Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

peacefulpete

A quick comment regarding how subsequent Gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.
In the Last Supper story, the Gospel that came to be named after Mark 14 has Jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.
17 And evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,
18 and as they are reclining, and eating, Jesus said, `Verily I say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.'
19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him, one by one, `Is it I?' and another, `Is it I?'
20 And he answering said to them, `One of the twelve who is dipping with me in the dish;
IOW Jesus is made to say that one of the 12 who are sharing the meal will betray him. He is not identified here but of course the reader knows who because of vs 10.:
And Judas the Iscariot, one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests that he might deliver him up to them,....
The writer (or redactor) of Matt 26 perhaps concerned it made Jesus appear unaware of who the traitor was adds material wherein Jesus makes an explicit identification to Judas.
20 And evening having come, he was reclining (at meat) with the twelve,
21 and while they are eating, he said, `Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up.'
22 And being grieved exceedingly, they began to say to him, each of them, `Is it I, Sir?'
23 And he answering said, `He who did dip with me the hand in the dish, he will deliver me up;...
25 And Judas -- he who delivered him up -- answering said, `Is it I, Rabbi?' He saith to him, `Thou hast said.'
Notice the subtle change in wording regarding the bowl. "One of the twelve who is dipping with me in the dish;" was turned into "`He who did dip with me the hand in the dish, he will deliver me up". The writer of Matt goes further and singles out Judas with a feigned query and Jesus direct identification. This might have been satisfying for this writer, but it creates a new question. How is it possible that no one showed any concern that Judas had just been identified as a traitor?
The writer of Luke 22, reorders Mark and Matt quite a bit as we know, but on the point of the betrayal, he follows Mark in leaving unsaid who was the traitor. Is this because his copy of Matt does not have these additions, or is it because he feels the addition complicated the narrative?:
21 `But, lo, the hand of him delivering me up [is] with me on the table,...23 And they began to reason among themselves, who then of them it may be, who is about to do this thing.
The Gospel John takes the version in Matt and expands further but also tries to explain things at the same time. He makes explicit that Jesus already knew who the betrayer was in his unique foot washing scene:
11 for he knew him who is delivering him up; because of this he said, `Ye are not all clean.'
The readers are fully aware of the traitor even earlier because he follows the Synoptics in telling the readers a few verses before that Judas was the guy.
2 And supper being come, the devil already having put [it] into the heart of Judas of Simon, Iscariot, that he may deliver him up,
Then at the dinner itself this writer attempts to find a way for Jesus to have disclosed the traitor but not to everyone just the ostensible author (John).:
21 These things having said, Jesus was troubled in the spirit, and did testify, and said, `Verily, verily, I say to you, that one of you will deliver me up;'
22 the disciples were looking, therefore, one at another, doubting concerning whom he speaketh.
23 And there was one of his disciples reclining (at meat) in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus was loving;
24 Simon Peter, then, doth beckon to this one, to inquire who he may be concerning whom he speaketh,
25 and that one having leant back on the breast of Jesus, respondeth to him, `Sir, who is it?'
26 Jesus answereth, `That one it is to whom I, having dipped the morsel, shall give it;' and having dipped the morsel, he giveth [it] to Judas of Simon, Iscariot.
27 And after the morsel, then the Adversary (Satan) entered into that one, Jesus, therefore, saith to him, `What thou dost -- do quickly;'
28 and none of those reclining at meat knew for what intent he said this to him,
Readers have been trying to make sense of this scene ever since. John asks Jesus which one and he straight-out says it is the one to whom he gives a morsel. He gives it to Judas but somehow John doesn't get it.
There are scores of interesting differences between these versions, even within the individual texts themselves. Just wanted to demonstrate a simple example of the Gospel revisions regarding the dipping into the bowl detail.
KalebOutWest

If you tell someone you were "carving pumpkins," you might expect them to imagine you were celebrating or observing Halloween. But if the person you were talking to lived in a country that had no Christians and did not observe the day (it is actually a North American phenomenon), they would not necessarily catch on.
The same goes for what you are reading here. The idea of "dipping" has to do with being at a Passover Seder in which foods are slightly touched or nibbled upon in an "order" (thus the Hebrew word "Seder") according to a strict liturgy.
The "bowl" and the "dipping" actually don't mean much. There is a bowl of salt water on the table. Over the centuries and (depending on which type of Jew you are or have been) certain of the Passover food item are dipped in this "bowl of tears" at certain moments during the Seder meal.
What is being emphasized in not necessarily Judas or the bowl or the dipping but the bread.
Why? Because according to Christian tradition (which oddly is not directly written in the text but only implied) Judas Isacriot does not partake of the institution of Holy Communion or what is termed the "Eucharist."
What he does receive is an anti-communion or one that induces the introduction of Satan the devil.
This is because what is being emphasized--according to Christology--is the "fulfillment" of Psalm 41:9: "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who are of my bread, has lifted the heel against me"--even though the psalmist never says this is a prophetic forecast or is about a future messianic figure.
The language used in the Gospels is clearly chosen from Psalm 41 and from the fact that the maztah is not salted for Passover. To do so would make it impure, not kosher for a Passover Seder. (You never dip Passover bread in the bowl or add salt to it.)
The symbolism is that when one partakes of the Eucharist, one partakes of Christ. But Judas got bread dipped in saltwater, and next, as John wrote, "Satan entered into him."
These points aren't immediate since non-Jews are often reading the Gospels today. But the authors were Jewish and they were writing to Jewish Christians. Thus they often left things out because they didn't realize who else would ever be reading these texts.
peacefulpete

Kaleb.... An interesting take on John's version. An issue for me is that John is distinctly breaking from the Synoptics by having the meal not a Passover Sedar, but a meal shared on the day of Preparation. The Synoptics while expressly identifying the meal as the Passover do not have the connection between the act of dipping bread and Satan entering Judas found in John, so if your hypothesis was intended by the author of John, it was original to him. John has layers of redaction; I'm not therefore suggesting your hypothesis is proven wrong by its present text dating the story to before the Passover. One or the other element might be secondary.
As far as Jews writing for Jews, the consensus is that Mark was written by someone not familiar with Jewish practice in Judea for a Roman audience. Matt is a Judaizing revision of Mark but still makes errors (or liberties with) the OT throughout. He also has Jesus say,
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man"; words that clearly show low regard for Kosher rules about diet much less salting bread on the Passover.
I could go on, but in the end the stories were framed with an imperfect understanding of Judaism and Judea and, are either ignorant of, or takes liberties with historical and geographical realities for narrative/theological purposes.
Ultimately, the point of the OP was simply the evolution of this small detail in the story, and your suggestion that John is linking the salting of bread with his abandonment, this might then be a further development not from Synoptic sources.
KalebOutWest

If you read any study Bible, like say the new SBL, it will always tell you, the author of John purposefully doesn't have a Seder or Passover. Instead the events of Passion are changed for theological purposes to Nisan 14 in order for Jesus to die at 3 pm, the hour that slaughtering of the Passover lambs begins in the Temple by the priests.
In John's gospel there is no Seder, only the washing of the feet and the discourse. There is a meal, and the anti-communion but no Passover. In John's gospel Jesus is "the lamb that takes away the sin of the world." John's gospel is a "signs" gospel, not a narrative.
Mark is the first or one of the first Gospels written. (According to the SBL the Mark-first theory is now in jeopardy and the traditional view that Matthew is first now seems promising.) All of the texts come from a Jewish and for the Jewish Christian community.
The text about "making all foods clean" at Mark 7:19 cannot be about relaxing kashrut (kosher) laws because when Peter, after Pentecost, receives his famous rooftop vision to "slaughter and eat," he tells God he has never eaten anything that wasn't kosher. (Acts 10) Later in Acts 21, Paul visits the Jewish Christians and gets arrested for demonstrating that he lives the Law of Moses just like other Jewish Christians.
The traditional take is that Mark is the secretary of Peter, and that the Gospel is Peter's take on the matter. I think that is more of a tradition. But, I think it is safe to assume that the text is not talking about the laws of kashrut, otherwise Peter and these Jewish Christians would have stopped observing these laws, like the bishop of Jerusalem, James whose representatives observed kosher and caused the problem that led to the division between Paul and Peter.
Mark's words are about whether it was necessary to visit the mikvah after each time one went to the market. The Pharisees said yes, since priests washed after handling sacrifices. The Pharisees also washed their foods and any bags and vessels they carried they products in.
Jesus was teaching that since the markets already sold kosher food (as they were within the walks of Jerusalem) then all foods were clean. Nobody needed to visit a mikvah (a ceremony bath) to be made clean either.
As for the Passover Seder in the other Gospels, they occur on the 15th of Nisan. This is why Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem dating the Memorial. Christians read the Passion account from John during Lent, and Pastor Russell thought this was literal. He dated the death of Jesus based on the Lenten readings used by the very churches he condemned.
I suggest it might be advantageous for you to take a college course in theology as well as Biblical history. I think you would enjoy both.
You post interesting things. I think you would make a great instructor. You should think about teaching on the academic level.
peacefulpete

Glad others find some of this interesting. Also, glad you came back. We may not agree on everything, but I enjoy your perspective.
KalebOutWest

I was observing the High Holy Days which took over most of late September to prepare for this year, began with Rosh Hashanah in the beginning of October and did not end until right before Halloween with Sukkot.
I am about to disappear again now due to Thanksgiving and prep for Chanukah. I have family that observes Christmas, thus I will be busy.
peacefulpete

I'm out of my element, but some research seems less than conclusive regarding Passover Sedar meal customs of the first century or before. It seems most of the tradition dates to after the loss of the temple. I find 'dipping' into vinegar, wine/water and charoset a fruit/wine paste with many variations.
I found in the Haggadah:
He takes out the matsa in the order that he placed them, the broken one between the two whole ones; he holds the three of them in his hand and blesses "ha-motsi" with the intention to take from the top one and "on eating matsa" with the intention of eating from the broken one. Afterwards, he breaks off a kazayit from the top whole one and a second kazayit from the broken one and he dips them into salt and eats both while reclining.Pesach Haggadah, Motzi Matzah 4
How do I understand this?
KalebOutWest

You are looking at a rare Sephardic Haggadah from the 4th century, CE. It is so rare that it was placed on Sefaria, the library you are looking at.
It is famous for several things, especially that word, kazayit, which nobody really knows the exact meaning of. The Haggadah talks about practices that are not followed or observed by Jews prior to it or after--or if they are, we don't understand the words, which is likely the problem.
I am Sephardic. Our language is Ladino, but it went through various revisions, and this is likely the cause of some of the problems for some of the puzzles caused with some of the vocabulary.
Kazayit is believed to mean "pea-sized" or perhaps, better yet the size of an olive. But then the question is are we being asked to dip the size of what which is kazayit? The bread? What is between the bread? What is mixed between the bread, as like a sandwich? And why?
There is the Hillel sandwich custom, which might have come from the 1st century according to tradition. But it is not dipped into the water nor is any portion taken from it to be eaten separately it. So the above that you quoted is curious but is definitely neither universal or understood.
I do not offer my opinions in my post. As you put it:
We may not agree on everything, but I enjoy your perspective.
I try never to offer my personal perspective. The perspective belongs to others, those of the JPS, SBL, friends of mine on the CBA, USCCB, and other academics I have worked with and have been my teachers.
I haven't anymore time, but I do hope you do take my advice that I think that there is more than sticking to one's personal views and trying to reinvent the wheel all the time. If you don't start with a foundation, you can't even learn to properly use the tools that are out there. I think you have a great mind and talent. You just need to discipline yourself to know that there are basic facts that are such-and-such and that these things are not as problematic or do not matter as much as you worry about.
In order to put you three-dimensional thinking to work, you need to start at a foundation. I hope you take my advice. You have the workings of a great educator.
Have a great holiday season or whatever, and a happy new year.
peacefulpete

Great thanks
joey jojo

Kaleb, I thought my life growing up as a JW was tedious and I particularly resented the chafing I felt at having my life dictated by the beliefs of my parents, even if some were beneficial.
It amazes me hearing about all the traditional rituals that practising Jews (and others) follow. I'm not necessarily saying it's all bad, however, to me at least, there is something disturbing about having every aspect of your life and how you spend your time pre-determined.

Dip Anyone?

Share this