Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

Expand Messages
  • Tom Butler
    Joe, Please re-read Keith Yoder s article and my reply to it. I don t think either of us has written anything that would support the assertion with which you
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe,

      Please re-read Keith Yoder's article and my reply to it.

      I don't think either of us has written anything that would support the assertion with which you are disagreeing.

      Tom Butler

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "SemioticSymphony@..." <SemioticSymphony@...>
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:34:39 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?


      Tom:

      I must disagree with any reading of Jn 19?that allows any Jew to crucify another in 1st century Palestine. The reading offered here, that Caiaphas and his sympathizers did?the actual crucifying of Jesus, does not even make sense on the level of the narrative, especially as it contradicts Jn 18:31-32. Besides, such an untenable reading leads?to the difficult conclusion that Caiaphas also crucified the two others of 19:18.

      I just don't see it, Tom, despite the grammatical ambiguity. What do you think?

      Best regards,
      Joe Calandrino

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@pacbell. net>
      To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:54 pm
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

      David,
      My thesis is that the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus fulfilling the perpetual ordinances pertaining to the maintenance of the Mosaic covenant (focused upon the rituals of sacrifice, the temple and the prieshood of ancient Israel). It is consistent with this thesis that Jesus is presented as the Passover Lamb. As John the Baptist is quoted saying, "Here is the one who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29f). This interpretation is fairly common among Johannine scholars, since the text is so specific to that point.
      I go one step further. I believe that the witness that John the Baptist offers at this early point in the Gospel narrative is what caused the Fourth Gospel to be called "The Gospel According to John." John the Baptist is the first person recorded in this Gospel who gave the witness that defines what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. "I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God" (Jn. 1:34). This does not mean that John the Baptist wrote the Fourth Gospel. It simply means that this Gospel is identified by the first human being named in it. It could well have been called, "The Gospel According to the Witness of John the Baptist," but "The Gospel According to John" is what it has been called.
      I contend that the witness of John the Baptist defines the criteria used within the Gospel for identifying disciples of Jesus Christ. There are far more than 12 of them in this gospel. Some are named. Some are merely identified by their role in relation to a particular ethnic or religious group. Some are listed as a group without individual names or other identifiers. Those criteria are: (1) To see the Christ in Jesus, and (2) To give witness to seeing the Christ in Jesus. In other words, to believe.

      Tom Butler

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: David Cavanagh <davidcavanagh@ interfree. it>
      To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:29:03 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

      Keith and Tom,

      Is it not also possible that John's identification of the priestly
      hierarchy as those responsible for Jesus' execution also functions as
      part of his presentation of Jesus as the Passover lamb, sacrificed for
      the people and taking the wrath of the destroying angel in his own body
      in order to spare those within his house?

      David Cavanagh
      Major (The Salvation Army)
      Naples (Italy)

      Tom Butler wrote:

      > Dear Keith,
      >
      > If I understand your article (below) correctly, your tentative
      > conclusion infers that the subtle use of the pronoun AUTOIS was a
      > means of deceptively guiding readers to a conclusion that is not
      > supported by the Synoptic Gospels: that the High Priest, the Chief
      > Priests and the temple priests who served under their authority
      > crucified Jesus, not the Roman soldiers who normally fulfilled that
      > task under Caesar's authority when an agent of Caesar determined that
      > a capital offense had been commited, violating Roman law.
      >
      > I suggest that your observations are correct, except for the
      > motivation (deception) you infer to explain them.
      >
      > The writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel has (have) carefully constructed a
      > narrative with two story lines, one for the first time reader and a
      > second one for the informed scholar. The second of these story lines
      > makes extensive use of "signs" (words or symbols taken directly from
      > the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch) and makes it clear that the
      > author(s) recognize(s) that Jesus systematically replaced every
      > element of the Mosaic system of worship, while maintaining the
      > "perpetual ordinances" and symbols of the Mosaic tradition.
      >
      > While a lengthy article would be required to explain this in detail,
      > let me offer a summary of this thesis to explain my point in response
      > to your observations.
      >
      > The Mosaic tradition requires that Levites (ordained priests) carry
      > out ritual animal sacrifices to maintain the Mosaic covenant with God
      > (Numbers 8: 5-19; 18: 1-7). The subtle language of the Gospel
      > According to John suggests that the High Priest used the authority and
      > theology of the ritual of atonement (Leviticus 16: 29-34) to declare
      > that Jesus must be sacrificed (Jn. 11: 49-52, 18:14.) Neither Caiaphas
      > personally, nor those whose "purity" had to be maintained to allow
      > them to eat the Passover (Jn. 18: 28, 31) could literally perform the
      > ritual of sacrifice. Nor could they even figuratively take authority
      > to require the sacrifice until they identified themselves, not as
      > priests of God, but as subjects of Caesar (Jn. 18: 14-16f.) in
      > violation of The Law (Deuteronomy 17: 14-20; 18: 15-21). Thus the
      > language in the Fourth Gospel indicating that there is no difference
      > between the priests and the soldiers works both ways. The Roman
      > soldiers who
      > actually carry out the sacrifice of Jesus are functioning as Hebrew
      > priests, fulfilling the intent of the High Priest's atonement
      > declaration, and the Hebrew priests are functioning as soldiers of
      > their only king, Caesar. Either way, Mosaic Law and Roman law is being
      > violated.
      >
      > Contrary to the view of many scholars, I do not believe that the
      > author(s) of the Fourth Gospel intend for hoi IOUDAIOI to identify the
      > Children of Israel. I believe the intention in the writer(s) of the
      > Fourth Gospel is that the reader will recognize hoi IOUDAIOI as the
      > regime of priests lead by the High Priest Caiaphas whose loyalty was
      > to Caesar and not to Yahweh. (The term was used this way in Nehemiah
      > 2: 16 to identify the ruling aristocracy of Jerusalem, though some
      > scholars dispute this assertion.) The Fourth Gospel is an indictment
      > against Caiaphas and those who worked with him for having abdicated
      > their perpetual role as God's priests in favor of a temporal political
      > alliance with Caesar and those who served under Caesar's authority,
      > rather than under God's authority. In the ironic language of the
      > Fourth Gospel the trial of Jesus is actually a trial of these "Jews."
      > Their actions and declarations indicate that they are spiritually dead,
      > and that a new priesthood and a new temple and a new ritual of
      > sacrifice are required to maintain the perpetual covenant between God
      > and all of God's people who believe.
      >
      > I believe that this second story line instructs scholars to recognize
      > Jesus as the divine authority whose incarnation, instruction and
      > sacrifice was required to renew, re-establish and even resurrect the
      > priesthood, the temple and the rituals of sacrifice to sustain,
      > increase and perpetuate the relationship between believers and God.
      >
      > Tom Butler
      > Sparks, Nevada, USA
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: Keith Yoder <klyoder5@gmail. com <mailto:klyoder5% 40gmail.com> >
      > To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
      > <mailto:johannine_ literature% 40yahoogroups. com>
      > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:25:18 AM
      > Subject: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?
      >
      > I have long wondered about the way John 19:14-18 seems to lead the
      > reader to identify Jesus' crucifiers as the Jews and their High-Priests
      > rather than Pilate's soldiers:
      >
      > * 19:14 And it was the preparation of the Passsover, about the sixth
      > hour, and he says to the Jews, Behold your king!
      > * 19:15 Then they shouted, Away Away! Crucify him! Pilate says to
      > them (AUTOIS), Shall I crucify your king? The high-priests answered, We
      > have no king but Caesar!
      > * 19:16 Then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be crucified;
      > so they took Jesus;
      > * 19:17 And bearing his own cross he went out to the place called
      > Skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha,
      > * 19:18 where they crucified him along with two others on either side
      > and Jesus in the middle.
      >
      > The crux is this -- who are the AUTOIS to whom Pilate delivers Jesus in
      > 19:16a, who also then crucify him in 19:18. Taking 19:14-19:16 in
      > sequence, the natural reading is that the AUTOIS in v16 has the same
      > antecedent as the AUTOIS in v15. Thus, AUTOIS in 19:16a is the same
      > group of Jews and High Priests who were shouting to Pilate in 19:15 for
      > Jesus to be crucified.
      >
      > Raymond Brown argues that this is not the case, since John's readers all
      > knew that, of course, it was the soldiers who crucified Jesus, so the
      > writer simply made a "careless mistake" in his pronoun antecedents in
      > 19:16 (Death of the Messiah, vol I, p 858). I now believe Brown is wrong
      > and the natural reading of AUTOIS in 19:16 as the Jews and High Priests
      > is exactly what the writer intended.
      >
      > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the trial before Pilate
      > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
      >
      > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the praetorium that they
      > not be defiled from eating the Passover
      > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS) and said What
      > charge do you bring...
      > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You take him and judge
      > him...
      > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no fault in him
      > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I bring him out to you
      > so you know that I find no fault in him
      > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the man.
      > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take and crucify him...
      > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I crucify your king...
      > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be
      > crucified; so they took Jesus
      >
      > 2. Without exception, the referents for all 9 of these pronouns are
      > variously "the high-priests" (hOI ARXIEREIS) or the high-priests and
      > "the officers" (hOI hUPHRETAI) or simply "the Jews" (hOI IOUDAIOI). The
      > officers (18:12) and high-priests (19:21) are both identified as being
      > "of the Jews" (TWN IOUDAIWN). To ensure that his readers know exactly
      > who "the Jews" are, the author has Pilate speak to Jesus in 18:35 where
      > he identifies them as "your nation" (TO EQNOS TO SON).
      >
      > 3. The first instance of AUTOI in 18:28, the only nominative case, is
      > redundant to the grammar of the sentence, but it serves the purpose of
      > alerting the reader that the AUTOI bringing Jesus to Pilate are limited
      > to those who were concerned to keep from defilement so they could eat
      > the Passover, ie the IOUDAIOI and ARXIEREIS. Thus the reader may now
      > mentally infer that this group does not include any of the Roman cohort
      > who had earlier worked with the Jews to arrest Jesus in 18:3-12. I also
      > see this as a subtle flag to the reader to follow the ensuing trail of
      > AUTOI's to their conclusion in 19:16. Note that the writer never
      > explicitely uses AUTOI to refer to the soldiers, here or elsewhere.
      >
      > 4. In all the rest of these instances, Pilate is the actor or speaker
      > who in each case is interacting with or speaking to the group of
      > IOUDAIOI and ARCHIEREI. Throughout the entire trial/crucifixion
      > narrative Pilate never interacts with or speaks to the soldiers. The
      > only characters Pilate interacts or converses with are the group of
      > IOUDAIOI and ARXIEREIS, and Jesus himself.
      >
      > 5. At first glance, 19:23 seems to change direction and charge the
      > soldiers with the actual crucifixion:
      >
      > 19:23 - Then then soldiers, when they had crucified (OTE ESTAURWSAN)
      > Jesus, they took his garments...
      >
      > However the writer leaves ambiguity in his unusual syntax of hOS + OUN +
      > subject + subordinate hOTE clause + verb. He could have used an aorist
      > participle instead of the hOTE clause -- hOI OUN STRATIWTAI STAURWSANTES
      > TON IHSOUN ELABON TA hIMATIA... He has used this syntax before after hOS
      > + OUN + subject in 6:14, 12:3, 18:3, and 19:13, and that would have
      > unambiguously identified the soldiers as the crucifiers. As 19:23 now
      > stands, the construction is similar to 19:31 where the subject of the
      > sentence is NOT the subject of the subordinate hOTE clause. Thus, is it
      > not possible to read 19:23 as
      >
      > "then, when they [= the Jews?] had crucified him, the soldiers took his
      > garments..." ??
      >
      > Tentative Conclusion: I do not believe the writer would make a "careless
      > mistake" in pronoun referents when he came to craft his account of what
      > is admittedly the climax of his whole previous narrative. I see that he
      > artfully and deliberately leads the reader from 18:2 onward to mentally
      > identify the referent of the seventh and final AUTOIS in 19:16 as "the
      > Jews and High Priests", and definitely not as "the soldiers" who are
      > bookended on either side of the crucifixion act. Yet I also see that he
      > refrains from explicitly saying hOI IOUDAOI crucified Jesus; instead he
      > leaves the reader a subtle trail of AUTOIS's to follow. Can we not then
      > read 19:23 also as a followup wink to the reader, "oh yes, how could I
      > forget that the soldiers actually did the awful deed - or was it
      > somebody else?". Perhaps he does not want to risk provoking his readers
      > to reject his story outright by openly contradicting other extant
      > passion narrative traditions. Rather, he implicates the Jews as the
      > crucifiers of Jesus by a strategy of misdirection somewhat similar to
      > the way he handles Jesus' baptism by John (it never happened) and the
      > last Passover (it wasn't) supper. That is, he suggestively leads his
      > readers to mentally conclude for themselves that the Jews crucified
      > Jesus, either by themselves or possibly working with the soldiers,
      > without explicitly saying so in his carefully nuanced narrative.
      >
      > This conclusion disturbs me for many reasons, but I don't see any way
      > around it. Easter and Passover seasons are soon here, and I would
      > appreciate any insight that others might have on this issue. I
      > apologize for the length of this post, I have kept it as sparse as
      > possible.
      >
      > Thanks!
      >
      > Keith Yoder
      >
      > Retired
      >
      > Carmel, Indiana
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail. aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • SemioticSymphony@aol.com
      Tom: I m glad that I have misread Keith s thesis. Thanks. Best regards, Joe Calandrino ... From: Tom Butler To:
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom:



        I'm glad that I have misread Keith's thesis. Thanks.


        Best regards,

        Joe Calandrino


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:32 am
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?







        Joe,

        Please re-read Keith Yoder's article and my reply to it.

        I don't think either of us has written anything that would support the assertion with which you are disagreeing.

        Tom Butler

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: "SemioticSymphony@..." <SemioticSymphony@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:34:39 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

        Tom:

        I must disagree with any reading of Jn 19?that allows any Jew to crucify another in 1st century Palestine. The reading offered here, that Caiaphas and his sympathizers did?the actual crucifying of Jesus, does not even make sense on the level of the narrative, especially as it contradicts Jn 18:31-32. Besides, such an untenable reading leads?to the difficult conclusion that Caiaphas also crucified the two others of 19:18.

        I just don't see it, Tom, despite the grammatical ambiguity. What do you think?

        Best regards,
        Joe Calandrino

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@pacbell. net>
        To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:54 pm
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

        David,
        My thesis is that the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus fulfilling the perpetual ordinances pertaining to the maintenance of the Mosaic covenant (focused upon the rituals of sacrifice, the temple and the prieshood of ancient Israel). It is consistent with this thesis that Jesus is presented as the Passover Lamb. As John the Baptist is quoted saying, "Here is the one who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29f). This interpretation is fairly common among Johannine scholars, since the text is so specific to that point.
        I go one step further. I believe that the witness that John the Baptist offers at this early point in the Gospel narrative is what caused the Fourth Gospel to be called "The Gospel According to John." John the Baptist is the first person recorded in this Gospel who gave the witness that defines what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. "I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God" (Jn. 1:34). This does not mean that John the Baptist wrote the Fourth Gospel. It simply means that this Gospel is identified by the first human being named in it. It could well have been called, "The Gospel According to the Witness of John the Baptist," but "The Gospel According to John" is what it has been called.
        I contend that the witness of John the Baptist defines the criteria used within the Gospel for identifying disciples of Jesus Christ. There are far more than 12 of them in this gospel. Some are named. Some are merely identified by their role in relation to a particular ethnic or religious group. Some are listed as a group without individual names or other identifiers. Those criteria are: (1) To see the Christ in Jesus, and (2) To give witness to seeing the Christ in Jesus. In other words, to believe.

        Tom Butler

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: David Cavanagh <davidcavanagh@ interfree. it>
        To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:29:03 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?

        Keith and Tom,

        Is it not also possible that John's identification of the priestly
        hierarchy as those responsible for Jesus' execution also functions as
        part of his presentation of Jesus as the Passover lamb, sacrificed for
        the people and taking the wrath of the destroying angel in his own body
        in order to spare those within his house?

        David Cavanagh
        Major (The Salvation Army)
        Naples (Italy)

        Tom Butler wrote:

        > Dear Keith,
        >
        > If I understand your article (below) correctly, your tentative
        > conclusion infers that the subtle use of the pronoun AUTOIS was a
        > means of deceptively guiding readers to a conclusion that is not
        > supported by the Synoptic Gospels: that the High Priest, the Chief
        > Priests and the temple priests who served under their authority
        > crucified Jesus, not the Roman soldiers who normally fulfilled that
        > task under Caesar's authority when an agent of Caesar determined that
        > a capital offense had been commited, violating Roman law.
        >
        > I suggest that your observations are correct, except for the
        > motivation (deception) you infer to explain them.
        >
        > The writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel has (have) carefully constructed a
        > narrative with two story lines, one for the first time reader and a
        > second one for the informed scholar. The second of these story lines
        > makes extensive use of "signs" (words or symbols taken directly from
        > the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch) and makes it clear that the
        > author(s) recognize(s) that Jesus systematically replaced every
        > element of the Mosaic system of worship, while maintaining the
        > "perpetual ordinances" and symbols of the Mosaic tradition.
        >
        > While a lengthy article would be required to explain this in detail,
        > let me offer a summary of this thesis to explain my point in response
        > to your observations.
        >
        > The Mosaic tradition requires that Levites (ordained priests) carry
        > out ritual animal sacrifices to maintain the Mosaic covenant with God
        > (Numbers 8: 5-19; 18: 1-7). The subtle language of the Gospel
        > According to John suggests that the High Priest used the authority and
        > theology of the ritual of atonement (Leviticus 16: 29-34) to declare
        > that Jesus must be sacrificed (Jn. 11: 49-52, 18:14.) Neither Caiaphas
        > personally, nor those whose "purity" had to be maintained to allow
        > them to eat the Passover (Jn. 18: 28, 31) could literally perform the
        > ritual of sacrifice. Nor could they even figuratively take authority
        > to require the sacrifice until they identified themselves, not as
        > priests of God, but as subjects of Caesar (Jn. 18: 14-16f.) in
        > violation of The Law (Deuteronomy 17: 14-20; 18: 15-21). Thus the
        > language in the Fourth Gospel indicating that there is no difference
        > between the priests and the soldiers works both ways. The Roman
        > soldiers who
        > actually carry out the sacrifice of Jesus are functioning as Hebrew
        > priests, fulfilling the intent of the High Priest's atonement
        > declaration, and the Hebrew priests are functioning as soldiers of
        > their only king, Caesar. Either way, Mosaic Law and Roman law is being
        > violated.
        >
        > Contrary to the view of many scholars, I do not believe that the
        > author(s) of the Fourth Gospel intend for hoi IOUDAIOI to identify the
        > Children of Israel. I believe the intention in the writer(s) of the
        > Fourth Gospel is that the reader will recognize hoi IOUDAIOI as the
        > regime of priests lead by the High Priest Caiaphas whose loyalty was
        > to Caesar and not to Yahweh. (The term was used this way in Nehemiah
        > 2: 16 to identify the ruling aristocracy of Jerusalem, though some
        > scholars dispute this assertion.) The Fourth Gospel is an indictment
        > against Caiaphas and those who worked with him for having abdicated
        > their perpetual role as God's priests in favor of a temporal political
        > alliance with Caesar and those who served under Caesar's authority,
        > rather than under God's authority. In the ironic language of the
        > Fourth Gospel the trial of Jesus is actually a trial of these "Jews."
        > Their actions and declarations indicate that they are spiritually dead,
        > and that a new priesthood and a new temple and a new ritual of
        > sacrifice are required to maintain the perpetual covenant between God
        > and all of God's people who believe.
        >
        > I believe that this second story line instructs scholars to recognize
        > Jesus as the divine authority whose incarnation, instruction and
        > sacrifice was required to renew, re-establish and even resurrect the
        > priesthood, the temple and the rituals of sacrifice to sustain,
        > increase and perpetuate the relationship between believers and God.
        >
        > Tom Butler
        > Sparks, Nevada, USA
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Keith Yoder <klyoder5@gmail. com <mailto:klyoder5% 40gmail.com> >
        > To: johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com
        > <mailto:johannine_ literature% 40yahoogroups. com>
        > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:25:18 AM
        > Subject: [John_Lit] Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?
        >
        > I have long wondered about the way John 19:14-18 seems to lead the
        > reader to identify Jesus' crucifiers as the Jews and their High-Priests
        > rather than Pilate's soldiers:
        >
        > * 19:14 And it was the preparation of the Passsover, about the sixth
        > hour, and he says to the Jews, Behold your king!
        > * 19:15 Then they shouted, Away Away! Crucify him! Pilate says to
        > them (AUTOIS), Shall I crucify your king? The high-priests answered, We
        > have no king but Caesar!
        > * 19:16 Then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be crucified;
        > so they took Jesus;
        > * 19:17 And bearing his own cross he went out to the place called
        > Skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha,
        > * 19:18 where they crucified him along with two others on either side
        > and Jesus in the middle.
        >
        > The crux is this -- who are the AUTOIS to whom Pilate delivers Jesus in
        > 19:16a, who also then crucify him in 19:18. Taking 19:14-19:16 in
        > sequence, the natural reading is that the AUTOIS in v16 has the same
        > antecedent as the AUTOIS in v15. Thus, AUTOIS in 19:16a is the same
        > group of Jews and High Priests who were shouting to Pilate in 19:15 for
        > Jesus to be crucified.
        >
        > Raymond Brown argues that this is not the case, since John's readers all
        > knew that, of course, it was the soldiers who crucified Jesus, so the
        > writer simply made a "careless mistake" in his pronoun antecedents in
        > 19:16 (Death of the Messiah, vol I, p 858). I now believe Brown is wrong
        > and the natural reading of AUTOIS in 19:16 as the Jews and High Priests
        > is exactly what the writer intended.
        >
        > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the trial before Pilate
        > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
        >
        > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the praetorium that they
        > not be defiled from eating the Passover
        > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS) and said What
        > charge do you bring...
        > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You take him and judge
        > him...
        > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no fault in him
        > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I bring him out to you
        > so you know that I find no fault in him
        > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the man.
        > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take and crucify him...
        > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I crucify your king...
        > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be
        > crucified; so they took Jesus
        >
        > 2. Without exception, the referents for all 9 of these pronouns are
        > variously "the high-priests" (hOI ARXIEREIS) or the high-priests and
        > "the officers" (hOI hUPHRETAI) or simply "the Jews" (hOI IOUDAIOI). The
        > officers (18:12) and high-priests (19:21) are both identified as being
        > "of the Jews" (TWN IOUDAIWN). To ensure that his readers know exactly
        > who "the Jews" are, the author has Pilate speak to Jesus in 18:35 where
        > he identifies them as "your nation" (TO EQNOS TO SON).
        >
        > 3. The first instance of AUTOI in 18:28, the only nominative case, is
        > redundant to the grammar of the sentence, but it serves the purpose of
        > alerting the reader that the AUTOI bringing Jesus to Pilate are limited
        > to those who were concerned to keep from defilement so they could eat
        > the Passover, ie the IOUDAIOI and ARXIEREIS. Thus the reader may now
        > mentally infer that this group does not include any of the Roman cohort
        > who had earlier worked with the Jews to arrest Jesus in 18:3-12. I also
        > see this as a subtle flag to the reader to follow the ensuing trail of
        > AUTOI's to their conclusion in 19:16. Note that the writer never
        > explicitely uses AUTOI to refer to the soldiers, here or elsewhere.
        >
        > 4. In all the rest of these instances, Pilate is the actor or speaker
        > who in each case is interacting with or speaking to the group of
        > IOUDAIOI and ARCHIEREI. Throughout the entire trial/crucifixion
        > narrative Pilate never interacts with or speaks to the soldiers. The
        > only characters Pilate interacts or converses with are the group of
        > IOUDAIOI and ARXIEREIS, and Jesus himself.
        >
        > 5. At first glance, 19:23 seems to change direction and charge the
        > soldiers with the actual crucifixion:
        >
        > 19:23 - Then then soldiers, when they had crucified (OTE ESTAURWSAN)
        > Jesus, they took his garments...
        >
        > However the writer leaves ambiguity in his unusual syntax of hOS + OUN +
        > subject + subordinate hOTE clause + verb. He could have used an aorist
        > participle instead of the hOTE clause -- hOI OUN STRATIWTAI STAURWSANTES
        > TON IHSOUN ELABON TA hIMATIA... He has used this syntax before after hOS
        > + OUN + subject in 6:14, 12:3, 18:3, and 19:13, and that would have
        > unambiguously identified the soldiers as the crucifiers. As 19:23 now
        > stands, the construction is similar to 19:31 where the subject of the
        > sentence is NOT the subject of the subordinate hOTE clause. Thus, is it
        > not possible to read 19:23 as
        >
        > "then, when they [= the Jews?] had crucified him, the soldiers took his
        > garments..." ??
        >
        > Tentative Conclusion: I do not believe the writer would make a "careless
        > mistake" in pronoun referents when he came to craft his account of what
        > is admittedly the climax of his whole previous narrative. I see that he
        > artfully and deliberately leads the reader from 18:2 onward to mentally
        > identify the referent of the seventh and final AUTOIS in 19:16 as "the
        > Jews and High Priests", and definitely not as "the soldiers" who are
        > bookended on either side of the crucifixion act. Yet I also see that he
        > refrains from explicitly saying hOI IOUDAOI crucified Jesus; instead he
        > leaves the reader a subtle trail of AUTOIS's to follow. Can we not then
        > read 19:23 also as a followup wink to the reader, "oh yes, how could I
        > forget that the soldiers actually did the awful deed - or was it
        > somebody else?". Perhaps he does not want to risk provoking his readers
        > to reject his story outright by openly contradicting other extant
        > passion narrative traditions. Rather, he implicates the Jews as the
        > crucifiers of Jesus by a strategy of misdirection somewhat similar to
        > the way he handles Jesus' baptism by John (it never happened) and the
        > last Passover (it wasn't) supper. That is, he suggestively leads his
        > readers to mentally conclude for themselves that the Jews crucified
        > Jesus, either by themselves or possibly working with the soldiers,
        > without explicitly saying so in his carefully nuanced narrative.
        >
        > This conclusion disturbs me for many reasons, but I don't see any way
        > around it. Easter and Passover seasons are soon here, and I would
        > appreciate any insight that others might have on this issue. I
        > apologize for the length of this post, I have kept it as sparse as
        > possible.
        >
        > Thanks!
        >
        > Keith Yoder
        >
        > Retired
        >
        > Carmel, Indiana
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail. aol.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        ________________________________________________________________________
        More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mottrogere3
        ... Pilate ... they ... judge ... to you ... him... ... king... ... Hi Keith, I am a new subscriber to this list and reviewed the archives for possible
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Yoder"
          <klyoder5@...> wrote:
          >
          >snip<
          > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the trial before
          Pilate
          > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
          >
          > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the praetorium that
          they
          > not be defiled from eating the Passover
          > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS) and said What
          > charge do you bring...
          > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You take him and
          judge
          > him...
          > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no fault in him
          > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I bring him out
          to you
          > so you know that I find no fault in him
          > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the man.
          > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take and crucify
          him...
          > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I crucify your
          king...
          > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be
          > crucified; so they took Jesus
          >

          Hi Keith,
          I am a new subscriber to this list and reviewed the archives for
          possible discussion topics. I was intrigued by your observation that
          the Greek word "AUTOIS" is used 9 times at the beginning of the trial
          of Jesus in to the delivery for crucifixion in the Gospel of John.

          I do not think that the word AUTOIS was deliberately used 9 times to
          convey a message. The Gospel of John and Revelation has used
          the "sum of the digits reducing to 9" as a sign of a group separated
          from God. 153, 666 are all examples that are used to indicate
          someone or a group that needs to brought back to God IMO. Luke used
          99 in a good sense whist he uses the 9 lepers and 18 in a "need to be
          saved" sense. The Gospel of Thomas uses 99 to represent a group
          separated from God.

          I was not so much interested in Greek Gematria till I read Hippolytus
          description of the system in place in his time. It was called
          the "rule of 9". Greek proper names were reduced to a number between
          one and nine.

          IMO, saying that the leadership of the Jews wanted Jesus crucified
          was not true for all of the high ranking Jews. Joseph of Arimathaea
          and Nicodemus are Jews who clearly supported Jesus. Jesus himself
          was critical of some Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes. But, the High
          Priest Caiaphas, even after the crucifixion, still opposed Jesus
          teachings as he sent Saul, a Pharisee, out to arrest and persecute
          the early Christians. Gamaliel was a high ranking Jew who apparently
          did not seem to want to persecute the early Christians.

          Roger Mott
          Waterloo, Iowa
        • John Lupia
          Hi Roger: Welcome! Just a quick note about a much often misconstrued rhetorical figure or expression in John the Jews = the majority of the Jewish religious
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 25, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Roger:

            Welcome! Just a quick note about a much often misconstrued rhetorical figure or expression in John "the Jews" = the majority of the Jewish religious leaders, not every Jew, but some, and, only possibly as well, many. So when you read the Jews" it never means all, but only some, or perhaps, many.

            John N. Lupia III
            New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
            God Bless Everyone


            --- On Wed, 6/25/08, mottrogere3 <mottrogere3@...> wrote:

            > From: mottrogere3 <mottrogere3@...>
            > Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?
            > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 11:28 PM
            > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Keith
            > Yoder"
            > <klyoder5@...> wrote:
            > >
            > >snip<
            > > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the
            > trial before
            > Pilate
            > > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
            > >
            > > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the
            > praetorium that
            > they
            > > not be defiled from eating the Passover
            > > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS)
            > and said What
            > > charge do you bring...
            > > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You
            > take him and
            > judge
            > > him...
            > > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no
            > fault in him
            > > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I
            > bring him out
            > to you
            > > so you know that I find no fault in him
            > > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the
            > man.
            > > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take
            > and crucify
            > him...
            > > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I
            > crucify your
            > king...
            > > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS)
            > that he be
            > > crucified; so they took Jesus
            > >
            >
            > Hi Keith,
            > I am a new subscriber to this list and reviewed the
            > archives for
            > possible discussion topics. I was intrigued by your
            > observation that
            > the Greek word "AUTOIS" is used 9 times at the
            > beginning of the trial
            > of Jesus in to the delivery for crucifixion in the Gospel
            > of John.
            >
            > I do not think that the word AUTOIS was deliberately used 9
            > times to
            > convey a message. The Gospel of John and Revelation has
            > used
            > the "sum of the digits reducing to 9" as a sign
            > of a group separated
            > from God. 153, 666 are all examples that are used to
            > indicate
            > someone or a group that needs to brought back to God IMO.
            > Luke used
            > 99 in a good sense whist he uses the 9 lepers and 18 in a
            > "need to be
            > saved" sense. The Gospel of Thomas uses 99 to
            > represent a group
            > separated from God.
            >
            > I was not so much interested in Greek Gematria till I read
            > Hippolytus
            > description of the system in place in his time. It was
            > called
            > the "rule of 9". Greek proper names were reduced
            > to a number between
            > one and nine.
            >
            > IMO, saying that the leadership of the Jews wanted Jesus
            > crucified
            > was not true for all of the high ranking Jews. Joseph of
            > Arimathaea
            > and Nicodemus are Jews who clearly supported Jesus. Jesus
            > himself
            > was critical of some Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes.
            > But, the High
            > Priest Caiaphas, even after the crucifixion, still opposed
            > Jesus
            > teachings as he sent Saul, a Pharisee, out to arrest and
            > persecute
            > the early Christians. Gamaliel was a high ranking Jew who
            > apparently
            > did not seem to want to persecute the early Christians.
            >
            > Roger Mott
            > Waterloo, Iowa
          • Terry Larm
            Roger, Thanks for the interesting comment. I just read the section in Hippolytus about the rule of 9. Although Hippolytus is presenting the Greek gematria in a
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 25, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Roger,

              Thanks for the interesting comment. I just read the section in Hippolytus
              about the rule of 9. Although Hippolytus is presenting the Greek gematria in
              a negative light (as he is attempting to refute it as a heresy), this alone
              does not mean that the author of the Fourth Gospel had a similar negative
              view of gematria. I am curious, however, about what we might know about how
              Greek gematria was viewed by various groups in the first century. Do you
              know of any first century views that I can look into?

              Thanks,

              Terry

              On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, mottrogere3 <mottrogere3@...> wrote:

              > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>,
              > "Keith Yoder"
              > <klyoder5@...> wrote:
              > >
              > >snip<
              > > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the trial before
              > Pilate
              > > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
              > >
              > > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the praetorium that
              > they
              > > not be defiled from eating the Passover
              > > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS) and said What
              > > charge do you bring...
              > > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You take him and
              > judge
              > > him...
              > > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no fault in him
              > > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I bring him out
              > to you
              > > so you know that I find no fault in him
              > > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the man.
              > > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take and crucify
              > him...
              > > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I crucify your
              > king...
              > > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be
              > > crucified; so they took Jesus
              > >
              >
              > Hi Keith,
              > I am a new subscriber to this list and reviewed the archives for
              > possible discussion topics. I was intrigued by your observation that
              > the Greek word "AUTOIS" is used 9 times at the beginning of the trial
              > of Jesus in to the delivery for crucifixion in the Gospel of John.
              >
              > I do not think that the word AUTOIS was deliberately used 9 times to
              > convey a message. The Gospel of John and Revelation has used
              > the "sum of the digits reducing to 9" as a sign of a group separated
              > from God. 153, 666 are all examples that are used to indicate
              > someone or a group that needs to brought back to God IMO. Luke used
              > 99 in a good sense whist he uses the 9 lepers and 18 in a "need to be
              > saved" sense. The Gospel of Thomas uses 99 to represent a group
              > separated from God.
              >
              > I was not so much interested in Greek Gematria till I read Hippolytus
              > description of the system in place in his time. It was called
              > the "rule of 9". Greek proper names were reduced to a number between
              > one and nine.
              >
              > IMO, saying that the leadership of the Jews wanted Jesus crucified
              > was not true for all of the high ranking Jews. Joseph of Arimathaea
              > and Nicodemus are Jews who clearly supported Jesus. Jesus himself
              > was critical of some Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes. But, the High
              > Priest Caiaphas, even after the crucifixion, still opposed Jesus
              > teachings as he sent Saul, a Pharisee, out to arrest and persecute
              > the early Christians. Gamaliel was a high ranking Jew who apparently
              > did not seem to want to persecute the early Christians.
              >
              > Roger Mott
              > Waterloo, Iowa
              >
              >
              >



              --
              Some people see things that are and ask, Why?
              Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not?
              Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that.
              --George Carlin

              We have become all things to all people that we might confuse everybody!
              --Timothy George


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Tom Butler
              Hello Keith, John and other John_Lit Listers,     Keith, in response to your theory about the meaning of the Jews in th Fourth Gospel, I would like to
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 26, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Keith, John and other John_Lit Listers,
                    Keith, in response to your theory about the meaning of "the Jews" in th Fourth Gospel, I would like to add another observation to John Lupia's point, which agrees with you, that this term does not imply that every Hebrew or even every Hebrew leader was involved in a plot to kill Jesus. 
                    I believe that the writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel were intentionally using signs (Greek words borrowed directly from the Septuagint) to communicate the truth of the Gospel using the sacred language of the Hebrews. (This was a practice commonly used in Rabbinical schools of that period.  It is a didactic method called "Midrash."  "The Jews" (Ioudaioi) is a term borrowed, in my opinion, from Nehemiah 2: 16.  "The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing; I had not yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials, and the rest that were to do the work."
                   Your theory that "the 'sum of the digits reducing to 9' as a sign of a group separated from God" is consistent with my theory that this term is, indeed, a sign, the meaning of which must be discerned by the reader through careful study and reflection.  It points to a privileged, but uninformed group of leaders who are incapable of seeing or acting in a way that establishes or re-establishes a relationship with God.  It is not as is so often assumed, a condemnation of the people or belief system of an entire nation or race of people.
                Tom Butler



                ----- Original Message ----
                From: mottrogere3 <mottrogere3@...>
                To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:28:30 PM
                Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Did the Jews Crucify Jesus in John 19:18?


                --- In johannine_literatur e@yahoogroups. com, "Keith Yoder"
                <klyoder5@.. .> wrote:
                >
                >snip<
                > 1. Working back from 19:16 to the beginning of the trial before
                Pilate
                > in 18:28, the plural pronoun AUTOI appears 9 times:
                >
                > * 18:28 ...and they (AUTOI) did not enter the praetorium that
                they
                > not be defiled from eating the Passover
                > * 18:29 then Pilate went out to them (PROS AUTOUS) and said What
                > charge do you bring...
                > * 18:31 then Pilate said to them (AUTOIS), You take him and
                judge
                > him...
                > * 18:38 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS) I find no fault in him
                > * 19:04 ... and he says to them (AUTOIS), look I bring him out
                to you
                > so you know that I find no fault in him
                > * 19:05 ...and he says to them (AUTOIS), look, the man.
                > * 19:06 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), you take and crucify
                him...
                > * 19:15 ...Pilate says to them (AUTOIS), shall I crucify your
                king...
                > * 19:16 ...then he delivered him to them (AUTOIS) that he be
                > crucified; so they took Jesus
                >

                Hi Keith,
                I am a new subscriber to this list and reviewed the archives for
                possible discussion topics. I was intrigued by your observation that
                the Greek word "AUTOIS" is used 9 times at the beginning of the trial
                of Jesus in to the delivery for crucifixion in the Gospel of John.

                I do not think that the word AUTOIS was deliberately used 9 times to
                convey a message. The Gospel of John and Revelation has used
                the "sum of the digits reducing to 9" as a sign of a group separated
                from God. 153, 666 are all examples that are used to indicate
                someone or a group that needs to brought back to God IMO. Luke used
                99 in a good sense whist he uses the 9 lepers and 18 in a "need to be
                saved" sense. The Gospel of Thomas uses 99 to represent a group
                separated from God.

                I was not so much interested in Greek Gematria till I read Hippolytus
                description of the system in place in his time. It was called
                the "rule of 9". Greek proper names were reduced to a number between
                one and nine.

                IMO, saying that the leadership of the Jews wanted Jesus crucified
                was not true for all of the high ranking Jews. Joseph of Arimathaea
                and Nicodemus are Jews who clearly supported Jesus. Jesus himself
                was critical of some Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes. But, the High
                Priest Caiaphas, even after the crucifixion, still opposed Jesus
                teachings as he sent Saul, a Pharisee, out to arrest and persecute
                the early Christians. Gamaliel was a high ranking Jew who apparently
                did not seem to want to persecute the early Christians.

                Roger Mott
                Waterloo, Iowa



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • mottrogere3
                Hi Terry, I agree with Hippolytus that stating judgments and prophecy based on the sum of the digits of one s Greek name is absurd. Seems it was ancient
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 27, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Terry,

                  I agree with Hippolytus that stating judgments and prophecy based on
                  the "sum of the digits" of one's Greek name is absurd. Seems it was
                  ancient mathematicians childplay like rock/paper/scissors. And they
                  kept changing the rules to change the outcome. They also had a rule
                  of 7, counting only one of the recurring Greek letters in a name,
                  etc. etc.

                  However, I am convinced that the NT and OT use "numeric's" to convey
                  certain meaning as I stated a few examples from the NT in my previous
                  post.

                  The resident expert who spurred my interest in gematria is Michael
                  Grondin. He has also carried it into the Coptic alphabet. He
                  recently posted on the Gthomas list that he has created an Excel
                  spreadsheet which automatically calculates the gematria value for
                  certain words. No, I have not read any books on 1st century gematria
                  practices but perhaps when Mike gets back, he will post some
                  references.

                  Roger Mott
                  Waterloo, Iowa


                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Larm"
                  <terry.larm@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Roger,
                  >
                  > Thanks for the interesting comment. I just read the section in
                  Hippolytus
                  > about the rule of 9. Although Hippolytus is presenting the Greek
                  gematria in
                  > a negative light (as he is attempting to refute it as a heresy),
                  this alone
                  > does not mean that the author of the Fourth Gospel had a similar
                  negative
                  > view of gematria. I am curious, however, about what we might know
                  about how
                  > Greek gematria was viewed by various groups in the first century.
                  Do you
                  > know of any first century views that I can look into?
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  >
                  > Terry
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.