having rowed* 25 or 30 stadia**, they beheld Jesus walking about on the water, and coming near to the boat, and they feared. (20) And he said to them, “It is I. Do not fear.” (21) So he having come, they lifted him into the boat and immediately the boat (was) upon the land to which it had departed (where it was heading). (22) On the morrow the crowd which was standing across the sea saw that another boat was not there, and that Jesus had not gone with his disciples to the other boat but his disciples had departed; (23) but another boat came from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread having been blessed by the lord.  

We took care of the vocabulary items in the footnotes below, so that’s out of the way. There are two remarkable aspects in this passage. The first is confirmation of teleportation. Jesus got in the boat and immediately it teleported to its destination. In church, one never hears the story of either Feeding from John; it’s always Matthew or Mark. As a result, odd little details like this go unnoticed. It doesn’t say the boat sailed off safely; it says “immediately the boat was upon the land”. Granted, “immediately” doesn’t necessarily mean “instantaneously”, but the intent seems pretty clear. Actually, there is a third aspect. Jesus did not calm the sea. He did not end the tempest. He and the boat simply teleported to land. The second (now the third) is that the crowd across the sea communicated via quantum entanglement that they did not see the “other” boat that Jesus disciples had used. The crowd also communicated telepathically that they/it had not seen Jesus join his disciples. 

So John, like Luke only tells one part of the dual narrative involving the Sea of Galilee. And, interestingly, John tells the walking on water part but not the part about calming the sea. Is this a coincidence? There’s no reason it can’t be, but it’s like Luke’s choices to add or abridge his material based on how Matthew treated Mark’s narrative. And granted again, this is only the first time I’ve noticed this about John, so it’s an individual anecdote and not a repeated occurrence; however, that may change and be sure I’ll be paying attention to this as we progress through the gospel. But again, not the sort of thing that gets discussed when talking about whether or not John is dependent on the Synoptics. I believe 

*Rowed. The Greek word really means “to drive”, or “to strike” or other things that aren’t “to row”. In fact, the word is only used about a handful of times in the NT, and only one other time is it used in the sense of “to row”. This other instance is in Mark, in the passage about Jesus walking on the water. I suspect that is not a coincidence. But, for comparison, it’s also used once when Jesus “drives” out an evil spirit.

**Stadia, singular Stadion. This is the Greek form of the Latin stadium, which translates exactly as one would expect. The -on endings in Greek usually correlate to -um endings in Latin, indicating second declension neuter nominative nouns. The stadion, of course, was the place where athletic competitions occurred, and is the reason we have sports stadiums. Interestingly, there was a standard size for a stadion, of approximately 200 yards, so the word for the place was synonymous with the distance. If you think of it, a modern running track usually encompasses a football field, and has a circumference of 440 yards/400 metres. If you think about it, making a circuit of the track, the two long sides are 220 yards/200 metres; IOW, about the length of a stadion. So 25 x 200 = 5,000 yards or just short of 3 miles, which is a standard translation (NIV, ESV, RSPV & c.).

19 Cum remigassent ergo quasi stadia viginti quinque aut triginta, vident Iesum ambulantem super mare et proximum navi fieri, et timuerunt.

20 Ille autem dicit eis: “Ego sum, nolite timere!”.

21 Volebant ergo accipere eum in navem, et statim fuit navis ad terram, in quam ibant.

22 Altera die turba, quae stabat trans mare, vidit quia navicula alia non erat ibi, nisi una, et quia non introisset cum discipulis suis Iesus in navem, sed soli discipuli eius abiissent;

23 aliae supervenerunt naves a Tiberiade iuxta locum, ubi manducaverant panem, gratias agente Domino.

John Chapter 6:5-14

We continue with the story of the Feeding; in John, we have one feeding of 5,000, just as in Luke. Way back when discussing the Feeding of 4,000 in Mark, i brought up how this was likely a twin of the 5,000: the same event got twinned and went into the record as two separate events. While not frequently, this occurs with some regularity in secular history as well. As an example taken from Roman history, we find it a couple of times in Books 6-10 of his From The Founding of Rome (In Latin: Ab Urbe Condita).

Text

5 ἐπάρας οὖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος ὅτι πολὺς ὄχλος ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγει πρὸς Φίλιππον, Πόθεν ἀγοράσωμεν ἄρτους ἵνα φάγωσιν οὗτοι;

6 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν, αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν. 

7 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ [ὁ] Φίλιππος, Διακοσίων δηναρίων ἄρτοι οὐκ ἀρκοῦσιν αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχύ [τι] λάβῃ.

8 λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου,

9 Ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;

10 εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ποιήσατε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀναπεσεῖν. ἦν δὲ χόρτος πολὺς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. ἀνέπεσαν οὖν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι.

Jesus having raised his eyes and seeing (that) a great crowd came towards him he said to Philip, “Where will we buy bread in order to feed them?” (6) He (Jesus) said this testing him (Philip) for he (Jesus) knew what he intended to do. (7) Philip responded, “Two hundred denarii (worth) of bread would not feed them so that each should receive a little. (8) One of his disciples said to him, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter, “There is a lad here who has five loaves of barley bread and two small fishes, but what is that for so many?” (10) Jesus said, “Make the men be seated.” For there was much grass in the area. The men sat down, their number about five thousand.

Rather sly of Jesus asking Philip a question to which the former knew the answer, no? But that’s not the salient point. Why is Jesus asking Philip? In the other three gospels, Philip is mentioned exactly once, in the passage where all twelve are named. In John, however, Philip crops up a number of times. In the 2nd Century, a number of deeds are attributed to Philip. Tradition tells us that he was martyred in the city of Hieropolis; indeed, there are those who believe Philip’s tomb has been found in that city. Also, this is the second time that we have Andrew participating in the activities involving Jesus; the first was when Andrew was called by Jesus, and then Andrew recruited his more famous brother Simon Peter. While the narrator identifies Andrew as Simon’s brother, it is out of character for the narrative to focus on Andrew and pass by the more famous brother. Truly, in the Synoptics Simon Peter is in the middle of most of what occurred in the activities of Jesus and his band of followers. So that gives us Philip and Andrew, who are otherwise cyphers in the Synoptics. What is up?

The indication here, I believe is that we are dealing with an entirely new crop of stories about Jesus and followers. These stories are set in new locations. In the Synoptics Jerusalem only figures at the end of the narrative, and Jesus has been to Cana twice already. This town is not mentioned in any of John’s predecessors, while Caphernaum, which looms so large in the other gospels, scarcely warrants mention. On top of that, we are getting participation from different disciples; James and John, the Sons of Thunder, have yet to appear. These new stories in new locations, and the transposition of old stories–such as the paralytic–to new locations is the result of the passage of time. As we have stated, the traditional date for the writing of the fourth gospel is 100 CE, but there is apparently a group that would suggest even a later date. I now put myself in this group. We are simply getting too much novel information for this to be a continuation, albeit enhanced, of the earlier gospels. The Synoptics are of a piece, sharing the framework set down by Mark, with additions added first by Matthew and then by Luke. These latter two had heard stories not found in Mark and so each felt it necessary to add his new material. Regardless, the continuous continuity (intended) of the three would indicate a single tradition that was set down in something like a generation. John’s gospel, OTOH, is the next–and last–generation of evangelism.

To some degree this does relate to the question of John’s independence from the Synoptics. The problem is that, when the question is asked, “independence” is not usually defined with any precision. Yes, he had his own sources. Yes, he probably reworked the stories he had heard, and probably filled in a few gaps here or there. Like mention of Passover in Verse 4; that detail really has no effect on the overall narrative, but John included it for his own reasons. Or he left stuff out when it seemed appropriate, like the actual act of Jesus’ baptism by the Baptist. This is called “editing”. Or is it redacting? (Another technical term, like “pericope”.) However, this is very different from asking whether John was familiar–in whatever degree–with the Synoptics, or at least one of them, and this distinction is not always maintained when question is asked. This confusion of classes, of groups, of labels, of definitions, where the lines between two positions or categories gets blurred is the single most common rhetorical mistake made; or, it’s the most common rhetorical trick used to confuse the issue. Either way, it’s also the logical fallacy that is committed, or found in arguments. In the system of Informal Logic, it’s known as “Ambiguity”. Catchy name, eh? But certainly accurate. It pops up very frequently in the Q debate. Yes, John has different material from Matthew and Luke, but the same could be said about the two of them, in relation to Mark or to each other. We won’t continue the argument here, but let it be said that I believe John was fully aware of at least one of the Synoptics, and that one is most likely Matthew. But let’s follow through and see if there are any clues about this in the rest of the gospel.     

5 Cum sublevasset ergo oculos Iesus et vidisset quia multitudo magna venit ad eum, dicit ad Philippum: “Unde ememus panes, ut manducent hi?”.

6 Hoc autem dicebat tentans eum; ipse enim sciebat quid esset facturus.

7 Respondit ei Philippus: “Ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis, ut unusquisque modicum quid accipiat!”.

8 Dicit ei unus ex discipulis eius, Andreas frater Simonis Petri:

9 “Est puer hic, qui habet quinque panes hordeaceos et duos pisces; sed haec quid sunt propter tantos?”.

10 Dixit Iesus: “ Facite homines discumbere ”. Erat autem fenum multum in loco. Discubuerunt ergo viri numero quasi quinque milia.

11 ἔλαβεν οὖν τοὺς ἄρτους ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εὐχαριστήσας διέδωκεν τοῖς ἀνακειμένοις, ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὅσον ἤθελον.

12 ὡς δὲ ἐνεπλήσθησαν λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Συναγάγετε τὰ περισσεύσαντα κλάσματα, ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται.

13 συνήγαγον οὖν, καὶ ἐγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων τῶν κριθίνων ἃ ἐπερίσσευσαν τοῖς βεβρωκόσιν.

14 Οἱ οὖν ἄνθρωποι ἰδόντες ὃ ἐποίησεν σημεῖον ἔλεγον ὅτι Οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 

So Jesus took the loaves and having blessed them he distributed the to those reclining, and doing the same from the fishes as much as they wished. (12) And they (the crowd) having been filled, he said to his disciples, “Gather the broken pieces that are excess, so that they do not go to wasted.” (13) Thus they gathered, and they filled twelve baskets of broken pieces from the five barley loaves, which were left over from the eaters. (14) So those people seeing the sign he made said that “This man/he is truly the prophet who is coming to the world (kosmos).

At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be a lot here that hasn’t been covered, or isn’t more or less obvious. Jesus took five loaves and a few small fish and distributed them to the crowd and everyone got as much as they wanted. I suppose it seems a bit odd that the text implies that Jesus was the one distributing, as if he went to each group personally. But then, if he did not to each group himself, how did they all see Jesus effect the sign? But then, how would they have known that he started only with five loaves and two fish? In short, they would not have seen the initial quantities, or at least most of them would not have seen this, being too far away for direct viewing. A second look at the story here gives another indication that this was a very well-know event in the life and ministry of Jesus. This version is short. It cuts to the chase, relates the sequence of events, and has the crowd proclaim the sign. It is this brevity that tells us the story was so familiar that it was not necessary to provide much more detail. 

There is one aspect, however, worthy of further consideration. In all four versions of the Feeding of 5,000, we get the specific could of five loaves and two fish. John here emphasizes that they are small fish, but the number is consistent. More, in three of the four gospels–here being one of them–we get the specific count that there were twelve baskets of leftovers. All four agree on the number of loaves and fishes, three of four agree on the number of baskets. Only Matthew omits the basket-count. The question that should be asked here is whether the specific numbers are the sort of detail that would be reliably transmitted for several decades by oral retelling? To be perfectly honest, I have no clue how to answer that. More, I have no clue how I would go about finding an answer to that. Oh, doubtless that, somewhere, in the great ruck of research done on oral traditions, some conclusions have been reached. If forced to guess, I would say that the consensus is that there is no consensus. That is to say, one could find examples of traditions where such specific numbers were handed down accurately, and others where the numbers were all over the place. The Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad provides one example. Recall that Christopher Marlowe had his Dr Faustus ask, “Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?” when he beheld Helen as provided by Mephistopheles. I actually sat down with a copy of the book and added them all up, and the the total came out to something just over a thousand. (My total came to 1087, IIRC, but I did that several decades ago.). But we have no way of knowing how many ships were listed in earlier versions of the story, if, indeed, earlier versions had such a list.

My main concern for asking this is to decide, or to present an argument about whether Luke and John took the numbers from Mark as a text. The stories were told and re-told countless times in the years between Mark and Luke, and then Mark and John. Would the number of loaves and fishes have remained at five and two based on oral transmission alone? It’s possible. Overall, I find it more likely that Luke and John got their numbers from Mark and Mark or Luke respectively, but let’s be clear: “finding it more likely” is not the same as presenting a good argument. OTOH, we have three texts that cite the same numbers; on the face it sure seems like a case where each one read what the one(s) before had written. This is supported–quite strongly, I think–by the number of baskets of leftovers. All four gospels record the same number of twelve. The number of loaves and fishes could only shrink down to zero, so remaining stuck at five and two isn’t too much of a stretch to accept as the product of oral transmission; however, there is no reason why the number of baskets of remains could not continue to increase upwards. But it didn’t. Even Matthew, who does not cite numbers for the loaves and fishes specifies that the number of the baskets was twelve. This, I think, has to be the result of the numbers being written down by Mark, and every subsequent evangelist taking the numbers from previous gospels. This is not earth-shattering in and of itself, but it’s another clue indicating that the evangelists were aware of their predecessors and that they used their predecessors for specific information. Unfortunately, I can’t stretch this to support my belief that Luke was fully aware of Matthew, but we have here yet another instance where Luke “corrects” Matthew by repeating Mark. Mark said five and two, Matthew said nothing, Luke said five and two. We came across numerous instances of this when going through Luke; I’m not sure whether this instance was identified or not in the commentary on Luke; if not, it should have been.

Finally, we are told that those witnessing or participating in the event saw this as a sign. The KJV alone translates this as “miracle”. In fact the KJV, and only the KJV, translates semeia as “miracle” several times in John. This was how I got the idea of tracking down how the terms are translated which resulted in the post called “Miracles”. The confusion of the words “signs” and “miracles” is perhaps understandable, but I hope I demonstrated in post that muddling the words is not really justified. But let’s think back to Chapter 2, the Wedding at Cana. In 2:11, the KJV renders semeia as “miracles”; in 2:18 it’s translated as “sign”. The same thing occurs in Chapter 6: the first use in 6:5 is miracles, and here in 6:14 it’s rendered as signs. In a discussion of Mark, I read that Mark supposedly presented what the modern author called miracles as signs of Jesus’ divinity. It’s certainly an interesting theory that is worthy of full consideration. Now we have to cut the KJV some slack; Greek had not been in use very long in the west by the time of the Reformation, the number of Greek texts was much more limited, and the rigours of linguistic analysis–etymology included–had not been developed. Are we justified in considering the mighty deeds to be signs that Jesus was divine? That is, do I agree with the interpretation of Mark just mentioned? And, if so, does that analysis also apply here?

Since John only uses word semeia and does not use the others at all, I believe that it is necessary to conclude that there was no distinction in John’s mind. Any demonstration of power that contravened natural law was a sign. Such displays were not “wonders”. Here I think John is reacting to the world about him. Simon Magus, the sorcerer in Acts who wants to buy Peter’s power to perform wonders, may have been a real person. He is attested in other, extra-canonical works, but all of them are works produced by Christian writers who sought to discredit Simon Magus. Generally, when one person tries to discredit another, the attempt can be written off as personal, but when numerous people go on the attack, it is more likely to reflect a genuine set of circumstances. The biggest compliment a scholar can be paid is to be excoriated in a dozen peer-reviewed journals. If no one bothers to refute a scholar, then the scholar is taken to be too much of a lightweight to be worth refuting. When one or two people attempt a refutation, it can be attributed to the goring of a sacred cow. When the entire scholarly community attacks a position, it’s an indication that the new argument is both serious AND game-changing. My deepest desire is to find myself attacked in some sort of academic forum, or even in someone else’s blog. That would indicate that a) I’ve ruffled feathers; and b) that I’m not seen just as a crackpot not worthy of being taken seriously because what I’m saying is so obviously ridiculous. So, please, if anyone runs across such an attack on me or what I say, please use the comments to let me know! And please include a link, where appropriate!

Back to the point, that so many Church writers felt the need to tear down Simon Magus is a pretty good indicator that the newly-established Church found him a dire threat. After all, my man Hippolytus Romanus, author of Refutation of All Heresies, credited Simon as being the founder of Gnosticism. I find this extremely interesting since Gnostics, by an large, didn’t practice magic any more than the next group, Christians included. IOW, Hippolytus was attacking Simon for more than one transgression, which implies that Simon was a threat on more than one front.

This background, I believe, is why we see the change in the way semeia is used in John; or, rather, why it’s used exclusively over the other choices like dynameis or terrata. It must be borne in mind that John is writing in a very different context than most of the other evangelists; or, if not different, more developed. By “developed” I mean that the world around the Christian community had become much more…hostile to them than it had been for the others. Or perhaps “hostile” is too strong; it was more a case that the competition for souls had increased. First and foremost, you had the Gnostics, who formed a particularly sharp level of competition, if only for a relatively short period of time: perhaps two centuries. The salient part about this increased competition, especially from someone like Simon Magus is that no one contested, or even doubted, his ability to perform “wonders”–dynameis or terrata–in much the same way that the Apostles, or even Jesus had done. Aside from Simon, there was also Apollonius of Tyana, whose biography can be superimposed on that of Jesus with a very high degree of overlap, to the point where he was said to have risen from the dead. Apollonius died (or did he?) in the late First/early Second Century. John had to distinguish the works of Jesus and the Apostles from the works of such as Simon or Apollonius.

To this end, the works of Jesus were not “mighty deeds”, but signs. It occurs to me that one distinction between a sign and a miracle, or mighty work, is the entity performing the act. Paul tells us that Jews are always looking for a sign, which is to say some sort of message from God, often displayed in the sky (or heavens; same thing). In a similar way Jesus is asked to provide a sign, essentially to vouch for his identity as someone sent by God, if not divine himself. Which, I believe, drops us on the doorstep of the distinction between a sign and a wonder (etc): a sign is sent by the deity, whereas a mighty work or a wonder is performed by a human. By using only the word for sign, John is underscoring the fact that Jesus is in some real way a divine person or entity, while the others, like Simon Magus, are not.

11 Accepit ergo panes Iesus et, cum gratias egisset, distribuit discumbentibus; similiter et ex piscibus, quantum volebant.

12 Ut autem impleti sunt, dicit discipulis suis: “Colligite, quae superaverunt, fragmenta, ne quid pereat”.

13 Collegerunt ergo et impleverunt duodecim cophinos fragmentorum ex quinque panibus hordeaceis, quae superfuerunt his, qui manducaverunt.

14 Illi ergo homines, cum vidissent quod fecerat signum, dicebant: “Hic est vere propheta, qui venit in mundum!”.

John Chapter 5:15-18

(The chapter title was corrected 4/1/23. It previously read 5:15-17. minor update added 6/8/23.)

Once again it seems wise to overlap the last verse from the immediately preceding post to provide continuity and context. John is proving to be an intricately constructed piece, one of long stories that are difficult to break into segments that are sufficiently distinct and discreet enough to break into manageable chunks for commentary. In the section Jesus is being pursued by “the Jews” (I feel that should be in quotes like that) because Jesus had healed the paralyzed man at the Sheep Pool on the Sabbath. As I started commenting, the topic contained in these three verses seemed to require some in-depth analysis. So, while these verses were technically covered in the previous post, we did not enter into a discussion of implications that was worthy of the topic. So, we will do it here.

Text

15 ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὸν ὑγιῆ.

16 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ.

17 ὁ δὲ [Ἰησοῦς] ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς, Ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι.

18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.

(15) The man went away and announced to the Jews that Jesus was the one who made him well. (16) And because of this the Jews pursued Jesus, that (because) he had done this on the Sabbath. (17) But Jesus answered them, “My father has labored until now, and I (now) labor”. (18) Due to these things, “the Jews” wished to kill him, that (=because) not only did he loosen the Sabbath but also because he said God was his father, making himself equal to God.

I believe this is the clearest causal statement explaining Jesus’ execution. At least, it is the clearest statement providing the motive for the execution. We have to bear in mind that the causal relationship between Jesus and the reason for his execution was not exactly “pellucid” as CP Jones of U of Toronto and then Harvard used to say. There has been a lot written about the degree to which Jewish authorities had the power to execute someone. Note that this question has a lot to do with what the Romans would permit. The power of life and death usually resided with them as the highest worldly authority–a question that would perplex relations between secular kings and popes for the better part of a thousand years. I have read a book (yes, just one, so this is hardly the last word) written by a scholar of Judaism that it was possible for Caiaphas to execute Jesus on charges of blasphemy. Coming from someone that we can expect knows what he’s talking about, this has to be taken seriously. Now, the problem comes later in the gospels when Caiaphas & Co have to stand on their heads and juggle in order to convince a reluctant Pilate to order the execution. The charge leveled at Jesus is, essentially, blasphemy, so perhaps the Temple authorities did not have this power.

The other aspect of the question is that it was pretty obviously the Romans who carried out the execution; what was their motive? Romans didn’t care to involve themselves in the religious affairs of a subject nation. The “official” policy–if we can say that one existed–was syncretism. Identify the chief god of the subject people with one of the Roman gods and everyone worships as they wish. Of course, the Jews were a problematic exception: they had no desire to equate YHWh with Juppiter/Zeus/Ammon-Ra etc. The standard explanation is that the Romans conceded to the Jews in order to keep peace at the time of the festival. This is plausible as Josephus tells us this sort of unrest often did happen. He goes further and reports a situation that arose within a few years of Jesus death–the date of which is largely speculation. So the general conditions were necessary for unrest or rioting or whatever, but were they sufficient? One can suggest that Josephus does not mention problems during Jesus’ execution because, by acceding to the request of the Jewish authorities, unrest was prevented. This is plausible and certainly fair. But it’s not the only possible explanation. The other is that the Romans executed Jesus of their own volition and for reasons that had nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching. 

Let’s go back to Paul. He has nothing to say about why Jesus was executed, but he emphatically states that the crucifixion occurred. Historians and biblical scholars are quick to point out that Paul’s willingness to admit that it occurred makes it very likely that it did occur; it’s such an embarrassing admission that no one would make it up. And I agree. There is a group, some of them scholars, some of them not, who argue–or “claim” is perhaps more accurate–that Jesus did not exist, that the whole thing was made up. The one thing that convinces me, pretty much beyond reasonable doubt, is Paul’s witness to the crucifixion. This comes out in the first two letters he wrote, both to pagan communities. What this tells me is that Paul realized he had to get out in front of the story. That the crucifixion was something known about Jesus in the wider world. Maybe not widely known, but to a degree that Paul felt it necessary to get out in front of it and provide some sort of rationale lest his preaching lose credibility: he was preaching the words of a convicted criminal. Note, however, that while Paul admits to the crucifixion, he provides no reason why it was done. What, exactly, was the charge? That he said nothing implies one of two things: 1) that he simply didn’t know; or 2) that he knew and felt it was either irrelevant or problematic. There is no concrete reason to prefer one of these over the other, but I tend towards the latter.

So that raises (but does not beg) the question of: which is it? Irrelevant? Or problematic? Given the, ahem, evidence of the gospels, there’s really no choosing between them. However, if we look outside the gospels, we run into some very interesting circumstances. As I have mentioned before, I’ve been reading about magical practice in the Graeco-Roman world after the transition to the Common Era. Most of the evidence comes from a few centuries after Jesus, but the point remains. It remains because the name of Jesus appears in the writings of otherwise pagan magicians, and he was considered a powerful magician by other (perhaps wannabe) magicians. More, there is a magical amulet, a carving on a gemstone, depicting Jesus on the cross, the gem also inscribed with what appear to be magical charakteres, letters or shapes presumed to have magical powers. Interestingly, according to the article, representations of Jesus on the cross do not really appear in Christian art until the 4th, or even 5th century, whereas

…the positive view of Jesus and crucifixion, witnessed so profoundly in New Testament and patristic literature, first finds visual expression (at least according to surviving evidence) in the sphere of Greco-Roman magic…   JESUS THE MAGICIAN? A CRUCIFIXION AMULET AND ITS DATE   by Felicity Harley-McGowan

In the article Harley-McGowan makes the point that the power of Jesus name is already attested by Mark (9:38-41) when the disciples complain that others, not part of their group, are casting out demons in Jesus’ name. She cites other passages in the NT that do the same. Apparently, Jesus had the reputation as an exorcist in the 70s, which reputation persisted for several centuries. Now pagan attitudes towards things like exorcism and magic were ambivalent on a good day, whereas Christians more or less condemned such practices from the start, as the apocryphal stories of Peter vs Simon Magus plainly demonstrate.

Given this, I would suggest that Jesus was executed by the Romans as a magician. Traditional dating of the crucifixion in the early 30s puts it in the last years of Tiberius’ principate. Tiberius was a complex individual who may have had paranoid tendencies, who did not look fondly on astrologers. Now, astrologers, magicians, sorcerers, exorcists, poisoners, and their ilk were all lumped together in the minds of many. The magoi, the Magi were, at root astrologers. Given the less-than-positive opinion of magicians, this is the sort of charge against Jesus that Paul would not be eager to broadcast; hence, his admission of the crucifixion and attendant reluctance to provide a reason for it makes perfect sense. Once again, I have hardly proven my point, but the question has to be investigated. IMO, anyway.

All this is a very long way of saying that I find John’s explanation for the antipathy of “the Jews” less than convincing. Nor am I at all convinced that Jesus was executed for his teaching. There were other factors that have neither been explored, or even raised as questions. According to the One Single Book read on the topic, Caiaphas & Co should have been able to execute Jesus on their own authority based on the charges laid out here, which amount to blasphemy. That we get this very elaborate tale of the machinations of the puppet regime trying to manipulate the Romans into executing Jesus to preserve peace during the Festival. Way back in Mark I suggested that this was all a screen constructed to absolve the Romans from responsibility which was necessary in the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt, a time when the Romans took a jaundiced eye to the affairs in Judea. But Crossan and others believe (at least, want to believe) that the Passion story predated Mark. Indeed, I went so far as to suggest that Mary of Magdala more or less “commissioned” the Passion Narrative at a time when she was a major financial backer of the nascent movement. Say for a moment that the Passion does predate Mark; does that change anything here? 

At first glance, we would think it must change my suggestion here. Why, after all, would a story blaming “the Jews” be necessary a couple of decades before the Revolt? On the next pass, however, a case can be made, or at least an explanation does come to mind. The antipathy of the Temple Authorities, of the ‘Jewish establishment”, the small coterie of related families who managed Judea for the Romans would go a long way towards answering the question of “Why did most Jews not accept Jesus as the Messiah?” Given Jesus as a magician, a worker of wonders as Josephus (supposedly) calls him, Jesus was not accepted as the Christ because he never claimed to be the Christ (last two words added as an update). After all, we saw how Mark seemed to consist of two separate narratives, that of the wonder worker which comprises Chapters 1-7 (give or take; more or less; approximately) and the rest tells the story of the Christ. As a result, the impetus to create a narrative explaining  the rejection would have been reasonably strong from the time of Paul, at least. So my suggestion of Mary commissioning the Passion Narrative–which is decidedly an extreme position in any case–can withstand a Passion Narrative that predates Mark. In fact, Mary’s role and the pre-existence of the narrative go hand-in-hand.

There is so much more to be said about this; however, we’ve gone far enough for the time.

15 Abiit ille homo et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus esset, qui fecit eum sanum.

16 Et propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato.
17 Iesus autem respondit eis: “Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor”.