whose breast?

peacefulpete

Note the present version of the betrayal revelation scene in John:

***
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and
testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you
shall betray me.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom
Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it
should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have
dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon.
***

The scene makes no sense as Simon could not ask the person lying on
Jesus' breast without Jesus overhearing. One can do an experiment and
act out the scene to see how awkward and ridiculous it is.

Other early traditions identify the disciple who Jesus loved as Mary Mag. There is some evidence within the synoptics that this relationship has been edited out reidentifying his loved one as a male and his marriage feast as for another couple. It has been proposed that the last supper scene went more like this:

21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and
testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you
shall betray me.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
23 Now Jesus was leaning on the bosom one of his disciples, the one
whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon therefore beckoned to her, that she should ask who it
should be of whom he spake.
25 Jesus' lying on her breast she whispered unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered Mary, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I
have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Simon
Peter, the son of John.
***

The scene now makes perfect sense. Jesus is lying on Mary's breast,
possibly with eyes closed, so he does not see Simon gesturing to Mary, wispering to her
to ask him about the betrayal.

Some have because of other awkward sections suggested that Peter was the betrayer. Judas Ischariot appears to be a character pulled into the betrayal role from some separate zealot story, perhaps by proto-orthodox editors interested in elevating Peter as their founder. But that is another topic.

seattleniceguy

Peacefulpete, that is fascinating! I must say that your posts are incredibly interesting to me. I have no real interest in doctrinal matters anymore, but the mechanics of text manipulation and the politics that caused it are very interesting! Please continue to post these articles!

SNG

Tyre

So peacefullpete, if you like Breast, then I give you the other breast, in Luke 18:13, Joh 21:20, Luke 23:48, Rev 15:6

it shows that John altered his position at table, in order to ask the question which Peter suggested, which he probably did by whispering to our Lord; for, from Joh 13: 28, we may learn that the other disciples had not heard what John said; and it is likely that the following words - It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it, were whispered back by Christ to John.

G4738

στῆθος

stēthos

stay'-thos

From G2476 (as standing prominently); the (entire external) bosom, that is, chest: - breast.

LittleToe

Tyre:
The only scripture that you produce which has relevance to this assertion is surely John.21.

Pete:
Strangely enough I was only considering this, just last week. I think it's potentially a valid hypothesis.

I'm only aware of John 21:24 being used to refute it, and there tenuously.

The synoptic Gospels allude to "the twelve" being present with him at the "Last Supper", but I don't believe that need be exclusive as it wouldn't disallow others being around to serve them the food.

This wouldn't be inconsistent with the idea of women being rarely mentioned

peacefulpete

John 21 is generally recognized as an appendage to John by an editor, perhaps the one who reworked the dinner scene and wedding.. Read 20:30-31. for the original ending.

LittleToe

Pete:
That makes a lot of sense.
On that subject (though not wanting to throw the thread off-track, for more than a momentary digression) what do you make of John 21:14?

confusedjw

Pete:

Other early traditions identify the disciple who Jesus loved as Mary Mag. There is some evidence within the synoptics that this relationship has been edited out reidentifying his loved one as a male and his marriage feast as for another couple. It has been proposed that the last supper scene went more like this:

Any references to share?

peacefulpete

LT...21 as a whole if read as an appendage is addresssing then issues like the legend that Peter was never to die before the return of Jesus. (something of a problem after a hundred years or so). Also the assighning Peter to a dominant role is expressly laid out. The 153 fishes story is gematria and reflects later Christian numerology(I've commented on this before). The real insistant identification of John as the disciple who Jesus loved , even recalling the specific dinner scene we were discussing, is rather telling. The editor/author of those words was making damn sure that Mary was out to the picture. The fact that out of all the stories in G.John he alludes to the very dinner story that appears altered cements my opinion that the editor of 21 was the same hand as that of the dinner scene.

Vs. 14 says Jesus appeared 3 times before ascending. This is a literary device to attatch the 2 appearances in the new ending with the one mentioned in 20. It also of course contradicts the 40 days legend in Acts, and the late tradition that he appeared to hundreds of people.

I'm atr work and just pop in to check messages, so this comment could be expanded and improved upon. Perhaps Leolaia or Narkissos will do it for me.

Terry

Are we saying the event at the Last Supper is an actual, historical event?

Golly!

Terry

LittleToe

Terry:
No, we're claiming no such thing.
This is a thread about textual / higher criticism.

whose breast?

Share this