John 13:1-30 is an interesting narrative illustrating the complexity of understanding human intentions from a written text. The text was written at the end of the first century by someone, whom tradition names as John. If one assumes that "John" has described a historical situation accurately, there appear to be three levels, posited by the author in this text, on which human intentions can be considered: level one, Jesus and the disciples; level two, the later composer of the text; level three, the readers of the text.
Level one: At a meal Jesus, disturbed in spirit, abruptly asserts "one of you will betray me" (13:21). The perplexed disciples do not know who he was talking about (13:22), so Peter asks the disciple "who was lying near the breast of Jesus," "who is it?" (13:24), and that disciple (i.e., he "whom Jesus loved") relays the question to Jesus (13:25). Jesus answers that it is he to whom I give this sop (13:26a), and then he gave it to Judas (13:26b).
The narrator interrupts this dramatic action (which is the "showing" of the story as it happens) at this point to directly address the reader in an aside with information about Judas that the actors in the literary drama do not overhear: "Satan entered into him" after he had taken the sop (13:27). The drama then resumes with Jesus telling Judas "do quickly what you are going to do" (13:27b). At this point again the narrator overrides the description of the scene with interpretive commentary telling readers that the disciples did not understand why Jesus had said this to Judas (13:28) and offers two explanations for Jesus' statement that the narrator asserts the disciples were thinking (13:29). The narrator briefly returns to conclude the scene by telling readers that Judas immediately left on his undisclosed errand and it was night (13:30).
Readers are left to ponder, along with the disciples, why Jesus told Judas to do quickly, what he was going to do (13:27b). But a bigger puzzlement is why disciples could not understand what they had just seen and heard when it is so obvious to any reader: Judas is going to betray Jesus (13:26; John 6:70-71; 18:2-5).
Level two: The writer deliberately (or sloppily?) narrates the story in such a way as to leave the reader perplexed as to the writer's intentions: Why deliberately contradict 13:2 with 13:27 as to when Satan entered into Judas? Why would the author use a technique of the fiction writer by reading the disciples' minds (13:29), an act that is impossible in real life, in order to explain how the disciples misunderstood Judas' intentions? After Jesus' statement to the disciples in 13:21, why would the author leave completely unstated what Judas is obviously going to do? What is the significance of the extraneous "thus, in this manner" (outōs, 13:25), and why does the writer feel it necessary to illustrate the Roman manner of reclining at table (13:23, 25)?
Level three: Every close reader of the Gospel of John since the second century is left to make what they will of these problems.
In all candidness, however, there are only two historical levels in this brief narrative: level one is that of the author who composed the narrative, ascribed intentions and reactions to the characters, invented the dialogue, or lack of it. This shadowy figure either deliberately controlled the narrative in all particulars intending its lack of clarity and verbosity; for example the writer doubles the question "who is it" asked by Peter and by the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23-25) and twice describes Judas receiving the sop (13:27; 13:30); or were these simply careless oversights?
There may, of course, have been an actual historical meal at which Jesus was upset that one of his chosen disciples determined to betray him, and sensed the gravity of what was about to happen, but our author was not present at the meal and had no way of knowing such intimate details. The most honest thing in the narrative is the writer's omission of Jesus' intention in telling Judas to do quickly what he intended to do—because we never know anyone's intentions. The most dishonest thing in the narrative is the author's reading of the minds of the disciples telling what they were thinking—because we cannot accurately "read" the minds of others.
Well, so what? Is there a greater significance to the information in this short essay? Perhaps.
Readers decide the significance of all information they take in. There is no universally agreed upon significance of anything. In my view the significance of the foregoing essay is the following: "Creative inspiration," if such there be, always resides in the mind of the human author and should not be transferred to a text, which is always subject to critical reviews pointing out flaws in a text. If we decide that a given text is "inspired," that is merely our own opinion.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
Charlie, I appreciate your exercise of reader-response criticism! Well done!
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Bob and thank you!
DeleteFor you readers out there, Robert Fowler is the author of the definitive book on reader- response criticism: "Let the Reader Understand. Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark" (Fortress, 1991).
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that what happened here, no more and no less, is that the writer "decided to include" the role of traitor in the Jesus story. He made the decision based on some combination of oral tradition, written tradition (other gospels), his own fictional creativity, and/or some combination thereof. Who knows why the result was sloppily put together? (Why did Mark use the phrase "one of the twelve" [14:17, 20] as if the disciples didn't know their own identity?)
There are thematic and language similarities (Scholars’ Version translation) that suggest knowledge of gospel tradition. The author used his own creative flair while not diverging widely from the tradition. I don't see that honesty and dishonesty are appropriately evaluative terms.
John 13:2 Now that the devil had planted it in the mind of Judas, Son of Simon Iscariot, to turn him in; Luke 22:3-6, Then Satan took possession of Judas, the one called Iscariot who was a member of the twelve. He went off to negotiate with the chief priests; Mark 14:10-11 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went off to the chief priests; Matt 26:14-16 Then one of the twelve, Judas Iscariot by name, went to the chief priests.
John 13:21-27 Jesus declared, “Let me tell you this; one of you will turn me in.” Mark 14:18-21 Jesus said, "Let me tell you, one of you eating with me is going to turn me in.” Matt 26:20-25 “Let me tell you, one of you is going to turn me in.” Luke 22:21-23 But look! Right here with me at this very table is the one who is going to turn me in.”
John 13:21-27 The disciples stole glances at each other, at a loss to understand who it was he was talking about. Mark 14:18-21 They got very upset and said to him one after another, “I’m not the one, am I? Matt 26:20-25 And they were very upset, and each one said to him in turn, “I’m not the one, am I Master?” Luke 22:21-23 And they began to ask one another which of them could possibly attempt such a thing.
John 13:21-27 I am going to dip this piece of bread, and the one I give it to is the one. So he dips the piece of bread and gives it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. That moment Satan took possession of him (cf. 13:2). Mark 14:18-21 He said, “It’s the one who is dipping into the bowl with me.” Matt 26:20-25 He said, “The one who dips his hand in the bowl with me—that’s who’s going to turn me in.”
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Another way to look at the story: John 13.1-20 is (at least in the sense of pedagogic principles) an improvement of Mark 10.41-45//Mt. 20.24-28. Instead of a lecture on humility, the author presents teacher as example of humility, as a master would an apprentice, giving a “real world” lesson by “showing/doing” instead of “telling.” This is extended when Jesus serves bread dipped in wine to the one who is to betray him, in a normal world, a foe. John 21-30 reinforces both the theme of humility scattered through the gospels and probably the non-retaliation exhortations found in the gospels. The author of John encapsulated both rather remarkably with this view of Jesus. (I wouldn’t make too much of a deal about the incongruity of v.2 and v.27, except to say that the word “diabolos” is used in v. 2, whereas “Satan” is used in v. 27, which makes one wonder if these were originally one “story.” That is the only time “Satan” is used in John, I think.)
ReplyDeleteDennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteI have spent the morning off and on pondering honest/dishonest as "appropriate evaluative terms" to use in evaluating a text. And I came to the conclusion that in some cases the terms are both effective and appropriate. Here is another example: When it was claimed the crowd on the national mall for the inauguration of president Trump was "the largest ever, period." The nicest thing one can say about it is that the claim was mistaken. But spokespersons for the president doubled down on the claim and it turns out that it was a dishonest claim in the sense that it suffered from a lack of honesty. Here is another: When Mark claims (1:5) that "all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem" turned out to be baptized by John in the Jordan river, the nicest thing one can say about Mark's claim is that it was an exaggeration, but it was clearly a dishonest statement, suffering from a lack of trustworthiness.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeletePerhaps rather than deliberately exaggerating or being dishonest, Mark was an hyperbolist! In other words, he exaggerated but without the expectation of being taken literally. I do this a lot. Did the ancients engage in hyperbole?
Your example had to do with John the Baptist, of course, but looking at Mark's depiction of Jesus, he seemed to be thinking in his gospel of the Risen Christ walking the earth. In Mark 2:10 Jesus says, for example, "But just so that you realize that on earth (me: as contrasted to sitting along side God in heaven) the Human One has authority to forgive sins..." It would be no wonder that we have so many miraculous attributions in Mark. If this observation is correct, neither exaggeration, dishonesty, or hyperbole would apply. Mark would simply be writing an account of the powers of the heavenly Son (on earth).
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
DeleteIn answer to your question, I regard Mark's statements as hyperbole/exaggeration. But you raise another question in your comment following: does Mark think of his statements as exaggeration/hyperbole, or as testimony about all the great things the son of God is doing--such as walking on the water? Not being a mind reader I cannot answer. But it seems pretty clear to me that the events simply did not happen as Mark described them and that the statements themselves take the form of exaggeration/hyperbole.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mark was using hyperbole: exaggeration with the expectation that he would not be taken literally.
As for Mark's gospel in general, it seem probable to me that he writes with the belief that Jesus had the powers of the heavenly Son walking the earth (e.g. 2:10). In that case it would seem that exaggeration, dishonesty, and hyperbole are not appropriate descriptors.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
DeleteI gather that you are thinking Mark's statements about the Judean popularity should be regarded in the same way as we think of the miracle stories--Jesus walking on the water and feeding the 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. Perhaps. But I am more given to the idea that the miracle stories should be thought of as exaggeration/hyperbole.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThis is a test run. I've sent several messages this past week and none have gone through. Something seems to be out of whack with my Select Profile column.
Could Mark have been engaging in hyperbole: exaggeration without intending a literal reaction from the reader?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
DeleteThis issue is a good example of my idea that we never know what people intend by what they say; we only know what they say.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Evening Charlie,
ReplyDelete1) There are two possible answers to your question regarding the writer of the Gospel of John being able to "read the disciples' minds." One is that the disciples later told this writer what they were thinking at the time and the writer remembered what their supposed thoughts were and included them in his narrative. The other possibility that I was taught in Bible school is that the Holy Spirit told the writer of this Gospel what the disciples were thinking at the time. Have you ever heard either of these explanations?
2) With regard to the Roman manner of reclining at the table.... Have you ever heard the expression "Rome did not convert to Christianity... Christianity converted to Rome."
3) I have never personally ever wondered why Jesus told Judas to quickly do what he was going to do. (13:27b) I have never head a pastor or teacher ever expand upon that question either. You are the first person I know who wonders why Jesus (supposedly) told Judas to do that. Do you have any theories about why Jesus may have said that? I was always taught that verse as being an obvious thing to tell someone- like it was something any person would have said in the same position. I am intrigued by your interest in that particular verse. I've never paid that much attention to it.
Thank you as always for making me think! Elizabeth
Good Sunday afternoon Elizabeth,
Delete1. Two possible answers to my question as to what was in the disciple minds: I have heard both. The first possibility I have trouble with because one would have to first show that the writer we call John had met all the disciples. The Holy Spirit answer I, personally, find to be un-provable because the holy spirit inspiration takes place in someone's mind and the only evidence we have is the believer's claim that the spirit inspired the answer.
2. I have never heard the statement before but there seems to be an element of truth in both.
3. I have no idea why Jesus said do it quickly. The reason I became interested is that the statement suggests that there is some crisis point in the near future that was conditional on the "thing" being done quickly. I am not much help on this question, I am afraid.
Cordially,
Charlie