A Jesus Anachronism

[Shyone]

An interesting, and confusing, line:

 

John 20

29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

 

He is speaking to Thomas who was not with the other disciples when Jesus first appeared to them.

 

A little context:

 

18. Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

19. On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

20. After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

 

Mary saw him first, then he appeared to the disciples (except for Thomas, who was not available).

 

--------------------------------------------

If you haven't spotted it yet, here is the problem. Everyone that knew of Jesus resurrection to that point had seen him, and he showed them his side and hands. Thomas didn't believe until he was shown the side and hands.

 

There was no one who had not seen and yet believed. No one!

 

This is an anachronism. People later believed without seeing, but not at the time that Jesus said that others had believed without seeing.

[Ouroboros]

That's right. I've heard secular scholars argue the same. It's a later addition to the text to encourage the later generations in their faith, which shows that invented quotes to put into Jesus's mouth.

 

But of course the apologists claim that this is not a problem since Jesus could see the future and spoke in riddles. They didn't understand what he said, but they wrote it down anyway.

[Shyone]

That's right. I've heard secular scholars argue the same. It's a later addition to the text to encourage the later generations in their faith, which shows that invented quotes to put into Jesus's mouth.

 

But of course the apologists claim that this is not a problem since Jesus could see the future and spoke in riddles. They didn't understand what he said, but they wrote it down anyway.

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[Ouroboros]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

[Abiyoyo]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

 

I think John is mostly received text, at least to about 300AD, which is Papyrus 66/75? which we have the full version. The earliest piece of John is dated between 50-100AD by different scholars, but it is only a few verses from chapter 18.

 

Shyone quoted from the NIV which did not use the Received Text but rather the oldest documents. I will say though that if there is a difference from the received text and the oldest document available, it's not in the NIV, so possibly, this is what the writer wrote. But, many scholars stay clear of manuscript debates when it comes to John because the oldest available is 300AD

[Shyone]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

 

I think John is mostly received text, at least to about 300AD, which is Papyrus 66/75? which we have the full version. The earliest piece of John is dated between 50-100AD by different scholars, but it is only a few verses from chapter 18.

 

Shyone quoted from the NIV which did not use the Received Text but rather the oldest documents. I will say though that if there is a difference from the received text and the oldest document available, it's not in the NIV, so possibly, this is what the writer wrote. But, many scholars stay clear of manuscript debates when it comes to John because the oldest available is 300AD

What translation uses the "received text" (whatever that means)?

 

-- King James

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- American Standard

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- New International

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

Besides, they all say the same thing.

[hereticzero]

I find it amazing that Jesus disciples were with him everyday for over three years yet none of them recognize him when he appears after the cruci-fiction. Every time Jesus appears he has to tell them who he is.

[par4dcourse]

I find it amazing that Jesus disciples were with him everyday for over three years yet none of them recognize him when he appears after the cruci-fiction. Every time Jesus appears he has to tell them who he is.

Obviously New Orleans fans: Who Dat?

[Abiyoyo]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

 

I think John is mostly received text, at least to about 300AD, which is Papyrus 66/75? which we have the full version. The earliest piece of John is dated between 50-100AD by different scholars, but it is only a few verses from chapter 18.

 

Shyone quoted from the NIV which did not use the Received Text but rather the oldest documents. I will say though that if there is a difference from the received text and the oldest document available, it's not in the NIV, so possibly, this is what the writer wrote. But, many scholars stay clear of manuscript debates when it comes to John because the oldest available is 300AD

What translation uses the "received text" (whatever that means)?

 

-- King James

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- American Standard

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- New International

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

Besides, they all say the same thing.

 

It's called the Textus Receptus. It is the text received the church claims was handed down from the Apostles, but they have no proof it came from the Apostles. There are extreme differences in the Textus Recptus and the actual manuscripts the NIV composers went by, which are older manuscripts.

 

One example is Act 8:37, it is completely removed from the NIV whereas it is included in the other translations.

 

But that is what I was saying about John is that the earliest entirety of John is around 300AD, yet we have fragment that dates 50-100 AD, which has a few verses.

 

More or less, to answer Hans, it is translated right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't altered by the early church, because it dates 300 AD

[Shyone]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

 

I think John is mostly received text, at least to about 300AD, which is Papyrus 66/75? which we have the full version. The earliest piece of John is dated between 50-100AD by different scholars, but it is only a few verses from chapter 18.

 

Shyone quoted from the NIV which did not use the Received Text but rather the oldest documents. I will say though that if there is a difference from the received text and the oldest document available, it's not in the NIV, so possibly, this is what the writer wrote. But, many scholars stay clear of manuscript debates when it comes to John because the oldest available is 300AD

What translation uses the "received text" (whatever that means)?

 

-- King James

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- American Standard

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

-- New International

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

Besides, they all say the same thing.

 

It's called the Textus Receptus. It is the text received the church claims was handed down from the Apostles, but they have no proof it came from the Apostles. There are extreme differences in the Textus Recptus and the actual manuscripts the NIV composers went by, which are older manuscripts.

 

One example is Act 8:37, it is completely removed from the NIV whereas it is included in the other translations.

Ok, maybe I missed something, but what does the texticle recepticle say about John 20:29?

[Dagan]

When you said anachronisms I thought it was going to be something like Jesus driving a Ford Pinto into Jerusalem instead of saddling his ass.

 

I am disappointed (just kidding, it's a pretty interesting point).

 

Here's another one that's been bugging me recently. Does Jesus scourge the temple in the beginning of his ministry, as John says, or right before he gets killed, as Matthew, Mark and Luke say? One apology I heard years ago suggested he did it twice, but of course there is no evidence for that and trying to put all four gospels in chronological order to make that argument would result in nonsense.

[Shyone]

Here's another oldy but goody. The apologists think they have "explained" it as prophecy, but it doesn't carry water.

 

Matthew 10

35. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:

36. and a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.

 

Matthew 16

23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

24. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

 

Also present in Mark and Luke, but not John.

 

Mark has an interesting twist:

 

Mark 8

34. And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

35. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it.

 

In the Apocrypha, the cross is a symbol as much as an instrument of torture. The Gospel of Peter refers to a talking cross, and the doctrine of Docetism (that the body of Jesus was an illusion) also used this type of imagery. This doctrine preceded the Gospels (and the writing of the gospels was at least partly a reaction to and attack on Docetism).

 

1. No questioning

Aside from the obvious anachronism that Jesus had not been crucified yet while mentioning "bearing ones own cross" (and that the gospels had not been written), there is the lack of dialogue present in other parts of the gospels that signifies a lack of understanding on the part of the disciples. This is particularly revealing since the expression would have had no significance for the disciples before the crucifixion.

 

 

31. ...He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."

32. But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

 

5. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

6. Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

 

2. The symbol of the very early church was not the cross, but the fish until the second century. Again, the disciples not only wouldn't have understood, but they never did understand - and yet never questioned.

 

As the writer on another forum called "Back Again" wrote, "[T]he phrase "take up your cross" has to have a sound metaphorical meaning to the listening audience (not us) or it's a post Christianity anachronism. If it made sense to the audience, it had either be a) a well known phrase meaning take your punishment or take your burden or be something the audience could figure out based on a known fact that a religious cult leader could run the risk of roman (not jewish) execution. I'm saying that I have no evidence for a) and that might be a bit of a stretch."

 

I contend that it was a well known phrase - to whomever wrote the gospels that contain that phrase.

 

The same logic applies to the phrase, "for the sake of the gospel." Was it a well known phrase? Was it something that the disciples could "figure out" based on a known fact?

 

Again, the word gospel would be known to someone living after the gospel was written, which also indicates that the gospel was written after the gospel was written.

 

Hmmm.

[Snakefoot]

Grammatically, in order for this to be a prophetic statement, it should read, ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed will be those who will not see and yet will believe."

 

Or, perhaps, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who will have not seen and yet will have believed."

 

The original statement remains a statement of the past: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Very true.

 

I wonder what the Greek text says. Is it translated correctly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm sure apologists have a million excuses--like always.

 

It was a Prophetic Utterance, you infidel!

[mwc]

Ok, maybe I missed something, but what does the texticle recepticle say about John 20:29?

I took a quick look at the Greek (the critical text not the received text...woe is me) and it has (very, very roughly): "Said he himself Jesus, Because seen me, believed; Blessed/happy not see and believe."

 

I didn't bother to clean it up by filling in words or anything. This should give an idea what's going on in the sentence though (hopefully I didn't mess up any tenses...I didn't check).

 

As far as I know (I only did a quick look) there are no major variants of John 20:29 so it really shouldn't matter what version you use.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

One apology I heard years ago suggested he did it twice, but of course there is no evidence for that and trying to put all four gospels in chronological order to make that argument would result in nonsense.

I asked this once during bible study class at my parents' church. The explanation they gave me was that they claimed John's gospel started near the end of Jesus' ministry and skipped the beginning while the other gospels started with the beginning.

[Abiyoyo]

Ok, maybe I missed something, but what does the texticle recepticle say about John 20:29?

I took a quick look at the Greek (the critical text not the received text...woe is me) and it has (very, very roughly): "Said he himself Jesus, Because seen me, believed; Blessed/happy not see and believe."

 

I didn't bother to clean it up by filling in words or anything. This should give an idea what's going on in the sentence though (hopefully I didn't mess up any tenses...I didn't check).

 

As far as I know (I only did a quick look) there are no major variants of John 20:29 so it really shouldn't matter what version you use.

 

mwc

 

Yeah, I really didn't have any significant point to my posts with this other than the critical text of John is probably coincides with the received text of John because of the age John is dated, minus the fragment with a few verses dated early on.

 

Hans asked what the Greek says, maybe I read the question wrong.

 

I guess if it would've been another verse that was received text added instead of the critical text, then maybe I would've had a point.

Anyway, ....carry on

[mwc]

The same logic applies to the phrase, "for the sake of the gospel." Was it a well known phrase? Was it something that the disciples could "figure out" based on a known fact?

 

Again, the word gospel would be known to someone living after the gospel was written, which also indicates that the gospel was written after the gospel was written.

The word "gospel" is perfectly legit and doesn't only apply to what these guys were saying. Everyone knows that it also means "good news" and so it would be taken that way by a listener. For example I could walk up to you and say "Have you heard the good news?" and you would obviously say "What good news?" In their world it would be "Have you heard the gospel?" It could apply to any good news that someone happened to possess. Of course we tend to confine the word "gospel" only to this one particular story these days as if it was invented to serve their purpose and theirs alone.

 

They would have to be aware of the "good news" but that may not mean what we think it means. In G.Mark 6 there is this:

7 And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. ... 11 And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." 12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

No one had been really taught anything at this point but they're out casting out demons, anointing people and preaching. The question is what are they preaching? To repent is specifically mentioned. Is this the "good news?" Or is it that you can have demons cast out? Or you can have an oily head? They can't be talking about death/resurrection stuff. And from later on in the story they don't really understand anything or even truly believe any of this themselves.

 

It's not very clear at all if you ask me especially if we consider G.Matthew 9:

35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity

It seems simple enough but the parallel verse for G.Mark falls just after:

10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,

They clearly heard the "gospel" and it was about the "kingdom" and so they would have preached it I would think (along with the "repent" thing).

 

G.Mark does define the "gospel" way back at the beginning of the text:

1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

The "gospel" according to G.Mark is from "God" (the good news of god) and it's spelled out in v15. All anyone needs to do is run around telling people that all day long.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

 

The "gospel" according to G.Mark is from "God" (the good news of god) and it's spelled out in v15. All anyone needs to do is run around telling people that all day long.

 

mwc

Oh. nevermind.

[Dagan]

The good news in the Synoptic gospels always was that the Kingdom of God/Heaven was here. Jesus was talking about himself as an emissary of God. Heaven had come to earth, follow Jesus and he will show you exactly what that means. He will show you how to live a Kingdom life. He wasn't that different from David Koresh or other modern-day cult leaders.

 

John, the latest gospel, takes a different approach, talking about a spiritual kingdom, an unseen but real heavenly dimension and Jesus as the god-man standing with feet in both worlds.

 

How does that sound? I just made it all up.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

How does that sound? I just made it all up.

It's actually the accepted view of secular scholars like Bart D Ehrman.

[Dagan]

 

 

How does that sound? I just made it all up.

It's actually the accepted view of secular scholars like Bart D Ehrman.

 

Hot damn!

 

I think I shall look up some of the works of this Ehrman fellow.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Hot damn!

 

I think I shall look up some of the works of this Ehrman fellow.

I'd recommend Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted. It's a pretty good introduction to biblical scholarship and he's one of my favorite authors on religion.