Liveblogging the Bible:John

I was tempted to give up the Liveblog for this book. It takes soooo long to complete even one account doing it this way. I really should complete The New Testament this year to keep on schedule with Ward's Lifetime of Reading (http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtward.html), not to mention the facts that it is enjoyable, important to my development as a person, and something that, had I done it ten years ago, would have saved me a world of hurt.

But there is also the fact that I am becoming a bit obligatory in my reading. There is already the danger for an English major/teacher to read to finish books, rather than to enjoy them. I feel no little pride at being able to say, "I've finished Plutarch", whether or not I got much out of it. If a book is irritating or pointless, where is the virtue in finishing it?

These musings aside, I conclude that the brain damage of liveblogging the Bible is outweighed by the benefit, and so here goes:

1:1 What a way to start out. I had forgotten that the book starts with this tidbit. As a Jehovah's Witness, I was well-armed for people to use this verse as a support of the Trinity doctrine. I knew, through no scholarship of my own, that the original Greek here for "The word was with God" and "The word was God" use two different forms of the word translated as "God". In the first case τὸν θεόν is used to indicate capitalized God, and in the second, θεὸς lower-case god, a state of deity, godlike, but not the big J himself. This distinction is a bit academic, and stems from the fact the there is no indefinite article in Greek. Therefore, the former could read "The God" and the latter simply "god". Yeesh. All of this was drilled into the heads of young Witnesses in the event that the object of conversion raised John 1:1 as an objection. But . . .

It obscures the verse. The Word is a fascinating appellation for Christ, and many believe that this gives him identity as far back as Genesis, as the word that God spoke in the act of creation. John touches upon depths here that the other Gospeleers never thought of. Was Christ a perfect reflection of God, though man? Or was he something superhuman, even God himself (this latter proposition I will always find ludicrous). I prefer to, in my baked-from-scratch theology, that he was, almost literally, a word. Christ was an expression of God, an idea made so by the speaking. Wanna know a secret? So are we all. Do you see how much effort can go into liveblogging one verse? Moving on . . .

1:5 a very serviceable metaphor indeed. The nature of light is that the teeniest bit can overcome all darkness. I was moved by the expression of Byron Katie this weekend, when she said, "Love is deadly. It will annihilate (perhaps not the exact word) everything that is unlike itself." That was a good workshop, BTW.

1:6 So what is the difference between being "sent from God" and being the Word of God? How is John less of an expression than Christ? Once removed, I guess. And was John literally ordered by the person of God, or simply inspired by the Divine?

1:7 another name for Christ: the light--not capitalized, interestingly

1:13 beautiful! By this process, we are all the Word of God. I had forgotten how metaphysical John is.

1:14 Even as all words do. The word that I speak creates my reality, and thereby becomes flesh.

1:17,18 How does John invoke Moses in one breath, and say that no man has seen God with the next?

1:25 Where did the idea of baptism even enter into the Jewish consciousness? It is not anywhere in the Old Testament.

1:30 It is this that John refers to in 1:15, indicating that the latter was written later. This indicates that an editing process went into the writing of this gospel, and helps to explain its wonderful fluidity so far.

1:32 I can think of no reason to take this metaphor more literally than the light or The Word. One always sees images of the Holy Spirit as a literal dove, which I think is silly. Anybody with a scrap of poetry in his or her soul can recognize a metaphor upon seeing it.

1:33 This seems to answer the question posed for 1:6.

1:35 I must have missed something. John never is said to have baptized Jesus in this account. Jesus just sort of walks by.

1:40 Who was the other? Possibly John himself who, as I recall, avoids referring to himself.

1:42 I never realized in my early Biblical education that the word "Peter" means "rock". This would have been highly inconvenient to Witness Theology, and it was somehow never mentioned.

1:47 I love this characterization. I think of myself as Nathanael sometimes. Never ask me if a dress makes you look fat. A pity we never learn much more about him.

1:50 How is this not Jesus' first miracle? It happens long before the water into wine stunt.

2:1 I wonder why he doesn't give her name?

2:4 Yeesh! What a jerk. Was she pressuring him somehow? Did she know something that we don't at this point in the narrative?

2:5 Evidently she did know something, and evidently John was either present or has a reputable source, for this is a rather specific detail.

2:9 There is a hole in the narrative here: we missed the part where the water turns into wine. I wonder if it's a quirk of translation or Jewish storytelling conventions for this information to be treated so offhandedly. In a modern story, this would be a noticeable flaw.

2:10 This seems to be a peroration, rather than a compliment, as if to say, "Idiot! Where have you been hiding this? This is gooood shit!"

2:15 Wow! It's only chapter 2. Luke took forever to reveal Jesus' dark side.

2:19 And cutting to the chase with regard to his death as well.

In general, the Jesus of this account does not seem as interested in preserving the mystery as he did in the other three.

3:2 Who is "we"? The Pharisees as a group? How intriguing--as in, the subject of an intrigue.

3:3-6 Although the metaphysical interpretation of this idea is pretty clear, it is unsatisfying somehow--as though it doesn't quite get to the meat of the matter.

3:7 This is more like it. The one who acts with Spirit is as the wind: his actions do not belong to him. He does not live; he is being lived.

3:10 This feels disingenuous, and a cheap shot.

3:12 A very Confucian sentiment. First, know this moment. If you can do that--and none can--worry about the future.

3:13 Which gives this verse a new meaning.

3:16 One cannot help but wonder if Jesus said these things, or if they were added to give verisimilitude.

3:17 Judge not, lest you suffer, for judgement is the source of all suffering.

3:18 Condemned in the sense of already in hell--for not to believe is to be in hell.

3:19 I thought you didn't come to condemn the world. This section is not as Zen as the preceding ones.

3:27 This is more to my liking, and in line with my Theology. What is, is. To argue with it is silly. I can just hear Byron Katie saying of John's disciples, "They are simply believing their thoughts. Is it true?"

3:29 In this metaphor, I suppose that the Spirit is the bride.

John's effort to frame Jesus as The Son of God seems to get in the way of Jesus' teachings, which are rather enlightening.

4:2 An interesting detail. Jesus did not baptize anybody. Why not?

4:6Also revealing that Jesus gets tired. Why include this detail, if the whole point of your book is to paint Jesus as divine?

4:7 It's hard to reconcile this with his later calling a Samaritan woman a dog. IS it because he's too thirsty to worry about that?

4:26 John's testimony is in direct conflict with the other three here. Matthew Luke and especially Mark all show that Jesus avoided identifying himself as the Messiah. In John's version, he does it right off the bat.

4:32 Based on this verse, an argument could be made that the water at the well incident was not incidental at all. If he had no need of refreshment, then he contrived the whole thing to make a point.

4:35 And this is the point: he wants people to know about him. He wants the harvest of followers, or to spread the truth, depending on your perspective.

4:45 This seems to contradict the statement that "A prophet has no honor in the prophet's own town".

5:14 This is an interesting admonition. Does Jesus mean to indicate that the man's suffering was a result of some misdeed of his own?

5:17 This is a perfect answer to the Sabbath argument. God doesn't take the Sabbath off. Why should we?

5:22-23 Okay, so if i were the Jews, this is the point in this speech where I would be calling "heresy!" Claiming to be God's son is one thing, and a perfectly innocuous thing at that. But claiming the ability to give life--before having actually done it--reeks of sacrilege, and post facto editing on the author's part.

5:24 I'm not clear in exactly what sense does the believer "not come under judgement"? This is a rather strong statement. I could choose to interpret it as "To the believer, one thing is as good as another, for the believer, desiring nothing, judges nothing", but that seems to go against John's intent . . .

5:30 Although such an interpretation is not altogether incompatible with this verse.

5:31 I wish that people had the sense to apply this verse to the Bible. If the Bible testifies about itself, the testimony must not be true either.

Wow. This book has a bunch of mysteries wrapped up in it. One one hand, John is less enjoyable, because it paints Jesus in what I consider an unapproachable light, and eliminates much of what is endearing about him. On the other hand, it is far richer in theology--perhaps incomprehensibly so--and so merits attention of a different kind.

6:4 John's audience is clearly not Jewish. they would need no explanation fo what the Passover is.

6:13 it strikes me that this miracle is rather singular among the world's religions. What a gentle and striking demonstration of power.

6:18-20 The same could be said of this example. All of Jesus miracles seem to be remarkable for their gentleness and their focus on creative, rather than destructive ability--unlike Moses, Elisha, etc.

6:26 And he was correspondingly more popular--though perhaps not in the way he wished to be

6:30 Perhaps it is just my current mood, but I feel a little irritated in Jesus' behalf here. First they come to him just for the food, then they demand a further sign. And this is just how people would act today as well. Basically selfish and stupid.

6:41 Oh, and fickle.

6:54,55 Well, he was not allowed to turn them away, but he could certainly give them more than they bargained for.

6:64 This seems to assume that Judas did not believe. What if his story is all the more tragic because he believed the most?

6:70 possibly a bit of editorializing on John's part. After all, it is said that John was the closest to Jesus' heart.

7:5 The matter of belief again becomes troublesome here. What if his brothers said this, not because they did not believe, but because their belief was so strong. I think the resentment that comes through in these last few chapters is John's, not Jesus'.

7:13 Waitaminnit. Isn't it the Jews who are being spoken of here? Are they then afraid of themselves? Or is "The Jews" code for the Jewish political system?

7:15 In which case it would be the system that was astonished here, not the people.

7:21 is the "one work" the miracle of the loaves and fishes? He has performed more than one miracle by this point in the narrative.

7:22 is the parenthetical correction here from Jesus, or from John? It does not seem like the sort of thing Jesus would add in the middle of a sermon.

7:23 This must be the "one work" then: the healing of the man at Beth-Zatha.