An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 206: Doubt and Dan Brown (John 16-20)

John 16-20
Doubt and Dan Brown

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

John 16

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

That opening quote is an interesting one, theologically speaking. It suggests that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, can’t go to the disciples until Jesus has sacrificed Himself. There’s no explanation as to *why* this should be the case (it’s God, don’t gotta have a reason), but it sort of puts a different slant to the whole concept of Jesus’ sacrifice and the concept of Jesus being the “route to the Father”. One could argue that the “Holy Spirit” is the zeal that the disciples get following the Resurrection (and there is something about the Pentecost … hmm, I’ll have to look that up).

Anyway, the rest is to do with Jesus saying that He needs to go away “for a little while”, and what feels like endless back and forth about what is meant by “a little while” until the reader begins to get heartily sick of the phrase “a little while”.

John 17

“I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.”

The theology of Jesus is laid out quite plainly in this chapter, or at least as plainly as it generally is in the KJV, and also the relationship between Jesus and God the Father is expanded upon.

It seems to my reading that Jesus considers Himself to be imparting God’s word (and truth, rather Truth) to chosen people (“I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine”). Jesus sets Himself up as the conduit between God’s word and the disciples, claiming that the Father is “within” Him when He speaks the words of the Father. Jesus also calls upon the Father to sanctify Him. So we can see here the elements that needed 350 years for Christianity to clarify at the Council of Nicaea (and still caused confusion for another few hundred years with Arianism) – to whit, what , exactly, is the relationship between the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure, from what’s given in this chapter, that they got the same idea that Jesus is trying to impart. But of course, I know better than every early church bishop!

John 18

“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Jesus gets arrested in the garden (not named in this chapter, just referred to as being “over the brook Cedron”) and taken before first Annas and Caiaphas, and then Pilate.

Some notes compared to the other gospels: Jesus meets the men come to arrest him, “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?”. If He knows this is going to happen, again how bad are the actions of Judas really? Like many of the Old Testament kings that God sends mad or makes lose a battle, he’s just a pawn in God’s game, it would seem (or, as I speculated last time, the whole arrest was set up by Jesus via Judas anyway).

In this chapter, the disciple who cuts off a man’s ear is specifically named as Peter. There’s mention again of the mysterious disciple (not named here as the one “loved best” by Jesus, but oddly left un-named). Pilate is amusingly un-interested here, I read a kind of tetchiness in his response to the Jews “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law”, but the Jews want a legal system that involves the death sentence, it would seem. Pilate, on questioning Jesus, sees no particular problem with Him (which suggests that Jesus isn’t seen as a threat to Roman law. Despite all the people following Him all over Galilee in earlier chapters, here support seems to melt away. If the following was as large as that I suspect Pilate might have been more concerned about this Jewish demagogue).

Anyway, Pilate tries to grant Jesus mercy but the people choose Barabbas to release instead. Insert Holy Blood/Holy Grail stuff about “Bar-Rabbas” meaning “Son of the Teacher” and therefore the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It’s a fun little idea, but let’s face it, pretty tenuous. I’ve mention this before, and Bar-Abbas, as a vague “Son of the Father (Chicory Tip, 1972)” who could be related to Jesus, or another preacher, or an allegorical figure entirely.

John 19

“Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!”

Pilate comes across very strangely here, a man who really doesn’t want to kill Jesus for no reason, but is swayed by the crowds who claim that by Jesus calling himself “king” He therefore goes against Roman law by setting Himself up as opposition to Caesar. Pilate’s obvious (and most Roman) response would be either to tell the Pharisees to bugger off, or just be done with it and have Jesus put to death. Dithering about really doesn’t gibe with the behaviour of a Roman governor. Of course, perhaps Pilate was out of his depth, maybe ended up there due to being on the wrong side of political manoeuvring, who knows.

Crucial (if you’ll forgive the word) events unfold here – Jesus is scourged and crucified. Roman soldiers divide His clothes into four and draw lots. The passage was interesting: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home”. The mystery “beloved disciple” crops up again, and Jesus turns His mother over into the disciple’s care. In the second and third verses quoted, the “beloved disciple” is evidently male – “behold your son” and “took her into *his* home”. But there’s no mention in the first verse, just Jesus’ mother, aunt and … girlfriend? Oh no, we’re off into Dan Brown territory again.

Also of note, and different, here, is that Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus (previously mentioned as a Pharisee of note) claim Jesus’ body and place it in an unused tomb. Jesus dies shortly after being given a hyssop-soaked sop, and His legs are not broken contrary to standard practice. Also of note, the Jews want the crucifixions hurried up so that they can observe Sabbath, so perhaps it’s a short enough procedure not to actually kill Jesus (hence the hurrying away of His “body” by wealthy followers). And finally, the whole affair takes place at Passover, thus tying in with the whole “carrying away sin” thing – funny that this doesn’t get a mention but other comparisons to some very weak prophecies *are* given here.

John 20

“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”

In this chapter, some disciples come to the tomb and find it empty, and then Jesus comes back and breathes the Holy Spirit into the disciples. Some interesting points in this chapter:

We get another mention of the “beloved disciple” here, and there’s both a suggestion that it’s not Mary Magdalene, but also a suggestion that perhaps it was supposed to be. Mary is the first person to the tomb, and she runs to get Peter and the “beloved disciple”. The “beloved disciple” is then the first person to the tomb, and the way that this is written it almost feels like someone was trying a clumsy re-write to downplay the role of Mary. But then, it’s Mary Magdalene who remains at the tomb weeping, and it’s to her that the angels, and the Jesus, appear first of all. So why not the “beloved disciple”? It’s a weird little quirk that could be taken either way.

Secondly, there’s the story of Doubting Thomas (aka Didymus – the chapter is very clumsy with its naming application here). The essence as transmitted is that Thomas is somehow a lesser kind of disciple because, as Jesus says, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”. And yet, earlier on when Jesus appears to the other disciples “And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord”. So the other disciples had already been shown physical evidence and yet Thomas is the one that gets this “It’s not proper faith if you have to see it” lecture. To me, that sentiment sounds like a terrible recipe for telling people just to shut up and do it; Thomas has by far the better idea in my opinion. But of course, the chapter reinforces the argument from authority fallacy with its last verse “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”. Whereby I can’t help thinking of The Life of Brian where Mandy shuts down an argument because “it’s written, that’s why”.

Lastly, after the disciples receive the Holy Spirit, Jesus tells them “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. Which I guess to mean that the disciples then have the power to forgive sins, or not, as they see fit. It’s not clear who “retains” the sin – do the disciples let the sinner retain their own sin (i.e. no salvation), or do the disciples retain the sinner’s sin (i.e. salvation through transferal)? Oh, and (Columbo style), just one more thing – the transferal of the Holy Spirit here is by Jesus breathing on the disciples, not on tongues of fire descending onto their heads. I like this version, it has a subtlety of the “breath of life” to it.