JOHN MARK,
AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WITH JESUS’ MOTHER
© A.A.M. van der Hoeven, The Netherlands, updated June 6, 2013, www.JesusKing.info
1. Introduction – the beloved disciple and evangelist, a priest called John ............................................................ 4
2. The Cenacle – in house of Mark ánd John ......................................................................................................... 5
3. The rich young ruler and the fleeing young man ............................................................................................... 8
3.1. Ruler (‘archōn’) ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Cenacle in the house of Nicodemus and John Mark .................................................................................... 10
Secret disciples ............................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2. Young man (‘neaniskos’) ......................................................................................................................... 13
Caught in fear .............................................................................................................................................. 17
4. John Mark an attendant (‘hypēretēs’)............................................................................................................... 18
4.1. Lower officer of the temple prison ........................................................................................................... 18
4.2. Sacristan of the temple synagogue ........................................................................................................... 24
4.3. Secretary of the Council of the Temple .................................................................................................... 24
“Ministers of the Word” (‘hypēretai tou Logou’) ........................................................................................ 29
5. John Mark Levitical – a priest (‘hiereus’) ....................................................................................................... 30
5.1. “A priest wearing the ‘petalon’” (Eusebius)............................................................................................. 31
5.2. The grave cloth given to “the servant of the priest” (Gospel of the Hebrews) ......................................... 31
John Mark’s temple ‘sindōn’ lost … ........................................................................................................... 32
… and bought by Joseph of Arimatea, and returned by Jesus..................................................................... 35
6. John Mark, author of the Gospel of John with Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus ............................................ 42
7. Not John of Zebedee ........................................................................................................................................ 46
7.1. Killed by the Jews .................................................................................................................................... 46
7.2. Finding the Cenacle .................................................................................................................................. 47
7.3. Before the Council ................................................................................................................................... 47
7.4. At Jesus’ tomb .......................................................................................................................................... 51
****************** Intermezzo: THE SHROUD OF TURIN ******************** ............. 54
8. Abrupt end and not-connecting resumption of the Gospel of Mark ................................................................. 61
9. Anonymous end and anonymous resumption of the Gospel of John - John the Elder ..................................... 61
10. Other candidates for the authorship ............................................................................................................... 65
11. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 69
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................ 69
Fig. 1. Jerusalem in the days of Jesus ................................................................................................................... 70
Fig. 2. John Mark “a follower of Peter” (Church Father Clement cited by Eusebius: 2,15,1-2) ........................... 17
Fig. 3. ‘Sindōn’ and toga ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Fig. 4. A possible configuration of Antonia, the Watch Gate and the temple prison ........................................... 71
Fig. 5. A sketch of the sanctuary of the temple, accessible through nine gates.................................................... 72
Fig. 6. “beloved disciple”: from John the Apostle via John the Elder to John Mark ............................................ 63
Table 1. Some charachteristics of the beloved disciple, John Mark, and John of Zebedee................................... 73
Table 2. Similarities between the beloved disciple, Nicodemus and the householder of the Cenacle .................. 13
Table 3. The anonymous disciple at the gate and Joseph of Arimatea .................................................................. 15
Table 4. Identities at arrest and grave ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 5. The Council of the Temple and the porch and prison of the Watch Gate ............................................... 21
2
Table 6. Ministers who delivered words (e.g. decrees and verdicts) in stead of prisoners.................................... 30
Table 7. Priest and Levitical.................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 8. Westcott’s concentric circles of proof ..................................................................................................... 44
Table 9. Phases in the development of the Gospel of John ................................................................................... 45
Table 10. John of Zebedee versus John Mark ....................................................................................................... 48
Table 11. Other candidates for the authorship ...................................................................................................... 67
3
SUMMARY
This article shows that the anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel, called the Gospel of John,
probably was John Mark, a young inhabitant of Jerusalem and, after Jesus’ resurrection,
member of the first church of Jerusalem and author of the Gospel of Mark. Characteristics of
the author of the Fourth Gospel, who is described and acts in it as “the disciple whom Jesus
loved” and who is described by the Early Church Fathers as “a priest [who] wore the
sacerdotal plate”, are compared to the characteristics of John Mark, known from the Acts of
the Apostles and Paul’s letters, and also to the characteristics of the anonymous rich young
ruler and of the anonymous fleeing young man, both known from Mark’s gospel as
approaching, but then leaving, the still mortal Jesus. This article also shows that the
traditional identification of the anonymous author with the apostle John, son of Zebedee, is
impossible.
The usual argument against John Mark as the beloved disciple and author of the Fourth
Gospel is that he was not an apostle following Jesus, so he could not have written about Jesus’
activities outside of Jerusalem. This article says that John Mark could have written about
these activities, if he had the co-operation of Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, who was also
his own ‘mother’ from the moment when Jesus, dying on the cross, recommended them to
each other as ‘mother’ and ‘son’, saying to them “Behold your son” and “Behold your
mother”. From that moment he even “took her to his own home”. Jesus’ mother, who is
anonymous in the Fourth Gospel, just like the author and beloved disciple himself is
anonymous in it, is a co-author of this gospel, and this also explains the literary and
theological difference between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John.
4
John Mark, author of the Gospel of John with Jesus’ mother
1. Introduction – the beloved disciple and evangelist, a priest called John
In the so-called Fourth Gospel, named the Gospel of John (which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to John), there is a disciple of Jesus, who is five times described as “the disciple,
whom Jesus (He) loved” (John 13,23 19,26 20,2 21,7.20), for instance in these verses,
describing what Jesus said from upon the cross:
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to
his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your
mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19,26-27;
Bible citations are from the Revised Standard Version (RSV), unless otherwise
indicated)
In the so-called “second ending” of this gospel (John, chapter 21), which was added to the
twenty chapters of the original, it is stated that the gospel was written by this “disciple whom
Jesus loved”:
“20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain
close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray
you?"
21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?
Follow me!"
23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet
Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain
until I come, what is that to you?"
24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written
these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be
written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be
written.” (John 21,20-25)
This second ending, which speaks of “we” (verse 24) and of “I” (verse 25), was seemingly not
written by the beloved disciple, but the original gospel is surely “his testimony”, and it ends
with the so-called “first ending”:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not
written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20,30-31)
The name of the beloved disciple is not mentioned in this gospel, but the oldest and only
testimonies about the name of the person that produced the gospel, are the testimony of the
so-called Muratorian Canon from ca. 170 CE,1 and the testimony of Irenaeus, a bishop from
Smyrna in Asia Minor, who both say that his name was John and that he was a disciple.
Irenaeus wrote in about 185 CE:
1
http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html#note4 ; more on this Canon is below in
one of the notes in chapter 9.
5
“Then John, disciple of the Lord, who also lay on his breast, himself published the
gospel, while he was staying at Ephesus in Asia” (Irenaeus: 3,1,1, cited in Eusebius:
5,8,4).
And another early testimony is that of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the time of Emperor
Septimius Severus, i.e. 145 to 211 CE, who stated that the beloved disciple was a priest,
wearing the high priestly crown plate (Eusebius: 3,31,3 5,24,2). So, the beloved disciple was a
John, but which one is not clear from the other, later, conflicting testimonies2, and also in our
times there is much discussion, with many publications, about the unknown author. The most
usual opinion is that the beloved disciple was the apostle John, son of Zebedee, who with his
brother James was called out of their fisherman’s boat by Jesus at the Lake of Galilee to
become his followers and later his apostles (Matt 4,21 10.2 John 21,2). But also John Mark, a
young inhabitant of Jerusalem and member of the first church and author of the Gospel of
Mark (Acts 12,12.25 13,5.13 15,37.39 2Tim 4,11 Col 4,10 Phm 24 1Pet 5,13) has been
mentioned as a possible candidate, by Wellhausen in 1908 CE, and by Sanders and Parker in
1960 (Sanders and Parker: 97-110).
The intention of this article is to make plausible the thesis that John Mark was indeed the
beloved disciple, who put the Fourth Gospel in writing at Ephesus in Asia Minor (today’s
Turkey), and that he did this with Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus.
At the end of this article is a table with a survey of most of the arguments of this article, in
which in the left column are characteristics of the author and beloved disciple, in the right
column characteristics of John Mark, and in the middle the arguments that link the
characteristics on its left and right. The Cenacle is a linking element with its own arguments
on the left and right (see table 1).
2. The Cenacle – in house of Mark ánd John
Important events, described in the New Testament, happened in a place where Jesus’
disciples were gathered: the Last Supper with Jesus in a “large upper room” in Jerusalem
(Mark 14,13-17), the appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples in “the house” where
“the doors were shut” (John 20,19.26), the continuing with one accord in prayer and
supplication in “the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and
Andrew, ...” and the other apostles (Acts 1,13-14).
̇
̇
̇
2
Traditions of Cyril of Jerusalem in 348 CE and the nun Aetheria in 385 CE ascertain
that these events all took place in the same upper room (now called the Cenacle,
because Jesus’ Last Supper took place here: cena is Latin for meal, diner).
A tradition exists of the pilgrim Theodosius in 530 CE, who tells that the upper room
was in the house of Mark, the evangelist: “From Golgotha it is 200 paces to holy
Sion, the mother of all churches; which Sion our Lord Christ founded with His
apostles. It was the house of S. Mark the Evangelist.”3 This was the headquarters of
the church in Jerusalem (Brownrigg: 175), “the house of Mary, the mother of John
whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12,12). See fig. 1 for a map of Jerusalem in
Jesus’ time.
That the Cenacle was in the house of John Mark, also complies with the fact that
both in the Cenacle and in the house of John Mark was restricted access: in the
Cenacle in the first period after Jesus’ crucifixion the doors were shut for fear of the
Jews (John 20,19.26), and, fourteen years later, in the house of John Mark the young
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date_and_authorship
Theodosius, On the Topography of the Holy Land 1,43-44,
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028534216/cu31924028534216_djvu.txt
3
6
̇
̇
woman who kept the door at night didn’t admit Simon Peter by herself, even though
she had already recognized his voice (Acts 12,12-16). Apparently one didn’t open
the door, unless one was sure it would not cause danger.
The householder of the house of the Cenacle is anonymous in all gospels, because
Jesus arranges the preparation of the Last Supper in the Cenacle in such a way that
none of the bystanders then, would know to whose house He would go4. The
householder of John Mark’s house is anonymous too, for in Acts 12,12 the house is
merely described as “the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was
Mark”; the name of the master of the house is not mentioned, and in Jesus’ times
“Mary” was the most popular name for a woman: 25% of all Hebrew women were
called Mary.5 “Mark” (Marcus) was the Roman name of this John, and may have
been given to him by the Romans, and probably was known to the “most excellent
Theophilus” in Rome to whom Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts (Lu 1,3 Ac 1,1) after
58 CE.
It is remarkable that Mark in his gospel states about Jesus in the night of the Last
Supper: “when it was evening he came with the twelve” (Mark 14,17) – instead of
‘he went with the twelve.’ Mark thus betrays that his view-point lay inside the
Cenacle and not with the twelve apostles.
Not only do indications exist that the Cenacle was in the house of John Mark, but also that it
was in the house of the beloved disciple:
̇
̇
̇
̇
4
In 658 CE Bishop Arculf made a drawing of the church that has been built on the
place of the upper room, “showing in this one building, facing east, the cenacle or
supper-room on the south-east side (once within the house of St Mark) and the rock
of the dormition [of Mary] on the north-west side (once within the house of St John).
This accords exactly with the location of the cenacle and the dormition shrines
today” (Brownrigg: 169).
The beloved disciple was present at the Last Supper, enjoying the privilege of
leaning on Jesus’ bosom (John 13,23), probably because he was at home and one of
the hosts of Jesus and his apostles. “According to the Jewish custom, the host, or, in
his absence, … “his firstborn son sat to the right of the guest, his head leaning on the
latter’s chest””.6 Note that when the Gospels say that Jesus was there “with the
twelve” (Mt 26,20) and that “the apostles were with Him” (Lu 22,14), this doesn’t
necessarily mean He was there with only the twelve apostles.
Of Mary, Jesus’ mother, and the beloved disciple is said that at Jesus’ death on Good
Friday “from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (John 19,25-27), but
also that until Pentecost, i.e. fifty days later, she was in the Cenacle, for there the
apostles “with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus” (Acts 1,13-14).
A direct indication for the identification of the house of the beloved disciple with the
house of John Mark is the place where Simon Peter stayed. On Easter morning,
when it was still dark, he was in the house of the beloved disciple, for from there he
“came out” and ran towards the grave accompanied by the beloved disciple, and they
returned home together: “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home”
(John 20,1-4.10 AV). Later that same day, when Jesus appeared to his disciples, and
also during the nine days after Jesus’ ascension, when they continued with one
accord in prayer before Pentecost, Simon Peter was in the Cenacle (John 20,24 Acts
Mark 14,12-16
R. Reich, Caiaphas name inscribed on bone boxes, Biblical Archeology Review 18/5 (1992)
38-44
6
Cazelles, Johannes p. 480, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, p. 225
5
7
1,13). And much later, in the night when an angel had helped Simon Peter escape
from prison, but his guards hadn’t noticed anything yet, Simon Peter, when this had
become clear to him, went to the house of John Mark, where many were in prayer
for him:
“10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to
the iron gate leading into the city. It opened to them of its own accord,
and they went out and passed on through one street; and immediately
the angel left him.
11 And Peter came to himself, and said, "Now I am sure that the Lord
has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all
that the Jewish people were expecting."
12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of
John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together
and were praying.” Acts 12,10-12
Simon Peter understood that at this moment he was still able to go to his own place of
abode, because he wasn’t searched for by Herod’s soldiers yet. If he wanted to show
himself to the people in this house as a free man, and if he wanted to take some
personal things with him on his flight, he would have to do it now, for as soon as his
escape would be discovered, he would be searched for here immediately. That the
young woman who kept the door recognizes his voice also indicates that he was a well
known person here. Peter lets his escape also be reported to “James and to the
brethren” (Acts 12,17), who apparently were not in the house, probably because they
were, as usual, in the temple and in their own homes (cf. Acts 21,18)7. After this, Peter
leaves for another place. Only in the early morning Herod’s soldiers discover his
escape (Acts 12,1-12.18).
Soon after Simon Peter had fled from Jerusalem to some unrecorded places, one of
which is assumed to be Antioch in Syria because of the traditional liturgical feast of
St. Peter’s Chair in Antioch on February 22, John Mark went to Antioch and from
there to Perga. But from Perga he suddenly returned to Jerusalem (Acts 12,25
13,5.13). The explanation could be that he followed Simon Peter, his guest
inhabitant of the Cenacle, to where he had fled, Antioch and Perga, and that there it
became clear that Simon Peter would not return to Jerusalem for the time being, but
would travel on.8 Therefore John Mark may have been sent back to Jerusalem to his
home, the Cenacle, by the undercover Simon Peter (possibly “Simeon who was
called Niger” in Antioch (Acts 13,1)), and perhaps urged by Simon Peter and/or
other apostles and Jerusalem disciples, orally or by letter, to put in writing in Koine
Greek, for the whole world, in the Gospel according to Mark, the still vivid
memories of himself and those of the rest of the Cenacle’s inhabitants of Simon
Peter’s narratives and teachings about Jesus. Tradition, in the voices of Irenaeus,
Papias and Clement, says that Mark was “a follower of Peter”, and that “he
accompanied Peter” and that he wrote down Peter’s teachings in the Gospel of Mark
“after their departure [of Peter and Paul]” – i.e. after Peter and Paul had departed
from “among the Hebrews” –, and that Peter was still alive then.9 Eusebius says
7
This James was James the Just, “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1,19). The thesis of their being in
the temple is elaborated in my article “James and the brothers”, www.JesusKing.info.
8
This travel was later interrupted by an unforeseen short return to Jerusalem for the Apostolic
Council in c. 49 CE.
9
“Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were
preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure [from among the Hebrews], Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Irenaeus: 3.1.1.
8
Mark proclaimed his own gospel in Alexandria (from about 54 – 62 CE),10 so before
the death of Simon Peter in Rome in 64 CE.
All these indications for the identity of the house of the beloved disciple and the house of
John Mark, are also indications for the identity of the beloved disciple and John Mark
himself.
3. The rich young ruler and the fleeing young man
It’s generally accepted that John Mark, twice taken on a journey by and having a close
relationship with Barnabas, mentioned in the Acts, was the same as the evangelist Mark, the
nephew of Barnabas (Col 4,10 Acts 12,12.25 15,37)11.
“And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their
mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.” Acts 12,25
“And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.” Acts 15,37
“Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas
(concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, receive him)”
Col 4,10
Of the evangelist Mark is also generally accepted, that he himself was the person, who, as the
rich young ruler, asked Jesus about eternal life and who was looked at and loved by Jesus
(Mark 10,17-22)12. For this detail, of being looked at and loved, is only mentioned in the
cited by Eusebius: 5,8,2-3). “And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote
down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or
deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied
Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative
of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For
of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
statements” (Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in 1st half of 2nd century, cited by Eusebius: 3,39,15).”
“6. … during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence … led Peter … to Rome … . He …
carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West,
proclaiming the light itself … 1. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers
[in Rome (West) or in the Jerusalem he had just left (East)] that they were not satisfied with hearing once only,
and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they
besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written
monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had
prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done
[so Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark in Rome, and Peter was still alive then], was pleased with the zeal of
the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.
Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis
named Papias” (Eusebius: 2,14,6 - 2,15,2). Justin Martyr (100-169 CE) quotes from the Gospel of Mark as being
“the memoirs of Peter” (Justin Martyr: Dialogue 106.3) and Peter's speech in Acts 10,34-40 serves as a good
summary of the Gospel of Mark. Also Tertullian (ca. 160-235 CE) (Adversus Marcionem IV,5) and Origen (ca.
185-254 CE) (cited by Eusebius: 6,26) confirm the tradition. That Papias says that Mark neither heard nor
followed Jesus complies with his sadly leaving Jesus, as the rich young ruler, and with his secret discipleship,
which apparently was not betrayed by the apostles, who saw him at Jesus’ breast at home, in the Cenacle. This
secret discipleship is discussed in the next chapters.
10
Eusebius: 2,16 2,24 3,14
www.theologywebsite.com/nt/mark.shtml
12
www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20010601-347.html
11
9
Gospel of Mark and not in the corresponding pericopes (= gospel paragraphs) in Luke and
Matthew, and therefore it is supposed that John Mark was himself this young man:
“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and
asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" …” (Mark 10,17)
(“And a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life? …” (Luke 18,18))
“And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do
not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’" And he said to
him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." Then Jesus, looking at him,
loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the
cross, and follow Me." But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he
had great possessions.” (Mark 10,18-22 NKJV)
(“When the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful; for he had great
possessions.” (Matt 19,22))
The similarities between the rich young ruler and the beloved disciple are the following:
̇
̇
̇
̇
̇
The rich young ruler was loved by Jesus (the verb used for ‘love’ in Mark 10,21 is
‘agapō’; NA27) and also the beloved disciple was loved by Jesus (four times ‘agapō’
(John 13,23 19,26 21,7.20) and once ‘phileō’ (John 20,2 NA27))13.
The rich young ruler came running to Jesus (detail only in Mark); the beloved disciple
ran to Jesus’ open grave (detail only in John) (Mark 10,17 John 20,3-5).
The rich young ruler was advised to follow Jesus and to take up the cross (detail only
in Mark 10,21 NKJV); the beloved disciple stood by the cross of Jesus (detail only in
John 19,25-27).
The rich young ruler asked Jesus how “to inherit eternal life” (Mark 10,17); the
beloved disciple wrote the gospel of the “eternal life”: in it John literally used the
expression “eternal life” seventeen times (John 3,15.16.36 4,14.36 5,24.39
6,27.40.47.54.68 10,28 12,25.50 17,2.3); in the other gospels, beside in the rich young
ruler’s own question to Jesus (Matt 19,16 Mark 10,17.30 Luke 18,18), it is used only
once, when a certain expert in God’s Law, given to Moses, asks Jesus the same thing:
how to inherit eternal life (Luke 10,25). Furthermore, in John 14,6 Jesus Himself says:
“I am the way, the truth and the life”. In fact John wrote all the gospel of Jesus for his
readers to “have life in his name” (John 20,30-31), and this is his final gospel
statement. In his letter 1John he mentions “eternal life” six times (1John 1,2 2,25 3,15
5,11.13.20), and in 1John 1,2 and 5,20 he calls Jesus “the eternal life” in person.
The rich young ruler remains anonymous in the Gospel of Mark; the beloved disciple
remains anonymous in the Gospel of John, and also Jesus’ virgin mother remains
anonymous in this gospel.
From the pericopes of Luke and Matthew we know, that the “man” that ran up to Jesus (Mark
10,17), was not only rich, but also a “ruler” (‘archōn’ Luke 18,18) and a “young man”
(‘neaniskos’ Matt 19,20.22).
13
All Greek citations are from the 27th Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek basic text (oldest
manuscripts) of the New Testament.
10
3.1. Ruler (‘archōn’)
The rich young man is a “ruler” (Luke 18,18). The Greek word used is ‘archōn’, which means
‘a ruler, commander, chief, leader’, and which was an official title in the Jewish communities
(Schürer: II, 518). Nicodemus, a Pharisee only known from John’s gospel, was a “ruler” too
(‘archōn’ John 3,1), and the Talmud14 says that Nicodemus was very rich (Lightfoot: John
3,1), and this is confirmed by his ability to instantaneously bring “a mixture of myrrh and
aloes, about a hundred pounds” for Jesus’ burial15. The rich young ruler addresses Jesus with
‘Rabbi’ (in Greek ‘didaskalos’) = “Teacher”, like Nicodemus does.16 The rich young ruler
already believed in the existence of eternal life even before he spoke to Jesus and therefore he
could have belonged to the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection of the dead.17 In this he
again resembles Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee. Furthermore, Jesus had already spoken to
Nicodemus about the gift of eternal life and the rich young ruler asks Jesus how to “inherit”
this life (John 3,15-16 cf. John 17,2; Mark 10,17). Because of all of this, it is possible that the
rich young ruler was an heir of Nicodemus. When Jesus told the rich young man that he had
to observe the commandments (God’s Law given to Moses), he answered “Teacher, all these
have I observed from my youth”, which was probably due to his being brought up in the
house of Nicodemus, who was “the teacher of Israel”.18 Nicodemus was a disciple of Jesus
secretly – he “came to Jesus by night” (John 3,1-2) –, and many other rulers believed in Him:
“Nevertheless many even of the authorities (‘archontōn’ = rulers) believed in him, but
for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue.” John 12,42 (RSV).
Cenacle in the house of Nicodemus and John Mark
As already said, even Jesus arranges the preparation for his last Passover meal in such a way
that no one of the bystanders then, or of the readers of the gospel later, would know to whose
house Jesus would go for this Passover meal: the house of his secret disciples Nicodemus and
John Mark19. Also in Acts 12,12 the householder of the Cenacle is anonymous, for the house
is described as “the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark”, and in
Jesus’ times “Mary” was the most popular name for a woman: 25% of all Hebrew women
were called Mary.20 And the fact that the two disciples, sent out for the preparation of the
meal and ordered to say to the householder: “The Teacher says, Where is my guest room,
where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?” (Mark 14,14), had to follow an
anonymous man carrying a jar of water – in Biblical times only women carried water for their
homes –, makes one think of what the Talmud says about Nicodemus (who called Jesus
“Teacher” and thus would understand what was meant by “the Teacher says”21): that he was,
or felt, responsible for the provision of water for the people who came to Jerusalem for the
14
The first written compendium of Judaism's oral law and its discussion by the rabbi’s of 200500 CE.
15
John 19,39; a Roman pound was the equivalent of about 0,33 kilogram
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement#Mass_and_Coins), so Nicodemus
brought about 30 kilos of the extremely precious mixture.
16
Mark 10,20 John 3,2
17
Luke 18,18 Acts 23,8
18
Mark 10,20-21 John 3,10
19
Mark 14,12-16
20
R. Reich, Caiaphas name inscribed on bone boxes, Biblical Archeology Review 18/5 (1992)
38-44
21
John 3,2
11
feast in the temple, and that he even wanted to pay for the water he lent for that purpose.22
Jesus told Nicodemus in their first secret, nightly, conversation (John 3,1-21) that “unless one
is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” and that “The wind
blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or
whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit”23: in the Cenacle, at the Last
Supper, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples with water, symbolizing the forgiveness of their
sins through Jesus’ sacrificial ministry, and later He blew the Holy Spirit on them, thus giving
them the power to forgive other men’s sins in His name.24 And Nicodemus, when he visited
Jesus secretly at night “first”25, may have told Jesus, that Jesus could visit him secretly at
night too, and that he had a large guest room Jesus could use with his disciples in case He
would need it, e.g. when Jesus’ time had come26 to be “lifted up” (i.e. condemned and hung
on the cross) by the successors of Moses (John 3,14-15). After all, Jesus had told Nicodemus
that “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3,14-15), and He – who when
Passover was at hand “knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father”
(John 13,1) – lets his disciples tell the householder of the Cenacle: “The Teacher says, My
time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples”.27 And perhaps it is
not a coincidence that some ancient documents based on the work of the second century
author Tatian claim that Nicodemus had his private conversation with Jesus during his last
Passover in Jerusalem.28
(It is probable that Jesus in his discourse with Nicodemus, when referring to Moses lifting up the serpent, meant
that Nicodemus himself was to lift up the Son of Man, as Nicodemus was not only “a ruler of the Jews” and “the
teacher of Israel” (NKJV, ‘ho didaskalos tou israel’)29 and thus one of the “Pharisees [sitting] on Moses seat” of
whom Jesus said “practice and observe whatever they tell you”30, but, according to Acts 13,27-29, also one of
the “rulers” of Jerusalem who “fulfilled [the prophets] by condemning him”, and who “asked Pilate to have him
killed”, and “took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb”, for only Nicodemus assisted Joseph of
Arimatea at Jesus’ burial.31 Nicodemus may have consented in the condemnation of Jesus by the Great
Sanhedrin – of which he was a member as “a ruler” and “the teacher of Israel” – because Jesus Himself had let
him know “My time [to be lifted up] is at hand”. 32 The teacher Nicodemus had said to Jesus “we know that you
are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him”33, thus
indirectly asking Jesus whether He had come to take Nicodemus’ place as “the teacher of Israel” in the Great
22
John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica,
Matthew – 1Corinth, Hendrickson Publishers, reprinted from the 1859 edition, on John 3,1
(Taanith, fol. 20.I Avoth R. Nathan, c.7). The title of this priestly functionary was “digger of
wells” (Lightfoot on John 3,1).
23
John 3,5.8
24
John 13,5; “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20,22-23).
25
“Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh
and aloes” John 19,39, ‘prōton’ = first (of all); at first. So here it could mean that Nicodemus
came to Jesus (secretely at night) first, and that Jesus came to Nicodemus (secretely at night)
later: at the night of the Last Supper. It also may mean that Nicodemus in the beginning had
come to Jesus secretly, but now, at the burial, came to (the dead) Jesus openly.
26
John states twice that “no one arrested him [Jesus], because his hour had not yet come”
(John 7,30 and John 8,20).
27
Matt 26,18
28
Ricciotti: 319
29
John 3,1.10
30
Matt 23,2-3
31
John 19,38-42; Also Joseph of Arimatea was a member of the Great Sanhedrin, and thus a
ruler.
32
Matt 26,18
33
John 3,2
12
Sanhedrin, because Nicodemus himself could not do the signs that Jesus did. Jesus answers him by telling him
that Nicodemus “must be born anew”, “born of water and the Spirit”, but that the Son of man (=Jesus) Himself
“must … be lifted up” (to die on the cross) and was sent “not to condemn the world” (as a president/member of
the Great Sanhedrin could do), “but that the world might be saved through him” – He came “to give up his life as
a ransom for many”.34)
Secret disciples
A remarkable fact is that only John’s gospel mentions the existence of Nicodemus, and
reveals that he was a secret disciple, like Joseph of Arimatea was a secret disciple “for fear of
the Jews”, as John says (John 3,2 7,50 19,38-39). The fact that the doors of the Cenacle,
where the apostles stayed after Jesus’ crucifixion, were shut “for fear of the Jews”, again as
John says (John 20,19.26), may represent not (only) the apostles’ fear but (most of all)
Nicodemus’ fear that the apostles would be found in his upper room.
Also the beloved disciple, author of the Fourth Gospel, must have been a disciple of Jesus
secretly, for, when standing at Jesus’ cross, he is not interrogated or recognized as a disciple
by the high priests, scribes (experts in Holy Scripture) and elders, who were mocking Jesus on
the cross, nor by the soldiers there, of whom some probably were the same as the officers who
that night had arrested Jesus and had seen Simon Peter with Him in the garden Gethsemane,
and had interrogated Simon Peter – “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” John 18,26 –
and had recognized him as a disciple when he sat down with them by the fire in the high
priest’s courtyard.35
Of Nicodemus may also be deduced from the Talmud that at some point he lost his riches and
that his family was very impoverished36. The cause may have been that Nicodemus became a
public disciple of Jesus, and therefore was “put out of the synagogue” (John 12,42) and thus
out of his public function by the Jews. Also John Mark became a public disciple of Jesus
some time after Jesus’ resurrection, e.g. when he went to Antioch with Paul in about 44 CE
(Acts 12,25) (see table 2). From at least 54 CE he was the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt.37
And in the year 62 CE many rulers caused commotion by their apparent public belief in Jesus
as the Christ:
“But as many as believed did so on account of James.38 Therefore when many even of
the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees,
who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the
Christ” (Eusebius: 2,23,10).
34
John 3,3.5.7.14.17 – Mr 10,45
Matt 27,41-43 John 3,1-2 19,26.38-39; 18,15-27
36
Lightfoot on John 3,1 (Chetubb. fol. 66.2.)
37
Eus. 2,16 2,24 3,14,21 (for a time schedule see my article “The Elder and the Elect Lady –
Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”, www.JesusKing.info)
38
Again, this James is James the Just, “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1,19), and not the apostle
James of Zebedee.
35
13
John Mark
Nicodemus
is a very rich ruler
addresses Jesus with Teacher
is a very rich ruler of the Jews
addresses Jesus with Teacher
believed in eternal life, as he was a
Pharisee
asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life had heard that belief in Jesus gave
eternal life
(was taught and) had observed all the was the teacher of Israel: taught the
commandments from his youth
commandments to Israel
wore a ‘sindōn’ (see below)
wore a ‘sindōn’ (see below)
didn’t become a public disciple
was a secret disciple: he came to Jesus
immediately
by night
Master of the Cenacle
is told on behalf of Jesus: “The
Teacher (Jesus) says ...”
believed in eternal life
is loved by Jesus
was responsible for the water for the
festive pilgrims
was told he had to be born anew from
water and Spirit
was told that Jesus had to be lifted up
(when his time had come)
had his private conversation with Jesus
during his last Passover
brought more than 30 kilos of a precious
mixture of spices for Jesus’ burial
Jesus came to the Cenacle by night;
it had closed doors for fear of the
Jews.
is protected by Jesus, who
preserved his anonymity as host of
the Cenacle
an anonymous young man (and not
a woman!) carried water to the
Cenacle
in the Cenacle Jesus washed his
disciples’ feet with water, and later
blew the Holy Spirit on them
was told: “My time is at hand”
was the host of Jesus during his last
Passover
is an anonymous beneficiary of
Jesus in offering Him and his
disciples his Last Passover meal in
his house
became a public disciple
lost his riches
Table 2. Similarities between the beloved disciple, Nicodemus and the householder of the Cenacle
3.2. Young man (‘neaniskos’)
The rich young ruler was a “young man” (‘neaniskos’ Matt 19,20.22) and in the Gospel of
Mark is a detail, which is not in the other gospels, which is that a young man, who followed
Jesus when He was arrested and carried along to the high priests, is seized by the officers, the
servants of the high priests, but escapes by leaving his linen cloth in their hands and fleeing
naked:
“And there followed him a certain young man (‘neaniskos’), having a linen cloth
(‘sindōn’- pronounced ‘sindone’) cast about his naked body; and the young men
(‘neaniskoi’) laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”
(Mark 14,51-52 AV)
Mark is the only evangelist who mentions this incident, and tradition says that Mark himself
was this fleeing young man.39 But, as the rich young man (‘neaniskos’), Mark may also have
been one of the young men (‘neaniskoi’) who carried Jesus along. And when Jesus was
39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Jesus; This is also what 13th century Coptic
hagiography says (R. Allen, Mark 14,51-52 and Coptic Hagiography, Biblica Vol. 89 (2008)
265-268 http://www.bsw.org/?l=71891&a=Ani10pdf.html).
14
brought to the high priest, according to the Gospel of John, also Simon Peter and another,
anonymous, disciple followed Him, and this disciple is described as “known to the high
priest”.
“Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known
to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter
stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest,
went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.” John 18,1516 (RSV)
So, beside the possibility that Mark knew the flight incident because he was himself the
fleeing young man or one of the young men who took Jesus to the high priest, Mark also
could have heard the story about the naked fleeing young man from Simon Peter or from the
anonymous disciple known to the high priest and standing at the gate. Or he was himself this
anonymous disciple.
This disciple, described by John as “the other disciple, who was known to the high priest”
next to Simon Peter, is generally regarded as the same as the anonymous beloved disciple,
because the next time John describes an anonymous disciple he writes: “the disciple whom he
loved, standing near” (John 19,26) and “Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom
Jesus loved” (John 20,2). But the fact that the anonymous disciple known to the high priest
could just walk into the courtyard of the high priest along with the officers of the high priests
without being questioned, proves that the woman at the gate and the officers knew him as
someone known to the high priest, but were completely ignorant of his discipleship of Jesus.40
So, he probably was a secret disciple, which is confirmed by the fact that also the evangelist
doesn’t reveal this disciple’s identity to the readers of his gospel. The two properties of this
specific anonymous disciple – his being known to the high priest and his secret discipleship –
are the exact characteristics of “Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but
secretly, for fear of the Jews” (John 19,38) and who was “a respected member of the council”
(Mark 15,43). This “council” is the Great Sanhedrin, which was presided over by the high
priest,41 and which consisted of priests, scribes and elders. Joseph of Arimatea was a
crafsman, an artisan in stone, for he laid the dead body of Jesus “in his own new tomb, which
he had hewn in the rock” (Matt 27,60). So, he was not not a scribe or temple priest but, as a
member of the Great Sanhedrin, an elder. And thus he may have been one of the “elders” who
were present when Jesus was seized in Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, for there Jesus
spoke “to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against
him” (Lu 22,52). Joseph’s position of counsellor complies with the authority whereby he
overruled the door maid and let Simon Peter enter the high priest’s courtyard (John 18,15-16).
The fact that this anonymous secret disciple had the courage to let Simon Peter enter, also
complies with Joseph of Arimatea’s other courageous deeds: a) he “was a member of the
council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed”
concerning the elimination of Jesus (Luke 23,50-51) b) he “took courage and went to Pilate,
and asked for the body of Jesus” (Mark 15,43) c) he personally buried Jesus’ body “in his
own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the
tomb, and departed” (Matt 27,60) (see table 3).
40
The still unrecognized Simon Peter, on the other hand, had to stay outside at the gate:
unlike the disciple, known to the high priest, he was a stranger to the door maid and the
temple servants. Only after he had entered the high priest’s courtyard, and had joined the
servants who were sitting in the warmth and the light of the fire, Simon was interrogated and
recognized as a disciple of Jesus (Luke 22,54-56).
41
Either the high priest Annas or Caiphas. Caiphas certainly was the president of the Council
of the Temple (see paragraph 4.1.2. for its description), which formed a distinct block within
the Great Sanhedrin.
15
anonymous disciple at high priest’s gate
Joseph of Arimatea
is known to the high priest
is known to the high priest, as he was a
member of the Great Sanhedrin, presided
over by the high priest
was a secret disciple
was a secret disciple
is present at Jesus’ arrest
is an elder, and elders were present at Jesus’
arrest
overrules doormaid of high priest
is a ruler beside the high priest
is courageous:
is courageous:
- lets Simon Peter enter the high priest’s - had not consented in the council’s decision
courtyard
that Jesus had to die
- asked Pilate for Jesus’ dead body
- personally buried Jesus in his own grave,
just outside Jerusalem
Table 3. The anonymous disciple at the gate and Joseph of Arimatea
If the courageous deed, of allowing Simon Peter’s entry into the high priest’s courtyard by
using his own authority, had been performed by the evangelist, the beloved disciple, he
certainly would have written that it was the beloved disciple who did it. But he didn’t write
this, but he did, perhaps deliberately, allude to himself being “the other disciple, who was
known to the high priest” next to Simon Peter (John 18,16), by calling himself “the other
disciple, the one whom Jesus loved”, also next to Simon Peter, only a few paragraphs further
(John 20,2). This allusion was the nearest he could get to the courageous deeds of Joseph of
Arimatea. The positive deeds of his own, he could mention, were the lying at Jesus’ breast (at
home in secret) and the asking who would be Jesus’ traitor (only after Simon Peter had told
him to ask this), the standing at the foot of the cross (where also high priests, scribes and
elders like Joseph of Arimatea were present42), his telling Simon Peter that the man at the
shore of the Lake of Tiberias was the risen Jesus (without rushing to Jesus himself, but only
later following Simon Peter in the boat), and the attempt to follow the risen Jesus (only after
Simon Peter had started to follow Jesus).
So, the real identities of those present at Jesus’ arrest and at the cross probably were as
shown in the table below (see table 4). The fleeing young man was, as tradition says, John
Mark, the anonymous disciple at the gate, known to the high priest, was Joseph of Arimatea,
and the anonymous beloved disciple at the cross was John Mark. The apostle John of Zebedee
had fled Jesus at his arrest when “all foorsook Him, and fled” (Mark 14,50), and was hiding in
the Cenacle with “doors being shut” (John 20,19.26).
42
Matt 27,41-43
16
Table 4. Identities at arrest and grave
Another good reason – beside the argument from tradition and John’s (deliberately)
unclear and suggestive gospel recount – why it is probable that John Mark was the young man
who initially followed the band that had seized Jesus, and who was seized himself but fled
naked, is that this young man apparently had followed the captured Jesus with Simon Peter.
This is exactly what the beloved disciple did at least five other times, according to the Gospel
of John:
1) when “Peter … came out” and went to Jesus’ empty grave, he followed Peter, for he only
outran him later (John 20,3-4);
2) he entered the empty grave only after Simon had entered it (John 20,6-8);
3) when Simon Peter said he went fishing at the Sea of Tiberias (to be able to meet Jesus
there alone?), he and some others decided to go and accompany Simon Peter (John 21,3);
4) he went to Jesus at the shore of the lake only after Peter had gone to Him (John 21,1-7);
5) after Simon Peter had started to follow the risen Jesus, he too tried to follow Jesus (John
21,19-20).
And also in his identity of John Mark, he is known as “a follower of Peter” (Clement in
Eusebius 2,15,1-2), e.g. right after Simon Peter had fled from Jerusalem to Antioch, John
Mark went to Antioch too (Acts 12,17-25). (Beside the following of (Peter and) Jesus, also
the running (to Jesus) is a characteristic of all of John Mark’s three anonymous identities: as
the rich young ruler he ran to Jesus, kneeled and called Him “Teacher”, as the young man in
the linen cloth he ran from the officers, but possibly in the direction of the city, where Jesus
was going, and as the beloved disciple he ran to Jesus’ grave, wondering whether it was
totally empty or not. There are no other running male disciples in the gospels.)
The beloved disciple had followed Jesus and Simon Peter and the other apostles from the
Cenacle (his home, and in his home dress, only an expensive linen cloth = ‘sindōn’) to the
Mount of Olives, and from there he followed Jesus and Simon Peter to the olive-yard
Gethsemane on this Mount, and then he even must have secretly followed Jesus from where
He left Simon Peter, James ánd John of Zebedee, to the place a little further where He fell
down and prayed in solitude: Mark’s gospel (Mark 14,35-36.39) cites this private prayer of
17
Jesus! It is important to note that, when Jesus, afther his prayer in agony, returned to his
apostles Simon Peter, and James and John of Zebedee, He found them sleeping (Mark 14,3740), and this happened twice. So these apostles certainly weren’t the source of information for
the citation of Jesus’ prayer in the Gethsemane, but it probably was John Mark, who was used
to following Jesus secretly. This is another reason why it is probable that John Mark again
secretly followed Jesus and Simon Peter to see what would happen to Jesus after He had been
arrested. Here is a figure showing the sixteen times John Mark, in this or one of his three
anonymous identities, followed Jesus and Simon Peter:
Fig. 2. John Mark “a follower of Peter” (Church Father Clement cited by Eusebius: 2,15,1-2)
Caught in fear
When John Mark was caught by the ‘hypēretai’ (= temple officers, temple attendants) who
arrested Jesus (John 18,3.12 NA27), obviously because they thought that the young man
following them was a disciple of Jesus, he fled naked, obviously because he did not want to
be treated as a disciple of Jesus, now captured and bound. And it is also obvious that, as the
ruler John Mark, just like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus, was a well known and
respected person, he did not even want to be recognized by the ‘hypēretai’, for then they
would know or suspect he was a secret disciple of Jesus, since he hadn’t come to the Mount
18
of Olives with them, but most probably with Jesus. Nevertheless, after his flight he possibly
ran home naked, put on some cloths, ran to the high priest’s palace in Antonia - thus again
following Jesus and Simon Peter, who wanted “to see the end” (Matt 26,58) -, and stood there
beside Jesus, when the high priest Annas asked Him about “his disciples and his teaching”
(John 18,19). There Jesus pointed his finger to the ‘hypēretai’ standing by, who knew his
teaching from his discourses in the temple – He had said to them “Day after day I sat in the
temple teaching, and you did not seize me” (Matt 21,23 26,55) and “the officers (‘hypēretai’)
then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, "Why did you not bring
him?" The officers (‘hypēretai’) answered, "No man ever spoke like this man!"” (John 7,4546) –, and He said to Annas “behold, they know what I said” (John 18,19-22). Perhaps the
rich young ruler, the beloved disciple, the fleeing young man, felt he himself, as a (secret)
disciple, was, or would soon be, pointed at by Jesus, as someone who knew what He said,
and, as he had just narrowly escaped from being caught as a disciple, still felt he had to shake
off every suspicion, and therefore was the “one of the officers (‘hypēretai’) standing by” who
“struck Jesus with the palm of his hand” saying “Is that how you answer the high priest?”
(John 18,22). For John Mark was himself a ‘hypēretēs’, as Acts 13,5 tells us, and therefore
probably still caught in his fear to be recognized by the other (lower) ‘hypēretai’ standing by,
as the disciple that escaped them in the darkness of the Garden, and now also fearing to be
betrayed by Jesus to the high priest as one of his secret disciples.
But although only Annas, Jesus and the ‘hypēretai’ were present, John could not help
reporting this incident in the Fourth Gospel.
4. John Mark an attendant (‘hypēretēs’)
In this chapter some possibilities for the specification of the Jewish office of the “ruler” John
Mark will be explored.
4.1. Lower officer of the temple prison
The servants of the high priests, who took Jesus in, are described by Mark as just “young
men” (‘neaniskoi’ Mark 14,43.52). But the Gospel of John clarifies that these young men
were “‘hypēretai’ (plural of ‘hypēretēs’) of the high priests (plural) and Pharisees”, and
“‘hypēretai’ of the Jews” (John 18,3.12): they were the ‘hypēretai’ who once were charged to
arrest Jesus, when He was teaching in the temple, but who initially didn’t do this because they
heard and respected his teachings, and said “No man ever spoke like this man!” (John 7,1437.45-469). Later, nevertheless, they were the ‘hypēretai’ at the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane
(John 18,3.12), and the ‘hypēretai’ sitting in the high priest’s courtyard at night (Matt 26,58
Mark 14,54 John 18,18). After Jesus’ face had been slapped when Annas asked Him about his
disciples and doctrine (John 18,22), the ‘hypēretai’ struck and mocked Jesus in prison at night
(Mark 14,65 Matt 26,67-68), and the next day, at midday, the ‘hypēretai’ called out to Pilate
for Jesus’ crucifixion (John 19,6). These ‘hypēretai’ were under command of one or more
captains of the temple who kept order in the temple. In the New Testament there are captains
of the temple, also sitting in the high priest’s courtyard (Luke 22,52.55), the Captain of the
Temple with ‘hypēretai’ taking action in the temple, arresting disturbers (Acts 5,24.26 (4,1)),
and Judas conferring with the high priests and captains of the temple about how to betray
Jesus to them (Luke 22,4). So, the ‘hypēretai’ were servants of the temple, officers in public
service, who had to restore order when it had been violated.
Their barracks – the barracks of the temple prison – were part of the temple’s towerfortress Antonia, where also the barracks of the ordinary temple guard (which had to prevent
disorder and theft), the city guard, and the Roman guard were located (Josephus: War 5,5,8).
Antonia was the most secured place of the city and thus the best place to keep prisoners, and
19
its gate was called the “Watch Gate” (Madaule: 46, “Tor der Wache”), which is an equivalent
of “Prison Gate”, as in Ne 12,39 both names translate ‘shah-ar’ = gate, ‘mattara’ = a jail, as a
guard house (D.V. translation resp. AV translation). In Acts 5,18 the temple prison is called
“the public prison” (NIV), ‘in full view of all’ (‘dēmosia’ Acts 5,18 NA27 = public, in public
places, in full view of all), for the Watch Gate of the temple, opening onto the Tyropoeon
valley, in which the market place was located, was used by the citizens of Jerusalem to come
and go to the temple; thus the offenders of the temple order, who were kept in the public
prison in this gate, were subjected to the scorn and ridicule of all (see fig. 4). This is
illustrated by the fact that, when the apostles were imprisoned and beaten for preaching Jesus’
name in the temple, they were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for
the name” (Acts 5,17-42): their imprisonment and corporal punishment were visible to all
Jerusalem’s inhabitants.
[The temple prison in the first temple was in the “the upper Benjamin Gate of the house of the LORD”: this
was the northern temple gate in which Jeremiah was beaten and put in the stocks for a day and a night, after he
had prophecied in the temple (Jer 19,14 20,2-3). The Catholic Encyclopedia states that ‘Benjamin’ was “The
name of the northern gate of the Temple, where Jeremias was imprisoned (Jer.,xx,2; xxxviii,7,14), probably the
same as "watch-gate" (II Esdras, xii,38 [Ne 12,39]) and as the one spoken of in Jeremiah (viii, 3,5,16; ix,2)”. In
the second temple (of Nehemiah) the prison will have been in “the Prison Gate” (Neh 12,39 AV), which was also
in the northern temple/city wall and also called the “Watch Gate” (D.V. translation) and “Gate of the Guard”, the
third translation of ‘shah-ar’ ‘mattara’ (NASB, RSV, ASV, HNV). In Herod’s temple, which was the same as the
second temple, but extended into the northern direction, there was a “Watch Gate” as well (Madaule: 46, “Tor
der Wache”). This gate, which probably housed the prison just as in the times of Jeremiah and Nehemiah, was in
the northern part of the western wall of the Temple Mount at the foot of the fortress Antonia, in which the
ordinary temple guards were stationed as well. Here Simon Peter and John of Zebedee were being detained from
the evening to the next day and later all the apostles were detained here for part of the evening and night and
beaten the next day (Acts 4,3 5,18-19.25.40).]
That the high priest’s palace and courtyard, to which Jesus was brought, were part of the
temple fortress Antonia as well, and not in Caiphas’ private house in the upper city (see fig.
1), can be made plausible from Josephus’ description of Antonia – Josephus being a first
century historian – and from the number of high priests who have lived in the temple fortress,
and it can be proved from Simon Peter’s movements in the night when Jesus was arrested.
[Josephus describes Antonia as a building that looked like a fortress from the outside, but was like a palace
inside: “a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for
bathing, and broad spaces for camps” (Safrai: 984; Josephus: War 5,238-45). Historically several high priests
before Caiphas, and probably also after him, have lived in the temple and in the temple fortress (Hilkiah and
Jehoiada (2Kings 22,3-5 2Chron 22,11-12), Simon the Maccabean, and Hyrcanus, and “his sons and … their
sons after them”, e.g. Aristobulus I, and his widow queen Salome Alexandra, and Hyrcanus II (1Macc 13,52;
Josephus: Antiquities 18,4,3), and probably also Jesus ben Gamala in ± 64 CE (Josephus: Antiquities 20,9,4; this
Jesus’ wife Martha demanded that a carpet was laid before her feet when she went to (the sanctuary of) the
temple (Rops: 191)). Also Edersheim (ch. 4, p. 65) states that the high priest possessed a house in the temple.
And it is important to note that not only the prison’s ‘hypēretai’, but also the ordinary captains of the temple
were sitting in the high priest’s courtyard after Jesus had been brought in there (Luke 22,52-55). They even lit a
fire there, as if they were at home (Luke 22,52.55 John 18,18). So, the high priest’s courtyard apparently was
shared by and accessible to both the prison guards and the ordinary temple guards. And as the ‘hypēretai’ were
sitting “below” by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard in the night when they had taken in Jesus (Mark 14,66
John 18,18), the high priest’s palace may very well have been in one of the upper floors of Antonia. Moreover,
the chambers where the high priest and the standing Council of the Temple43 used to gather, were inside the
sanctuary, in the south western corner of the Court of the Priests, and were only accessible during day-time, and
then only by priests and Levites (Edersheim: ch. 4 and 2). So, these chambers could not be used when Jesus was
brought in. It is probable that in the night when the ‘hypēretai’ were sent to arrest Jesus on the Mount of Olives,
Annas and Caiphas were both waiting for Jesus’ arrival in Caiphas’ palace in Antonia, for then Matthew 26,57,
which says that the ‘hypēretai’ brought Jesus “to Caiphas” (i.e. to Caiphas’ palace in Antonia), does not
contradict John 18,13, which says Jesus was brought “to Annas first”, and then sent to Caiphas (John 18,24).
That the high priest’s palace and courtyard were not far from the prison and the barracks of the ‘hypēretai’ in the
western temple gate, the Watch Gate, and that they even were in the same building, is proved by Simon Peter’s
43
See paragraph 4.3. for its description.
20
movements in this night (see fig. 4 and table 5). Peter had entered the high priest’s courtyard through the porch
just like Jesus, and even after Jesus had been brought from Annas to Caiphas, Peter just needed to have walked
“out into the porch” to be able to see Jesus turn and look at him; only after that Peter “went out”. 44 This proves
that Annas and Caiphas saw Jesus in the same building. But when and where did Peter see Jesus turn and look at
him? Scripture says that Jesus turned and looked at Peter at the moment when Peter, while standing in the porch,
denied Jesus for the third time and the cock crew. For Peter to be able to see Jesus, one usually imagines Jesus
as, very coincidentally, being led across the high priest’s courtyard at that particular moment (to be brought to
the prison, in order to be ready for the examination by the Great Sanhedrin, which took place in the temple’s
court room the next morning). But at Peter’s third denial Jesus was not being led in the direction of the porch,
where Peter was, for Jesus had to turn to be able to look at Peter in the porch. This proves that Jesus still wasn’t
leaving the building and that also the prison thus was in the same building.45 So, the eye-contact in the usual
reconstruction described above, would have to have been even briefer and more coincidental, for right after Peter
denied Jesus, Jesus must not only have crossed Peter’s sight from the porch, but Peter must also have looked in
that direction (as if he knew Jesus was there), like also Jesus must have known that Peter was in the porch, to be
able to turn and look at him. All of this just seems too coincidental. The following reconstruction is a more
plausible explanation of Peter’s looking at Jesus: While Jesus is interrogated by Annas inside Caiphas’ palace in
Antonia, Peter is interrogated in the courtyard by one of the maids. After his first denial of Jesus Peter goes “out
into the porch”, the porch of the Watch Gate at the foot of Antonia. While Jesus is interrogated by Caiphas and
the Council of the Temple46, by this time assembled in Caiphas’ palace, Peter gets interrogated for the second
time as well, by another maid, and he denies Jesus again. But he keeps waiting in the porch, as he wanted “to see
the end”.47 “After an interval of about … an hour” another man interrogates Peter and after his third denial of
Jesus the cock crows for the second time, and then “the Lord turned and looked at Peter” (Luke 22,59-61): after
the Council of the Temple had condemned Jesus to death, He had been taken to and locked up in Antonia’s
“public prison”, which was in the same building and also ‘in full view of all’ in the Watch Gate, where Peter was
still waiting to see the end. So, here in the Watch Gate, after Peter and Jesus had already seen and recognized
each other, and after the cock crew, Peter saw how Jesus turned and looked at him from the prison, and he “went
out and wept bitterly” (Luke 22,62).48 Then the “men who held Jesus” – Mark 14,65 specifies they were
‘hypēretai’ – “mocked Him and beat Him” (Luke 22,63). This is something the ‘hypēretai’, as officers of the
public temple prison, would and could do in the temple prison.
In the upper city on the western hill of Jerusalem archaeologists found the so-called “house of Caiphas”, with
a store-house, treasury, palace, court of justice, guardroom and cells, complete sets of weights and measures,
used only by priests, and a huge stone door-lintel inscribed: 'This is Korban or offering'; “In the very centre of
the courtroom is the mouth of the bottle-necked prison, into which the condemned prisoner could be lowered
after trial” and also the other prisoners were in the gloom of the lower floor beneath the courtroom: “Descending
to a third level there is a complete guardroom, all round the walls of which are still the staples for the prisoners’
chains. On one side is a small window opening on to the bottle-necked condemned cell. Below this window, …,
is a block on which the guard stood to peer down into the gloom of the cell below him” (Brownrigg: 26). This
again proves that Jesus was in the public prison of Antonia, for if Jesus had been trialled by Caiphas in his
private house in the upper city, He would have been in a dark cell under the courtroom, and thus would not have
been visible to Simon Peter. And the temple’s ‘hypēretai’ certainly wouldn’t have lowered themselves into
Caiphas’ dark pit cell to mock and beat Jesus there.]
44
Mark 14,68//Matt 26,71 (AV); Luke 22,61; Matt 26,75//Luke 22,62
45
It is improbable that Jesus had already passed Peter in the porch (of Caiphas’ private house in the upper city)
and was leaving the building when He turned and looked at Peter when Peter denied Jesus, for then Peter would
have seen Jesus approaching the porch and would have understood that Jesus was being led out of the building,
and thus would have gone outside, out of the porch, immediately, to be able to follow Jesus and the ‘hypēretai’
secretly when they were outside the building, leading Him to some other place. He would not have waited until
Jesus had passed him in the porch and have let a servant interrogate him about Jesus then.
46
This priestly council will be described in paragraph 4.3.
Matt 26,58
48
Matt 26,75 Luke 22,62
47
21
Table 5. The Council of the Temple and the porch and prison of the Watch Gate
John 18
Luke 22
Mark 14
Matt 26
conclusions
13 to Annas
54 into the high
priest’s house
53 to the
high priest
15 entered the
‘aule’ (courtyard)
of the high priest
55 in the middle
of the ‘aule’
54 into the
‘aule’ of
the high
priest
57 to Caiaphas the
high priest
(indicating the
place, not the man)
58 Peter into the
high priest’s ‘aule’
“to see the end”
17 maid
56-57 maid
69 Now Peter
was sitting
outside in the
‘aule’
69-70 maid
Annas and Caiaphas both
waited for Jesus in Caiphas’
house in Antonia and
Jesus went to Annas first
Peter into the ‘aule’ on the
ground level of the Antonia
tower and adjoining the Watch
Gate
first question and denial
71 Peter gone
out into the
porch
(‘puloon’)
Peter out of the ‘aule’ into the
porch (‘pro-aule’) of the Watch
Gate
(cock crowed)
24 Jesus to
Caiphas
25 they
26-27 servant
27 cock crowed
66 And as Peter
was below in the
‘aule’
66-68 one of the
maids
68 Peter went
out into the
porch (‘proaulion’)
(cock crowed)
59 the whole
council
55 the
whole
council
58 someone else
59 after an
interval of about
an hour
59-60 still
another
60 cock crowed
Annas sends Jesus to Caiphas
and the Council of the Temple
69-70 maid
70 after a little
while
71-72 maid
70-71 the
bystanders
72 second .. cock
crowed
73-74 they
65 the guards
(‘hypēretai’)
received him
with blows
15,1 morning,
whole council
67-68 some
slapped him
74 cock
crowed
61 the Lord
turned and
looked at Peter
28 from Caiaphas
to the praetorium,
early, 29 Pilate
63-65 the men
who were
holding Jesus …,
beat him
66
day, the elders of
the people
23,1 before
Pilate
15,1 to Pilate
27,1 morning,
elders of the
people
27,2 to Pilate
second question and denial
When the meeting of the
Council of the Temple had
ended
third question and denial
cock crowed
(second time)
Jesus in public temple prison
(‘in view of all’)
in the Watch Gate, where Peter
was
the ‘hypēretai’ in the temple
prison in the Watch Gate
In the morning Jesus was led
before the Great Sanhedrin
To Pilate
And also Pilate probably had a (military) office in Antonia, as was the traditional opinion for
many centuries, for in this fortress also the Roman guard was stationed49, and the place where
Pilate condemned Jesus and washed his hands in front of the crowd resembles the place of the
temple (the ‘pterugion’) where some other authorities stood and/or spoke to the crowd.
[Razis: When Nicanor’s 500 Syrian soldiers set fire to the doors of the courtyard of the temple fortress, Razis,
“the father of the Jews” (2Macc 14,37), tried to kill himself by the sword in (his office in) the temple fortress,
and then ran up on the wall and threw himself down from this (temple) wall and fell on the ground, but survived
this fall.
“When the troops were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they
ordered that fire be brought and the doors burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword, …
But in the heat of the struggle he did not hit exactly, and the crowd was now rushing in through the
doors. He bravely ran up on the wall, and manfully threw himself down into the crowd. But as they
quickly drew back, a space opened and he fell in the middle of the empty space. Still alive and aflame
with anger, he rose …” (2Macc 14,37-46)
James the Just: He was thrown down from the ‘pterugion’ (= literally: a little wing, figuratively: any pointed
extremity, a battlement (New American Standard Greek lexicon)) of the temple by the priests who ran up to him,
when he spoke with authority to the crowd in and around the temple on the Feast of Passover, as the high priests
had asked him to do (addressing him: Oh, just one, to whom we all owe obedience). Also James survived this
fall (Eus: 2,23,10-12.14-16).
“Therefore stand on the battlement (‘pterugion’) of the temple that you may be clearly visible on high,
and that your words may be audible to all the people, for because of the Passover all the tribes, with the
Gentiles also, have come together.’ So the Scribes and Pharisees mentioned before made James stand on
the battlement (‘pterugion’) of the temple, and they cried out to him and said, ‘Oh, just one, to whom
49
Josephus: War 5,5,8 (234-245)
22
we all owe obedience, since the people are straying after Jesus who was crucified, tell us what is the
gate of Jesus?’ (Eusebius 2,23,11-12, translation of Lake: 173)
Jesus: The devil tempted Jesus to throw Himself down from the ‘pterugion’ of the temple and to survive this fall
(Matt 4,5 Lu 4,9) (to show his authority by the place where He stood, and to show his invincibility by surviving
the fall, like the most respected Raxis and James both did).
Paul:
“Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people; and when there was a great hush, he
spoke to them in the Hebrew language … (And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew
language, they were the more quiet)”.
Paul spoke from the top of the stairs that led from the Court of the Gentiles to Antonia, after “the tribune of the
cohort” (‘chiliarchos’ = the Roman military tribunal50) had rescued him from the crowd that had thrown him out
of the sanctuary and had tried to kill him in the Court of the Gentiles (Acts 21,40 22,2).
Before this happened, Paul “went in” to James (Acts 21,17-18). The manuscripts of this verse use the Greek verb
‘eiseimi’ (NA27) for “went in”, which indeed means: ‘to go in, enter’, but is used only four times in the New
Testament: three times in Acts of the Apostles and once in the epistle to the Hebrews.51 In these four cases it is
used solely for the entering of the inner courts of the temple. After the verses cited above (Paul “went in with us
to James”) the verb appears again six verses further: “Paul … the next day purifying himself with them entered
(a form of ‘eiseimi’) into the temple” (AV).52 The third case is about the lame man who, when he saw “Peter and
John about to go into the temple” asked for alms, and the fourth time it is about the priests who “went always
into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God” (AV).53 As the lame man sat at the Beautiful Gate,
which opened on the inner Court of the Women, and as the priests entered the “first tabernacle”, which in
Herod’s temple were the inner courts, the conclusion is that James and Paul will also have been in one of the
inner courts of the temple.54 This is confirmed by the following:
“Then Paul took the men (the men ‘under a vow’ = Nazarites), and the next day purifying himself with
them entered (a form of ‘eiseimi’) into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of
purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them”55
The office where this signifying of Nazarites had to be done was in the sanctuary, viz. in the inner Court of the
Women, in the chamber of the Nazarites (see fig. 5). So, here “the temple” means the sanctuary, as in the
following vicissitudes of Paul:
“When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple,
stirred up all the crowd, and laid hands on him, crying out, "… This is the man who … also brought
Greeks into the temple, and he has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the
Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. Then …
they seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were
trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort … He at once took soldiers and centurions,
and ran down to them; … and arrested him [Paul] … he ordered him to be brought into the barracks.
And when he [Paul] came to the steps, he was actually carried by the soldiers because of the violence of
the crowd; … As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, "May I say
something to you?" And he said, "Do you know Greek? … Paul replied, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in
Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; I beg you, let me speak to the people." And when he had given him
leave, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people; and when there was a great
hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language … .”56
Also here “the temple” must mean the sanctuary (i.e. the inner courts), for every Greek, and thus also
Trophimus, was allowed to enter the Court of the Gentiles (a Gentile = a not-Jew) but was forbidden on pain of
death to enter the sanctuary. So, Paul was dragged out of the sanctuary into the Court of the Gentiles, and the
Roman military tribunal took him from this public court to the steps leading to Antonia, where Paul spoke to the
crowd.
Pilate: He sat on his judgement seat on the sixth hour (= at midday) on the day of preparation of Passover on
‘Lithostrōtos’ (= Pavement, mosaic), in Hebrew ‘Gabbata’ (= ‘elevated’ or ‘platform’; the Syrian and Persian
versions read Gaphiphtha, which signifies a fence or enclosure, from the Aramaic ‘gab’ =
bulwarks/breastworks/battlement). Here he executed judgement on Jesus and washed his hands in front of the
crowd (which stood in the Court of the Gentiles of the temple and possibly in the Tyropoeon valley, see fig.4)
and here the words “Behold the Man!” (“Ecce Homo”) were spoken (Mt 27,19.24 John 19,13 John 19,5).
50
Online Bible Greek Lexicon 5506
Acts 3,3 21,18 21,26 Heb 9,6 (Strongs 1524); The other verb for ‘to enter’ (‘eiserchomai’)
is used 198 times in the N.T.
52
Acts 21,26 NA27
53
Acts 3,3 Heb 9,6 NA27
54
Acts 3,2; see fig. 3.
55
Acts 21,23-24.26
56
Acts 21,27-40
51
23
The place Gabbata, as can be deduced from the meanings of the names, probably was an elevated paved
platform, enclosed with a fence or battlement (cf. “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a
battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” De 22,8 AV),
and probably fit with a pointed extremity (the ‘pterugion’, also translated as ‘battlement’): a kind of pointed
fenced balcony, from where one could speak to and be seen by the crowds in the temple courts. It was probably
near the top of the stairs that led the priests who threw down James the Just, and the Roman tribunal who rescued
Paul, from the Court of the Gentiles to the top of the temple wall and to Gabbata. So the platform was, most
probably, on one of the upper floors of Antonia, at its south-eastern corner (see fig. 4). Concerning Gabbata it is
said that “For centuries it was thought that the imprisonment and trial of Jesus took place in the Antonia
fortress”57. Today some theories say that Gabbata was in the palace of Herod in the upper city (see fig. 1).58
These theories refer to Josephus, War 2,14,8:
“Now at this time Florus took up his quarters at the palace; and on the next day he had his tribunal set
before it, and sat upon it, when the high priests, and the men of power, and those of the greatest
eminence in the city, came all before that tribunal; upon which Florus commanded them to deliver up to
him those that had reproached him, …”.
But as the procurator Florus took up his quarters in Herod’s palace in 64/65 CE, and as this was well after the
years 30-33 CE of Jesus and Pilate, the procurator Pilate may still have had his quarters and tribunal in Antonia.
That Pilate and Jesus were in Antonia, facing the crowds in the temple courts, is confirmed by the fact that the
‘hypēretai’, whose working terrain was the temple59, were able to call out to Pilate for Jesus’ crucifixion at
midday (John 19,6).]
Now, suddenly, it is very significant that John Mark himself is not only a ‘neaniskos’, just as
the prison officers, but is also called a ‘hypēretēs’ in Acts 13,5:
“And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their
mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark. … And when they
were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and
they had also John to their minister (‘hypēretēs’).” Acts 12,25 13,5 (AV NA27)
The papyrologist and professor of early Christian history Carsten Peter Thiede said the
following about it:
"Mark was the helper or assistant of Barnabas and Paul. But this is not what the Greek
text says. It uses the word 'hypēretēs', which may indeed mean assistant or helper. But
Luke uses it to read thus: ‘They had with them John, the ‘hypēretēs'’. Hypēretēs is an
attribute given to Mark himself, in his own right, not in relation to Paul and Barnabas.
What then does it mean?"60
The Jews used the word ‘hypēretēs’ (literally ‘under-rower’) to signify an assistant, a helper,
in a public hierarchical ministry. As shown above, a lower officer of the temple prison was a
‘hypēretēs’61, but not every ‘hypēretēs’ was necessarily an officer of the temple prison. There
were other public offices in the temple, with the title ‘hypēretēs’ attached to them.
57
Harris: 147-148
e.g. Harris: 147-148, and a theory in the article of the Jewish Encyclopedia on Gabbatha
(www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=3&letter=G)
59
When they arrested Jesus on behalf of the Council of the Temple and the scribes and elders,
they were accompanied by a band of soldiers (‘speira’ John 18,3.12), probably because the
Mount of Olives did not belong to the ‘hypēretai’s proper working terrain.
60
Thiede: 50
61
Luke 22,52 Acts 5,26; Verreth: 125
58
24
4.2. Sacristan of the temple synagogue
Thiede explains the term ‘hypēretēs’ for John Mark in Acts 13,5 with the verse Luke 1,2, in
which is spoken of “ministers of the Word” (‘hypēretai tou logou’), and assumes that Mark
was considered a minister of the Word of God because he would already have put in writing
the Gospel of Mark. But maybe Mark, even before writing this gospel, had already been a
servant of the Word in his daily office: as a servant of the Word of God of the Old Testament.
Mark may have been a paid employee of one of the synagogues of the temple: a sacristan, as
there also was a sacristan (the Greek text says ‘hypēretēs’ NA27) in the synagogue of
Nazareth, who handed the book of Isaiah to Jesus and received it back (Luke 4,20), and as in
the Jewish settlements under king Antiochus III the Greek word ‘hypēretēs’ was the
equivalent of the Hebrew word ‘hazzan’, indicating the sacristan of a synagogue: ‘hazzanim’
were the paid employees of the community and synagogue, as religious functionaries out of
the Hebrew tribe of Levi62.
John Mark is mentioned as just one of Paul’s fellow travellers, when the departure of Paul and
Barnabas from Jerusalem is described63, but he is titled ‘hypēretēs’ at the very moment when
is described that Paul and Barnabas preached the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.
At this moment a ‘hypēretēs’ of the type with good knowledge of the books of the Bible and
the procedure in a synagogue – a sacristan – was very useful indeed64. If the ‘hypēretēs’ Mark
had the office of sacristan of the main temple synagogue – Jews used the Greek translation of
the Hebrew Bible, called the Septuagint, in worship and religious study until the second
century CE –, this would comply with his literary knowledge which allowed him to write the
Gospel of Mark (and John) in Greek: he would not have been an ordinary soldier of the
temple prison, who probably weren’t literate. Also the fact that the rich young man was a
ruler (‘archōn’), excludes that he was an ordinary soldier.
But his being a ruler also seems to exclude that he (still) was an ordinary sacristan. It is
possible that, after having been a paid sacristan, he became the ruler (‘archōn’) of one of the
temple synagogues, like Jairus was the ruler (‘archōn’) of a synagogue in Galilee65. But the
ruler of a synagogue, who ministered in this office gratis, would not have remained a paid
‘hypēretēs’ as well. And John Mark, as the young ruler, was both a ‘hypēretēs’ and a ruler,
and he was rich. So, John Mark probably had, or had been promoted to, still another function
with the title ‘hypēretēs’.
4.3. Secretary of the Council of the Temple
An indicative fact is that the anonymous evangelist knew the officers of the temple prison
very well, for he knows it was the officer Malchus, whose ear had been cut off by Simon
Peter and healed by Jesus in Gethsemane, and he even knows it was his right ear, and also
knows that it was Malchus’ relative who had seen Simon Peter in the garden of Gethsemane
and who interrogated him in the high priest’s courtyard66. And he is the only evangelist to
62
Josephus, Ant. 4,214 13,67; Epiphanius, Haer. 30,11; Safrai: 469-470. Levi was the name
of one of the twelve sons of Jacob (= Israel), son of Isaac, son of Abraham.
63
Acts 12,25
64
Acts 13,5; cf. 2Tim 4,11; Jesus made Paul his ‘hypēretēs’, and Paul called himself one of
the “ministers (‘hypēretai’) of Christ (‘christos’ = the anointed) and stewards of the mysteries
of God” (Acts 26,16 1Cor 4,1) (Likewise John Mark was a ‘hypēretēs’ of the anointed high
priest Caiphas).
65
“a ruler (‘archōn’) of the synagogue” Luke 8,41 NA27 ; John 18,10 Luke 20,50-51
66
John 18,10.26
25
write that ‘hypēretai’ of the high priests were in the band of soldiers that arrested Jesus, and
also among the persons calling out for his crucifixion67.
A possibility is that John Mark, for instance after having been the sacristan and/or ruler of a
temple synagogue – where on feast days the high priest and the representatives of the
Israelites gathered for the reading of the Torah68 – became a servant of the spoken and written
word of the high priest as the secretary (‘grammateus’ cf. LXX 2Sa 8,17 Neh 13,13) of the
Council of the Temple, which was presided over by the high priest. This standing council
consisted of ruling temple priests, such as treasurers, administrators and the like, and it
regulated in detail everything connected with the affairs and services of the sanctuary and it
was a court that rendered legal decisions affecting the priesthood; its members were also
called “the elders of the priests” and “the councillors”69. Maybe John Mark was also the
secretary of the Great Sanhedrin, which functioned as the court for criminal affairs and in
other instances as the court for religious and civil affairs. The Great Sanhedrin consisted of
priests, scribes (‘grammateus’ in the sense of biblical scholar70) and elders of the people, of
whom many were Pharisees; and the priestly Council of the Temple formed a distinctive
block within the Great Sanhedrin71. John Mark certainly was a man of letters, for he was able
to write the Gospel of Mark in Greek. And perhaps it is not mere coincidence that very near to
the Cenacle was the so-called “house of Caiphas” (see fig. 1).72
In Josephus’ description of how Moses gave the constitution of government to the assembled
people, is the following:
“Let there be seven men to judge in every city, and these such as have been
before most zealous in the exercise of virtue and righteousness. Let every judge
have two officers (‘hypēretai’) allotted him out of the tribe of Levi.” (Josephus:
Antiquities 4,8,14)73
Also the judge who is mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, had
a ‘hypēretēs’ as his officer.74 In local communities it was common for the tribunals to sit in
the synagogue and also public meetings could be held there75. In these cases the sacristan of
the synagogue was the secretary of the judges and of the community as well76. In the temple,
however, the Council of the Temple gathered in a courtroom in the Court of the Priests, which
was only accessible for priests and Levites, and the Great Sanhedrin gathered in the Hall of
Hewn Stones in the Court of the Israelites (see fig. 5), and thus not in the temple’s synagogue.
So, a temple sacristan could not easily have both functions. John Mark was most probably of
67
John 18,3 19,6
Safrai: 904-05
69
Mishnah Shekalim 5 and Tamid, Lightfoot: ch. 4, p. 70, Edersheim: ch. 4, p. 70, Safrai:
602, 874
70
The Online Bible Greek Lexicon 1122 gives these three meanings for ‘grammateus’ in the
Bible: 1) secretary 2) Scriptural scholar 3) religious teacher. Strong’s concordance 1122 gives
only the general meaning: ‘a writer, i.e. (professionally) scribe or secretary:— scribe, townclerk’.
71
Safrai: 602
72
The site of his house is reported by the famous “Pilgrim of Bordeaux”, who wrote the book
“Itinary” (“Itinerarium Burdigalense”) about his pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 333 CE (text:
www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/pilgr/bord/ 10Bord07bJerus.html; map of sites of Cenacle
and House of Caiphas: L. Grollenberg: map 4).
73
Safrai: 470, note 5: “two ‘uphre´tai of the tribe of Levi”
74
Matt 5,25 NA27
75
Safrai: 942-43
76
Safrai: 935-36.
68
26
a Levitical family and probably even a priest (see next paragraph), so he could enter the
courtroom of the Council of the Temple, and be its secretary.
Futhermore, as the evangelist of the Gospel of John, he was able to cite in his gospel the
very words that Caiphas spoke about Jesus in the meeting of the high priests and Pharisees:
that He would have to die for the people.
“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council […] But one of them,
Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you
do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people,
and that the whole nation should not perish."” John 11,47.49-50 (RSV)
This could mean that the evangelist was personally present when these words were spoken77.
Now it is important to note, that this plan of Caiphas must have leaked towards Jesus in some
way, because right after Caiphas had taken this decision, but still before the command was
given that anyone who knew Jesus’ place of abode had to betray this to the chief priests and
Pharisees, Jesus “therefore” – because of only this decision – already walked no more openly
among the Jews but went into a city called Ephraim78. The secretary of the council, as the
secret beloved disciple of Jesus, could have been the start of this information leak towards
Jesus.
This plot resembles and is pre-imaged by the spy work of Hushai (king David’s secret friend
at the court of king Absalom, where he was a counsellor), whose message to David made
David flee unto the desert.79
“And when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, came to Absalom, Hushai said to
Absalom, "Long live the king! Long live the king!" … Then Hushai said to Zadok and
Abiathar the priests, "Thus and thus did Ahithophel counsel Absalom and the elders of
Israel; and thus and thus have I counselled. Now therefore send quickly and tell David,
‘Do not lodge tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means pass over; lest
the king and all the people who are with him be swallowed up.’"” 2Sa 16,16 17,15-16
Absalom’s counsellor Ahithophel gave Absalom the advice to kill only the weary and
discouraged David, and none of the people with him, in order to let “all the people … be at
peace”, and this also resembles and pre-images how only Jesus, in his sorrow and agony, was
arrested on the Mount of Olives, to “die for the people” – as Caiphas said –, and how all his
disciples fled:
“Moreover Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Let me choose twelve thousand men, and I
will set out and pursue David tonight. I will come upon him while he is weary and
discouraged, and throw him into a panic; and all the people who are with him will flee.
I will strike down the king only, and I will bring all the people back to you as a bride
comes home to her husband. You seek the life of only one man, and all the people will
be at peace."” 2Sam 17,1-3
“And they went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples,
"Sit here, while I pray." And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to
be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful,
77
This first “council” (John 11,47 ‘sunedrion’ NA27) that was gathered by the chief priests
and Pharisees to discuss the case ‘Jesus’, was not the Council of the Temple, whose members
were all priests. But the Council of the Temple did form a distinct block in the Great
Sanhedrin (Safrai: 602).
78
John 11,53-57
79
2Sam 16,16-19 17,1-21
27
even to death; remain here, and watch." …. And … Judas came, one of the twelve, and
with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the
elders. … And they laid hands on him and seized him. … And they all forsook him,
and fled.” Mark 14,32-50
Note that the apostle Judas Iscariot went to deliver Jesus to the high priest precisely and
probably deliberately when John Mark was reclining at the breast of Jesus, and thus could not
warn Him (John 13,18-30). And the temple money was not kept by the secretary, but by other
high priests: the two ‘katholikin’ (chief treasurers) and the three ‘gizbarin’ (undertreasurers).80 Nevertheless, John Mark had heard from Caiphas that Jesus would die for the
people (John 11,51 18,14), and he may finally have agreed because Jesus had already said that
He had to be rejected by the high priests and be killed as fulfilment of the prophets (Luke 9,22
18,31-33), and that He had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10,54). At the
Last Supper Jesus said: “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him” and to Judas:
“What you are about to do, do quickly” (Mark 14,21 John 13,27). After the arrest, in the
nightly meeting at Caiphas’, “They all condemned him as worthy of death” (only Mark
14,64).
The text of the Gospel of Mark also describes the exact words and events of Jesus’ trial before
Caiphas and the Council of the Temple at night (“council” Matt 26,59 Mark 14,55), which for
this occasion had assembled in the palace of Caiphas and in which also “scribes”
(‘grammateis’: here having to mean ‘secretaries’) but no elders of the people were present,
and thus was not the Great Sanhedrin.81 So, the source of information for Mark’s text almost
must have been John Mark himself, as the secretary who had personally written down the
records of this nightly high priestly council. His being the secretary of Caiphas and the
Council of the Temple would explain very well how John Mark knew by name the ‘hypēretai’
of the temple prison, stationed in the courtyard of Caiphas’ palace and charged to take in
offenders of the temple order. Edersheim says about the Council of the Temple that “this
judicatory, which ordinarily did not busy itself with criminal questions, apparently took a
leading part in the condemnation of Jesus”.82 But it was legal to bring Jesus before the
Council of the Temple – which in certain cases acted as a court of justice with the power to
inflict corporal punishments (Acts 5,40 and Tosefta Menahot 13,21)83 and even the death
penalty84 –, because Jesus had violently removed the sellers of sacrificial oxen and sheep and
80
Edersheim: ch. 4, p. 70
Mark 14,53-65 Matt 26,57-68 (NA27); a scribe, in the sense of an expert in Holy Scripture,
could not be a member of the strictly priestly Council of the Temple, unless he was a (high)
priest too. Matt 26,57 does speak of “the elders”, but these are probably the elders of the
priests (as “the elders” in Acts 6,10-12 7,1), for only the next morning there are “elders of the
people” (Matt 27,1; cf. “elders of Israel” Acts 4,5-6.8 5,21.27-28 (AV)).
82
Edersheim: ch. 4, p. 70
83
“Woe is me because of the House of Boethus. Woe is me because of their staves. Woe is
me because of the house of Qadros. Woe is me because of their pen. Woe is me because of the
house of Elhanan. Woe is me because of their whispering. Woe is me because of the house of
Ismael ben Phiabi. For they are high priests, and their sons, treasurers, and their sons-in-law,
supervisors, and their servants come and beat us with staves” (Tosefta Menahot 13,21
Neusner: Tosefta 1467-1468). Boethus, Qadros, Elhanan, and Ismael ben Phiabi are the
names of high priests and their high priestly dynasties.
84
E.g. on Gentiles (= not-Jews) who entered the temple’s inner courts: “Quite lately, they
who have dug under the ruins of the Temple have discovered one of those tablets in the Court
of the Temple which warned Gentiles, on pain of death, not to advance farther into the
sanctuary. The tablet answers exactly to the description of Josephus, and its inscription is
almost literally as he gives it” (Edersheim: ch. 7, p. 106). “Thus was the first enclosure. In the
81
28
doves, and also the moneychangers, from the temple,85 and therefore, in the view of the high
priests, was an offender of the temple order and obstructer of the sacrificial service of the
sanctuary, which was regulated by the priests of the Council of the Temple.
If John Mark, who was both a ruler (‘archōn’) and a ‘hypēretēs’, was the secretary of the
high priest and the ruling Council of the Temple, his titles would be the same as those of the
secretary of the court of justice of the six supreme judges of Athens: both ‘archōn’ and
‘hypēretēs’.86 In the political organisation of Athens of the fifth century BCE a ‘hypēretēs’
was either 1) a secretary (‘grammateus’), 2) an under-secretary, 3) a herald of the magistrates
(such as judges) and political institutions, or 4) an actual ‘hypēretēs’: a lower officer, e.g. a
doorkeeper, hall guard, or executioner.87 As the officers of the Jerusalem temple prison had
the corresponding Athenian title (‘hypēretēs’), John Mark, as the secretary of the Council of
the Temple, may have had the two corresponding Athenian titles as well: both ‘hypēretēs’ and
‘archōn’. And, as already said, also for the Jews in general it was normal to call John Mark
‘hypēretēs’, just as every secretary of a judge, and to call him ruler (‘archōn’), just as every
member of the ruling Council of the Temple and every member of the Great Sanhedrin.
According to the Talmud, if an ordinary temple guard was found asleep at his post at night,
his clothes would be set on fire; this is literally alluded to by John in his Book of Revelation:
“Lo, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that
he may not go naked and be seen exposed!” (Rev 16,15)88
and according to John Lightfoot, the renowned hebraist and New Testament scholar, both the
Book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel “must have been written by one who had been at
one time an actor in [the Temple services] … it seems highly improbable that a book so full of
liturgical allusions as the Book of Revelation – and these, many of them, not to great or
important points, but to minutiae [= very small details] – could have been written by any other
than a priest, and one who had at one time been in actual service in the Temple itself, and thus
become so intimately conversant with its details, that they came to him naturally, as part of
the imagery he employed” (Lightfoot: 106-107).
Other references of John Mark to the temple service are his citing Jesus who said
midst of which, and not far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by a few steps: this was
encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner
to go in under pain of death” (Josephus: Antiquities 15,11,5). At day time Levites who served
as the assistants of the priests in the sacrificial service were forbidden, on pain of death, to
enter the Holy Place or to touch the altar (Rops: 458-59). “The laws of Levitical cleanness …
were most rigidly enforced upon worshippers and priests. If a leper, or any other who was
'defiled', had ventured into the sanctuary itself, or any priest officiated in a state of
'uncleanness,' he would, when discovered, be dragged out and killed, without form of process,
by 'the rebels’ beating.' Minor punishments were awarded to those guilty of smaller offences
of the same kind” (Edersheim: ch. 4, p. 61; Tosefta Menahot 13,21). And according to the
Talmud, if an ordinary temple guard was found asleep at his post at night, his clothes would
be set on fire (Lightfoot: 107) (M. Middoth I:2).
85
Matt 21,12 Mark 11,15 John 2,13-21
86
Verreth: 125 and 107
87
Ibid.
88
The “keeping his garments that he may not go naked and be seen exposed” (Rev 16,15)
may be something of which the author (John Mark) wished that it had happened to himself,
when he ran from the officers in Gethsemane, but which unfortunately did not happen to him:
he had to leave his garment and go naked.
29
“Watch therefore—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in
the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning— lest he come suddenly
and find you asleep” (Mark 13,35-36).
These were almost the same words as the ones used in the Talmud for the unexpected coming
of the superintendent of the priests, who would knock on the door of the priests’ dormitory to
call them to their daily duty: “And at what time does the superintendent come by? Not all the
times are the same. Sometimes he comes at cockcrow, or near then, earlier or later” (Neusner:
863). Another reference to the temple service is his citing Jesus who during the Last Supper
washed the feet of his disciples – who had already washed their hands at the start of the meal
– and said to them
“He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean
(‘katharos’) all over” (John 13,10 NA27).
This was the ritual rule for the temple priests, who were obliged to immerse their whole body
only once in the morning, and then only to wash their hands and feet every time they (re-)
entered the sanctuary, to be ritually clean (‘katharos’ means ritually clean in John 13,10 Rev
15,6 Ezr 6,20 Lev 24,6 2Ch 13,11 LXX) and thus fit to enter and perform their priestly duties
(Lightfoot: 112-113).
“Ministers of the Word” (‘hypēretai tou Logou’)
The Book of Revelations was written at the end of the first century by a John who knew and
was known to the seven churches in Asia Minor and who directed his admonitions to them
(Rev 1,1.4.11 2,1-3.22), and who has traditionally been regarded as the same as the author of
the Fourth Gospel and John’s letters 1John, 2John and 3John. A unique characteristic of the
books John, 1John and Revelation is that in them Jesus is called “the Word” (‘ho logos’) in
person (both in John 1,1.14 1Jn 1,1 5,7 and in Rev 19,13).
So, the evangelist John Mark, who called Jesus “the Word”, and who was a ‘hypēretēs’ (=
“minister” Acts 13,5), may have been the first of “the ministers of the word/Word”
(‘hypēretai tou logou’ as opposed to the ‘hypēretai’ of the prison), who “delivered” (‘paradidōmi’: also used as ‘to put in prison’, ‘to run in’89) “the things which have been
accomplished among us”:
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative [gospel] of the things which
have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from
the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word …” (Luke 1,1-2)
John Mark put in words and delivered to the church both the Gospel of Jesus according to
Mark and the Gospel of Jesus, who is “the Word”, according to John. The ‘hypēretēs’ of the
synagogue of Nazareth “delivered” (‘epi-didōmi’) the book of Isaiah to Jesus (Luke 4,17-20).
And a Pharisaic scribe, as a minister of the Word of God, delivered (‘para-didōmi’) decrees to
the Jewish people, to supplement the Word of God of the Bible (Mark 7,13). “And as they
[Paul and Barnabas] went through the cities, they delivered (‘para-didōmi’) unto them the
decrees to keep, that had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem”
(Acts 16,4 KJ21). Thus John Mark, the ‘hypēretēs’ – not of the prison but of the word of the
89
John Mark used it thus when he wrote that John the Baptist was “put in prison” in only one
word: a form of ‘para-didōmi’ (Mark 1,14 RSV) and when he wrote “… the chief priests …
bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered (a form of ‘para-didōmi’) him to Pilate. …
he [Pilate] knew that the chief priests had delivered (a form of ‘para-didōmi’) him for envy”
(Mark 15,1-10) (cf. Paul, “dragging off both men and women delivered (‘para-didōmi’) them
up to prison”; “binding and delivering to prison both men and women” (Acts 8,3 and 22,4)).
30
council –, may have written and delivered the decrees of the Council of the Temple and the
Great Sanhedrin to the priests and the people (see table 6).
‘hypēretēs’
of the
prison
delivered
(‘paradidōmi’)
‘hypēretēs’
of the
synagogue
“Pharisees and scribes”
(ministers of the Word of God)
delivered
(‘epididōmi’)
“making the Word of God of no
effect through your tradition
(‘paradosis’ from ‘paradidōmi’), which ye have
delivered (‘para-didōmi’)”
(Mark 7,13 KJ21)
‘hypēretēs’
John Mark
Paul and Barnabas
“Hypēretēs
(=Mark) of the
Word” (= ‘John’)
delivered
“delivered (‘paradidōmi’) unto them
the decrees to keep,
that had been
ordained by the
apostles and elders
... at Jerusalem”
(Acts 16,4 KJ21)
delivered
(‘para-didōmi’)
‘paradosis’ =
decrees of the
tradition, decree,
Council of the
decrees
public ordinance
Temple
Table 6. Ministers who delivered words (e.g. decrees and verdicts) in stead of prisoners
prisoners
Book of
Isaiah
Gospels of Jesus,
who is “the
Word”
In Athens a ‘hypēretēs’ was either a secretary or a herald of an institution.90 John Mark, as a
Christian ‘hypēretēs’, was a secretary of the Church, and Paul was made a secretary and a
herald of the mysteries of the Church by Jesus:
“But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to
make thee a minister (‘hypēretēs’, secretary/herald) and a witness (‘martus’, herald, cf.
Ac 1,8) both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee; (Ac 26,16)
“So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or
Cephas … all are yours; and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. Let a man so
account of us, as of the ministers (‘hypēretai’, secretary) of Christ, and stewards
(‘oikonomoi’ – managers/treasurers, in the administration) of the mysteries of God.
(1Co 4,1)
Paul didn’t want to take John Mark with him on his missionary journey (Ac 15,37-40), but
later did want the secretary John Mark to be with him in his house-prison in Rome, as he was
profitable to Paul for “the ministry” (‘diakonia’, also ‘administration’, Strong’s 1248):
“Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me
for the ministry.” (2Tim 4,11)
5. John Mark Levitical – a priest (‘hiereus’)
John Mark could have owed his riches and rulership in the temple hierarchy to a relationship
with an aristocratic family of priests. Mark’s uncle Barnabas was of the tribe of Levi91, the
tribe out of which the priests and Levites were taken. And also Nicodemus probably was a
relative. According to Lightfoot a certain story in the Talmud depicts Nicodemus as the priest
who was responsible for the provision of water for the pilgrims who came to the feast in the
temple of Jerusalem (Lightfoot: John 3,1)92. The prologue to the Gospel of Mark in the
Vulgate represents Mark as “Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the priestly office in Israel, a
Levite by race”.93
90
Verreth: 125 and 107
Acts 4,36 Col 4,10
92
Here Lightfoot cites the Talmud: Taanith, fol. 20.I Avoth R. Nathan, c. 7.
93
Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Mark, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm
91
31
5.1. “A priest wearing the ‘petalon’” (Eusebius)
And according to Eusebius, the beloved disciple John was/became (‘egenēthē’) a priest
(‘hiereus’) wearing/carrying (‘pephorekōs’ from ‘pherō’ = to carry) the ‘petalon’,94 which
word was used in the Septuagint – the 3rd to 1st century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible – for the golden crown plate of the high priest: Ex 28,36 29,6 39,30 Le 8,9 LXX). The
word has also (probably erroneously) been interpreted as the high priestly “breastplate”95,
which is sometimes called ‘ephod’ in the Bible.96
5.2. The grave cloth given to “the servant of the priest” (Gospel of the Hebrews)
The burial cloths, in which Joseph of Arimatea buried Jesus’ dead body, are called ‘othonia’
by John (19,40) and by the editor of the inserted verse Luke 24,12 (describing what Simon
Peter saw), and ‘sindōn’ by the three synoptics97. A ‘sindōn’ (a Greek word of uncertain,
perhaps foreign, origin) was an expensive fine linen cloth,98 and it is used in the New
Testament only for Jesus’ burial cloth (Mark 15,46) and for the garment that the fleeing
young man “wearing nothing but a linen garment (‘sindōn’)” left behind (Mark 14,51-52
NIV).
Joseph of Arimatea had buried Jesus’ body in “pure”, or “clean”, linen cloths (Mt 27,59). The
Greek word used here (‘katharos’) is not only ‘generally clean’, but also ‘ritually clean’,
‘Levitically clean’, as required for garments used in the temple: see the use of ‘katharos’ in
this sense by John in his referral to a temple priest’s ritual washing (John 13,10), and also in
John’s verse Rev 15,6 on the clothing of the angels who came out of the temple. Also in the
Greek Old Testament ‘katharos’ is used when referring to the purity of the temple (e.g. Ezr
6,20 Lev 24,6 2Ch 13,11 (LXX)).99 And all priests and Levites who worked in the sanctuary
of the temple had to wear linen, and wool was forbidden in the temple (Eze 44,17-18).
It is remarkable, that only for John Mark it was decisive to see that in Jesus’ open grave not
only the ‘othonia’ (windings) lay at the entrance, but also the cloth that had covered his face
(‘soudarion’ similar to the Aramaic ‘soudara’ = large veil or mantle, cf. Targum Ruth 3,15)
94
'hos egenēthē hiereus to petalon pephorekōs' (Eusebius: 5,24,2-3).
translation of Kirsopp Lake, Ecclesiastical History, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard
University Press 1926: “John, … who was a priest wearing the breastplate” (5,24,2)
96
Every priest serving in the temple wore a white linen garment, of which at least the breast
piece was called ‘ephod’ (Ex 28,31 1Sa 14,3 22,18; e.g. the young Samuel wore a linen
‘ephod’ in the sanctuary (1Sa 2,18 14,3)). The high priest wore a more costly woven ‘ephod’,
ornamented with a golden breast plate, engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel
and containing the Urim and Thummim, and in the Hebrew Bible the high priest’s breast
piece is often denoted by just the general term ‘ephod’ (1Samuel 21,9 23,9 30,7 Hosea 3,4).
97
‘othonia’ plural of ‘othonion’, (small) linen cloth, winding, bandage (Strong’s), NA27 John
19,40 20,5-7 Luke 24,12; ‘sindōn’, an expensive, fine linen cloth (Strong’s), NA27 Matt 27,59
Mark 15,46 Luke 23,53. Matthew, Mark and Luke are called synoptics (Greek for ‘togetherview’) because their three gospels have approximately the same view and describe the same
events of Jesus’ public life in the same way. John describes some similar but also some
altogether different events.
98
G.J.M. Bartelink, Grieks-Nederlands woordenboek (Greek-Dutch dictionary) (Utrecht/
Antwerpen 1958) 221
99
Former Professor of Religious Studies D. Fulbright states that “it is indisputable that
kaqaroj in Matthew 27:59 is a reference to Levitical purity” (“A Clean Cloth”- What Greek
Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus, 2005, p. 15-17,
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf).
95
32
lay inside the grave, neatly “wrapped up into one place” (Douay translation) or “rolled up in a
place by itself” (RSV), in Greek: ‘entetuligmenon eis hena topon’ (John 20,5-8 NA27). This
may mean ‘rolled up, without rolling it to the left or right but by keeping the roll in the
direction of one place’, just as a priest would roll up his long fine linen garment that is easily
creased by folding or careless rolling. The beloved disciple entered the tomb, and then “saw
(the roll) and believed” (that Jesus had risen) (John 20,8).
According to the 1st or 2nd century Gospel of the Hebrews, cited by Jerome in De Viris
Illustribus 2, Jesus’ “linen cloth” / “grave clothes” were given to “the servant of the priest” by
the risen Jesus100. Furthermore, according to Pfeiffer, professor of iconography and Christian
art history, a grave cloth may have been kept by Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, and John,
the evangelist,101 and, according to Van Haelst, a, or the, grave cloth was brought to Ephesus
by Mary102. According to the ancient authors Irenaeus, Polycrates and Eusebius, John and
Mary arrived together in Ephesus, where John wrote the Fourth Gospel.103 All this indicates
that the beloved disciple and evangelist was this “servant of the priest”: the Levitical temple
minister (‘hypēretēs’) and ruler (‘archōn’) John Mark, secretary of the high priest Caiphas.
John Mark’s temple ‘sindōn’ lost …
The reason why the beloved disciple “saw – the ‘sindōn’ – and believed” (John 20,8) may
have been that the ‘sindōn’ in which Jesus’ dead body was buried, was his own ‘sindōn’, his
own expensive linen garment, left in the hands of the ‘hypēretai’ when they nearly caught him
on or near the Mount of Olives, but now rolled up as a priest’s garment again.
The Hebrew word ‘ephod’, for a priest’s garment, is transliterated to Greek in the Septuagint
as ‘ephoud’ (1Sa 2,18), and translated as ‘stolē’ (2Sa 6,14 1Ch 15,27 a.o.), as ‘hierateius’ (=
priesthood, Hos 3,4), and as ‘epōmida’ (= garment attached to the shoulder104, Ex 28,4), but
never as ‘sindōn’. Lightfoot in his commentary on Mark 14,51-52105, says that the word Nwdys
= ‘sindōn’ was used in the Talmud (Menacoth fol. 40.I) for a Jewish linen upper-garment
(‘talith’ = cloak), (also) worn by boys and priests, especially in the summer in Jerusalem, and
that “with this garment they commonly covered their head when they prayed”. Lightfoot also
cites the Talmud: “the ‘talith’ whereby the boy covers his head, and a great part of himself”
and “the priests who veil themselves when they go up into the pulpit with a tyl+ = ‘talith’
which is not their own”, and also “Nicodemus went to a little oratory, and covered himself,
and prayed” and “Nicodemus goes to his oratory again, covers himself and prays”106.
So, John Mark may have worn an ‘ephod’ as under garment and, on certain occasions in
summer, a ‘talith’, a ‘sindōn’, as upper garment. And as John Mark, as the rich young ruler,
“had great possessions” (Mr 10,22), he may have owned quite a few of these ‘talith’s, in his
case probably resembling the long, rectangular, purple edged, togas of his Roman collegue
100
Jerome (in Latin: Hieronymus), De Viris Illustribus 2. “When the Lord had given the linen
cloth to the servant of the priest, He went to James and appeared to him …” (other translation:
“but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to
James” (www.studylight.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/jeromeandgennadius/view.cgi?file=npnf2-03-27.htm).
101
http://www.voltosanto.it/Inglese/paginadx1.php?c=2 (S. Sora, Treasures from Heaven:
Relics From Noah’s Ark to the Shroud of Turin (Hoboken 2005) p. 46)
102
Van Haelst: 28. The Shroud of Turin was and is an expensive, costly woven (twill
herringbone weave), rectangular 4,4 x 1,1 m, linen cloth, with a long seam near one of the
long edges (www.shroud.com/menu.htm).
103
Irenaeus designates this John as “John, the disciple of the Lord” (Eusebius 3,23), and
Polycrates designates him as “John, who leaned on the Lord's breast” (Eusebius 3,31).
104
G.J.M. Bartelink, Greek-Dutch Dictionary, Utrecht 1958, p. 107
105
Lightfoot: vol. 2 p. 458-460
106
Lightfoot on John 3,1 (vol. 3 p. 262), citing the Talmud: Taanith, fol. 20.I. Avoth R.
Nathan, c. 7.
33
secretaries of Pilate,107 but made of linen. (A toga was a white woollen rectangular Roman
upper-garment, a couple of meters long, which was wrapped around a man’s body, over a
tunic. The white toga of a Roman senator had a purple edging along one of the long edges to
distinguish him as a ruler.) In his temple office John Mark had to wear temple garments,
which had to be white linen (Ex 28,5-6 2Ch 5,12). But, as the young man who ran to Jesus
and said that he had observed all the commandments from his youth (Mark 10,20), he had
also fulfilled the commandment of Num 15,38:
“Say to the children of Israel that through all their generations they are to put on the
edges of their robes an ornament of twisted threads (‘tsiytsith’), and in every ornament
(‘tsiytsith’) a blue cord (‘pathiyl’ = cord, twisted thread).” Num 15,38 (Bible in Basic
English)
Here the expression “an ornament of twisted threads” translates just the one word ‘tsiytsith’,
which means (figuratively) ornament. But in the Septuagin t Num 15,38, the word ‘tsiytsith’
is translated as ‘kraspedon’ = hem, margin (Strong's 2899).108 So, the commandment of Nu
15,38 can be read as a prescription to put on every robe an ornamental margin with a blue
cord in it. Fulfilling this commandment for his all white linen temple garment, Mark probably
applied a margin to his cloak by making a long seam a few centimeters from one of its long
edges. Note that it was the custom of Pharisees to “enlarge the borders (‘kraspeda’) of their
garments” (Mt 23,5 KJ21). And even though the margin could not contain the purple wool of
a senator’s toga, it was comparable to the Roman purple edging and it distinguished him as a
Jewish ruler.109
The fact that the young man who followed the captured Jesus, had his ‘sindōn’ “cast about his
naked body” and could leave it behind and flee naked (Mark 14,51-52), indicates that this
‘sindōn’ certainly wasn’t an ‘ephod’, which had “joined” “shoulder pieces”110 and could not
as easily be put off, while running, as a ‘talith’ or toga. Lightfoot says that, as the ‘sindōn’
was usually worn as an outer garment, some think that the person who wore it in the night
when Jesus was captured had been roused from his bed.111 So it may certainly have been worn
by the beloved disciple, who, while lying in bed, or elsewhere at home, heard that Jesus had
come to the upper room of his house, and who then, with his (perhaps brand new) ‘sindōn’
cast about his naked body, rushed to Jesus and was allowed to lie down at Jesus’ breast, on
the bench where Jesus already lay amidst the benches of his apostles. “According to the
Jewish custom, the host, or, in his absence, … “his firstborn son sat to the right of the guest,
his head leaning on the latter’s chest””.112 And when Jesus and the Twelve went to the
Gethsemane, he followed them wearing only his ‘sindōn’. In the beginning of the
evening/night, when Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, it was not as cold yet as three long
prayers of Jesus – one of at least an hour (Mt 26,40) – later and after the effectuation of the
arrest, when it started to get cold: the prison officers, also the ones who had remained in their
107
“Following up on this motif, R.A. Veenker comments that in the ancient Near East, the
hem of the garment was closely identified with the person of the wearer. It was regarded as an
extension of the owner's personality and authority (Veenker, 1976. “Hem”. The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible (Supplementary Volume). Nashville: Abingdon, p.401.).” Albert R.
Dreisbach, Jr., The Shroud and Healing, 1999 (Revised) www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbch.pdf
108
109
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=38&t=LXX#comm/38
Only the high priest’s normal liturgical cloths had to be blue, purple and scarlet (Exod 28),
but when performing the prescribed rites of the Day of Atonement he too wore only white
garments (Safrai: 897).
110
Ex 28,6-7
111
Or that he was a sect member, e.g. of the sect of Banus – the sect joined by the first
century Jewish historian Josephus (Josephus, Life 2) – who macerated their bodies with
hunger and cold (Lightfoot: vol. 2, p. 458-460).
112
Cazelles, Johannes p. 480, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, p. 225
34
own court yard when their collegues were arresting Jesus, only decided to kindle a fire there
after Jesus had been brought in (Lu 22,55). And when John Mark left home, he probably
didn't expect Jesus to stay on the Mount of Olives that long: only Jesus knew He would get
arrested there (Mt 26,30-47). Now an upper room usually could be reached directly from the
street, without having to enter the house.113 So, when Jesus left the upper room directly to the
street, it was quite natural for John Mark to simply follow Jesus without re-entering the house.
The fact that only the young man wearing the ‘sindōn’ there, was caught by the temple
officers, and Simon Peter was not, indicates that the ‘sindōn’ probably was white and thus
more visible at night than the ordinary cloths of the fisherman Simon Peter. When the young
man fled naked, he wasn’t caught again, probably because he had become less visible when
leaving the white ‘sindōn’.
John Mark called his garment a ‘sindōn’ and not a toga, probably because a (Roman) toga
was invariably made of wool114, and his ‘toga’ was made of linen, because wool was not
allowed in the temple (Eze 44,17). And he could call it a ‘sindōn’, because it resembled a
linen ‘talith’, but was decorated with a seam. John Lightfoot (on Mark 14,51-52) also says,
that a ‘talith’ (a ‘sindōn’) usually also had the blue corded tassels (called ‘tsiytsith’) attached
to its corners, as prescribed by Num 15,38 for all upper garments, although there was a
discussion among the rabbis whether a linen garment could have the usually woollen tassels,
as this would go against the commandment not to wear garments made of two different kinds
of material (Lev 19,19 De 22,11); for this reason some rabbis loosened the woollen tassels
from their linen talith.115 In order to obey the commandments of Nu 15,38 (fringes/tassels)
and Ex 28,5-6 (white) for his temple garment, John Mark’s ‘sindōn’ probably had holes in the
corners of the margin to which a tassel could be fastened (for out-of-temple situations, such as
the House of Caiphas in the Upper City and perhaps also for Caiphas’ office palace in
Antonia) or loosened (for in-temple situations, especially for when inside the sanctuary of the
temple, where the Council of the Temple gathered in a courtroom in the Court of the Priests
and where the Great Sanhedrin gathered in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the Court of the
Israelites).116 Another possibility is that he had two blue cords hidden inside the ornamental
seam, at its two endings; then they would be present in the inside of the white garment, but
their color would not be visible. John Mark could wear his almost Roman upper garment,
because he didn’t have a liturgical function but only an administrative one, in which he must
have had frequent contact with his Roman, toga wearing, colleagues, the secretaries of the
Roman procurator Pilate stationed in Antonia, where Caiphas’ and John Mark’s office was
located as well. As John Mark had both a Hebrew name (Nnxwy = ‘Jochanan’) and a Roman,
Latin, name (Marcus), he may also have worn both a Hebrew linen priestly ‘ephod’, as an
under garment, and a unique Roman-Jewish linen toga-talith, as an upper garment (see fig.
3).117
113
S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), The Jewish People in the First
Century (Assen/Amsterdam 1976) p. 731
114
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toga
115
Lightfoot on Mark 14,51, vol. 2 p. 458-460
116
The commandment of De 22,12 “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of
your cloak with which you cover yourself” is not literally obeyed then, but as some rabbis
didn’t wear fringes on their ‘talith’ at all, only two fringes would be a good alternative. And
perhaps John Mark even made four fringes, to the four corners of the margin.
117
The measurements Donald Smith gives in Issue #46 of the Newsletter of the British
Society for the Turin Shroud for a tallit/himation are 118,4 cm by 444 cm
(http://www.shroud.com/bsts4610.htm at “Can you help”). And the Wikipedia article on Tallit
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallithim) reads, on the "Tallit gadol" (= big tallit): "Sizes of
tallitot vary, and are a matter of custom and preference. Some are large enough to cover the
whole body while others hang around the shoulders". A Roman toga was “a cloth of perhaps
twenty feet (6 metres) in length” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toga).
35
Fig. 3. ‘Sindōn’ and toga
… and bought by Joseph of Arimatea, and returned by Jesus
Mark had left his ‘sindōn’ in the hands of the ‘hypēretai’. Mark’s fellow secret disciple, the
elder Joseph of Arimatea, who was present when the soldiers set out for Jesus, and who
probably had seen that the escaping young man left his ‘sindōn’, and who entered the high
priest’s courtyard with the ‘hypēretai’, may have bought the ‘sindōn’ from these ‘hypēretai’
(see table 7).
On January 24, 2011, I read about the book of the renowned antiquities expert John N. Lupia,
The Ancient Jewish Shroud at Turin, Regina Caeli Press, 2010, and its cover says that “the
Shroud of Turin is an ancient linen tallit garment type worn by Essenes at Qumran before
A.D. 66” (http://www.reginacaelipress.com/home). This supports my thesis on John Mark’s
temple garment, in that the Essenes were originally orthodox temple priests, Levites and
Nethinim, who focussed on purity in the temple and therefore protested against its illegal
practices and its desacration and moved to Qumran. The white clothing of the Qumran
Essenes corresponded to the obligatory white linnen temple clothing (see my article The
Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info,
August 1, 2010). Besides, Joseph Caiphas probably had been a Qumran Essene, and lived in
the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem (see my articles With Child of the Holy Spirit – Joseph
willing to give her in marriage to his heir, www.JesusKing.info, March 23, 2009 and Jesus
and Isaac – Joseph Caiphas, www.JesusKing.info, July 7, 2009), and his secretary John Mark
lived in the house of the Cenacle, virtually next door to Caiphas (see my article John Mark –
Author of the Gospel of John with Jesus’ mother, www.JesusKing.info).
The Jewish Encyclopedia says on the Tallit: “The original ṭallit probably resembled the
"'abayah," or blanket, worn by the Bedouins for protection from sun and rain, and which has
black stripes at the ends. The finer ṭallit, very likely, was similar in quality to the Roman
pallium, and was worn only by distinguished men, rabbis, and scholars (B. B. 98a; Gen. R.
xxxvi.; Ex. R. xxvii.). The ṭallit of a "talmid ḥakam" extended to within a hand-breadth of the
length of the bottom of his undergarment (B. B. 57b). The ṭallit was sometimes worn partly
doubled, and sometimes with the ends thrown over the shoulders (Shab. 147a; Men. 41a).”
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=29&letter=T, see also the image
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/img_template.jsp?volume11/V11p677002.jpg&volume=volume11&im
gid=1901 )
36
Beloved disciple
John Mark
Priest
Wearing the ‘petalon’
or
‘ephod’ (linen undergarment)
(worn by priests in the temple)
Saw the ‘sindōn’ and believed
(and took it to Ephesus)
Levitical
Wearing a ‘sindōn’ (linen upper garment)
In temple only linen was allowed (Nicodemus
covered himself with a ‘sindōn’ and prayed)
Left his ‘sindōn’ in the hands of the
‘hypēretai’
(Jesus gave ‘sindōn’ to)
the servant of the priest
Was literate (wrote Gospel of
John in Greek)
Cites Caiphas
Realized that his lost ‘sindōn’, bought
from the ‘hypēretai’ by Joseph of
Arimatea, was rolled up by the risen
Jesus for him.
Is ‘hypēretēs’: temple attendant and assistant
of a judge, and ‘archōn’: ruler (as Nicodemus)
Was literate (wrote Gospel of Mark in Greek)
(Athenian ‘hypēretēs’+’archōn’ = the
secretary of the judges) So, he probably was
the secretary of Caiphas and the Council of
the Temple.
Table 7. Priest and Levitical
Garments were objects of value and thus merchandise, for the soldiers at Jesus’ cross
deliberately “divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each
should take” (Mark 15,24), and they said about Jesus’ tunic, which was “without seam118,
woven from top to bottom”: “"Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be"”
(John 19,23-24). The rich Joseph of Arimatea may have bought John Mark’s unique ‘sindōn’
from the ‘hypēretai’, because he needed it for Jesus’ burial as there was no time left to go and
by a new cloth in the city because the Sabbath (Saturday) was very near, on which no one was
allowed to work or even bury someone. And all the sellers of cloths would already have left
the market place for the same reason: they weren’t allowed to work, or even close their shops
and secure their merchandise, on the Sabbath. Still, Joseph bought a ‘sindōn’, after Jesus had
died and Joseph had received the burial permission from Pilate in Antonia, which he could
enter at the end of that afternoon just as freely as he had done the night before at the arrest of
Jesus, and where the ‘hypēretai’ still kept John Mark’s ‘sindōn’.119
In Jesus’ days, which is before the death of Rabbi Gamaliel II, who died in the beginning of
the second century CE, it was still the custom to bury a person in the garments he had worn in
life, so they didn’t have to be new:
“In Biblical times persons, especially of high rank, were arrayed at burial in the
garments, ornaments, and weapons which they had worn in life … To be buried
without garments was considered a disgrace … As a token of honor, it was customary
to cast the most costly garments and ornaments upon the bier of a dear relative or
friend … In fact, since funeral expenses became common extravagances and an object
of alarm to the relatives, R. Gamaliel II. set the example by the order he gave for his
own funeral, and thus introduced the custom of burying the dead in simple linen
garments (Ket. 8b; M. K. 27b).”120
The tractates on mourning, Shab. 23,5 and Sem. 1,2-3, of the Talmud don’t say that the burial
garments had to be new or even clean either.121 Jesus’ own cloths had been divided among the
118
“without seam” = ‘arragos’ = not sewn together: of a single piece = “without a join” (BBE)
The prison officers didn’t have a shop or stall on the market place, so they could have sold
the ‘sindōn’ to Joseph while they were standing in the court yard of the temple prison, or just
outside the porch of the temple prison, either on the side of the market place in the Tyropoeon
valley or on the side of the Court of the Gentiles, where one also could buy (‘agorazō’)
merchandise (Mr 15,46 Mt 21,12 NA27) (see fig. 4 and its description in paragraph 4,1.).
120
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B
121
www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0135.htm; www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t04/rab02.htm;
119
37
soldiers who had crucified Him and who were Romans, for over Jesus’ head “they put the
charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"” (Matt 27,35-37). The
high priests strongly protested against this title, written and even “put” their by Pilate (John
19,19), but Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written” (John 19,22). So, it certainly
weren’t the high priests’ hypēretai who put it there. After the crucifixion Jesus’ cloths were in
the hands of the ritually unclean Roman soldiers, and probably brought to the ritually unclean
Roman praetorium (cf. John 18,28). So, Jesus’ cloths were already defiled by the touch of the
Romans anyway. But John Mark’s temple sindōn was still very near Pilate’s praetorium, in
the ritually clean hands and barracks of the temple’s prison guards. This was a very
providential opportunity for Joseph to spare Jesus a disgraceful burial and to give Him the
burial even of a temple priest. Here must be stressed that none of the evangelists writes that
Joseph bought a new ‘sindōn’ (see Matt 27,59 Mr 15,46 Lu 23,53 John 19,40). It was only the
grave that was “new” (Mt 27,60 John 19,41), not the ‘sindōn’. Joseph did buy a “clean”
‘sindōn’ (Mt 27,5 ‘katharos’), which may mean, as already explained above, that he bought
the ritually clean ‘sindōn’ that had been lost by John Mark (and that may have been optically
clean too and worn only once for a few hours). It is significant now that (only) John says that
Jesus, who was considered to be the Christ – the “high priest” and “priest for ever” (Ps 110,4
Heb 5,6.10 6,20) – was buried “as is the burial custom of the Jews” (John 19,40):
“Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture
of myrrh (‘smurna’) and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight. They took the
body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices (‘aromata’), as is the
burial custom of the Jews.” John 19,39-40
Only John and Joseph of Arimathea knew that He was buried in a priest’s garment: John
Mark’s own ‘sindōn’. But Nicodemus also abode by the burial custom of the Jews by bringing
for Jesus Christ (= ‘Messiah’ = Anointed High Priest-King) an enormous amount of the most
costly spices, of which the myrrh could be used for the sanctifying anointment of the high
priest – cf. the ‘murou’ with which the anonymous woman of Mark 14,3 anointed Jesus’ head
–, and the myrrh and aloe wood also could be used for the incense sacrifice brought by the
chosen priest in the Holy Place of the sanctuary of the temple.122
Besides the secret of having lost his ‘sindōn’ another secret of John Mark may have been
that he gave Jesus a slap in the face before Annas. This act and the argument used by the
‘hypēretēs’ to justify his slapping Jesus – “Is that how you answer the high priest?” (John
18,22) – would not be expected or accepted from an ordinary lower prison officer, who
should only act to order123, but they comply very well with John Mark’s office of ruler and
secretary of the high priest(s), in which he was the daily witness of how all people, small and
great alike, addressed the high priest with great awe and reverence, and in which he himself
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t04/rab03.htm
122
anointment: “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweetsmelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two
hundred and fifty, and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of
olive oil a hin; and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer;
a holy anointing oil it shall be.” Ex 30,23-25; also see Ex 40,15 37,29 Le 8,12 1Jn 2,20 Online
Bible Greek Lexicon 5545 and New American Standard Greek Lexicon 4666; fumigation
sacrifice: Ex 30,34-38 Ps 45,8 141,2 Pr 7,17 Lu 1,9 Online Bible Greek Lexicon 250 and
Strong’s 07004 and 2370
123
When the ‘hypēretai’ were sent to arrest Jesus when He was preaching in the temple, they
didn’t even do this because they heard and respected Jesus’ teachings: “The officers
(‘hypēretai’) then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, "Why did
you not bring him?" The officers (‘hypēretai’) answered, "No man ever spoke like this man!"”
(John 7,14-37.45-46).
38
had to address these priests with all due respect every day. And although only Annas, Jesus,
and the ‘hypēretai’ were present when Jesus received his first slap in the face – the Council
of the Temple was only present when Jesus was led before Caiphas later that night,124 and the
other high priests, scribes and elders were only present in the morning, when Jesus was led
before the Great Sanhedrin125 –, the incident is reported in John’s gospel. This suggests the
presence of the evangelist himself at this incident.
A fact is that after this first slap in the face Jesus was beaten further by the other
‘hypēretai’.126 If one of their rulers had slapped Jesus before He even had been trialled, then
the lower officers felt they could freely beat Jesus too. When Jesus was in prison, ready for
the trial the next morning, the “men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; they
also blindfolded him and asked him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"” (Luke 22,63-65
AV). The officers of the temple prison asked Jesus to point out the one that struck Him, and in
this way took revenge on Him for pointing his finger to them in Annas’ room, as the ones
who had heard Him in the temple.127 And the cloth which they used for blindfolding Him,
literally “covering him up” (Darby-translation) (‘perikalupsantes’ Lu 22,64 NA27 = ‘cover all
around, i.e. entirely’, Strong’s 4028), may very well have been the ‘sindōn’ which they
perchance had gotten into their hands at Gethsemane and had brought to the prison, with
Jesus.
After Jesus’ trials and crucifixion Joseph of Arimatea used John Mark’s ‘sindōn’ for the
burying of Jesus’ dead body, and left it in his own, new and secured grave, where it was
expected to be destroyed by the decaying corps. (Somewhere between the burial and the
finding of the ‘sindōn’ in the empty grave, an image of Jesus’ beaten face and body may have
been formed on it, as can be seen on the Shroud of Turin.128) And somewhere between the
burial and the finding of the ‘sindōn’, which already by St. Ephrem has been identified with
the ‘soudarion’ (Aramaism for mantle) of John 20,7129, it was neatly rolled up and placed at a
124
Matt 26,59 Mark 14 55 John 18,24
Matt 27,1 Mark 15,1 Luke 22, 66
126
Mark 14,65 Luke 22,63-64
127
This again confirms that the ‘hypēretai’ (Mark 14,65) were officers of the temple prison.
128
The image of the face on the Shroud of Turin, according to pathologists, shows a black
eye, a broken nose and various other contusions of the face. The fact that the Turin Shroud
was washed after it had been woven, and has starch impurities, indicates that it may have been
a washed garment (facts A15 and A20 in “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body
Image Formation of the Turin Shroud”, Giulio Fanti et al., 3rd International Dallas
Conference, September 2005, www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf).
129
“St Ephrem is the first writer we know of to identify sindon and soudarion. From the
seventh century the Latin equivalent sudarium (and equivalents in all Romance languages,
Georgian and Armenian) is used to translate both shroud and smaller face cloths, including
Veronicas. In Syriac, Arabic and Aramaic, the vernacular of Palestine, equivalents of
sudarium designated a square cloth used as a skirt, wide mantle, or ample veil over the head
and enveloping the wearer. (Wuenschel cites Abbe Levesque's 'Le Suaire de Turin et
L'Evangile', Nouvelle Revue Apologetique 1 (1939) 228.) The Abbé thinks that John's
soudarion used in the burials of Lazarus and Christ should be interpreted in this Semitic
sense, since the fourth Gospel abounds in Aramaisms. In support he refers to the current
practice of the Druzes, ancient inhabitants of the Lebanon, who fold a shroud over the head
down to the feet and tie it with bands at neck, feet and hand levels. He equates the bands with
the keiriai of John 11:44, which kept Lazarus bound. He suggests that the othonia in the case
of Christ would include the keiriai and the soudarion which, if used in the Semitic sense,
would be the equivalent of the Synoptists' sindon. (Wuenschel (1) 50, 61, 82)” (M. Green,
Enshrouded in Silene, 1969, http://www.monlib.org.uk/papers/aj/aj1969green.htm)
125
39
certain place. As already said, it is remarkable, that only for John Mark it was decisive to see
that in Jesus’ open grave not only the ‘othonia’ (windings, linen cloths) lay at the entrance,
but also the cloth that had covered his face lay inside the grave, “not lying with the ‘othonia’”
but neatly “wrapped up into one place” (Douay translation) or “rolled up in a place by itself”
(RSV), in Greek: ‘entetuligmenon eis hena topon’ (John 20,5-8 NA27). This may mean ‘rolled
up, without rolling it to the left or right but by keeping the roll in the direction of one place’,
just as a priest would roll up his long fine linen garment that is easily creased by folding or
careless rolling. But it may also refer to the special place where the roll lay, namely on the
stone platform where Jesus had lain – or on the rock floor right under it –, at his head. This is
what the Mishnah and its commentary says about the priests who slept on stone
platforms/raised pavements of stone along the walls of the priests’ guard room in the temple:
“They did not sleep in the consecrated garments. But they spread them out, doubled
them over, and lay them down under their heads, and cover themselves with their
own clothes” (Tamid 1,1 J, translation by Neusner)
“The priests on watch did not sleep in the priestly garments. Instead, they folded
(
) them, placed them at their heads, and wore their own clothes.” (Mishneh
Torah by Maimonides)130
“There is no sign in Jewish habits till the fall of Jerusalem and even later, of the use of the
sudarium, a simple veil for covering the face, having been a regular custom. It would seem
rather that they were content to lay the shroud over the face and the front of the body. This
custom still exists in the East, and is to be found among the Druses and among the ancient
inhabitants of the country.” P. Barbet, A doctor at Calvary, France, 1950,
http://www.catholictradition.org/Passion/passion32a.htm)
“Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, "Le 'Soudarion' Johannique negatif de la gloire divine," in Lamberto
Coppini and Francesco Cavazzuti, eds., La Sindone, scienza e fede (Bologna: Editrice
CLUEB 1983) 75-89, argues that the word soudarion used by John 20:5-7) and its late Latin
variant used here (n. 31) may derive from soudara, a middle eastern word of the O.T. period
(Ruth 3:14), which indicated not a sweat cloth or chin-band but a large poncho of linen which
was placed over the head, which covered the entire body, and came down to the feet.” (D.
Scavone,
http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/about/acheiropoietos-jesus-images-inconstantinople-the-documentary-evidence/)
“the book of Ruth mentions her being asleep at the feet of Boaz, wrapped in a mantle. Rather
than using the Hebrew word mitpachat for mantle, the Targum pseudo- Jonathan uses the
Aramaic soudara (Ruth 3:15), into which Boaz put six measures of barley the following
morning. If the soudara were simply a handkerchief it would seem doubtful that it would be
able to hold such a quantity of barley.” (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for
Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.31-32, cited by S.E. Jones on
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/TSoT/stuc0806.html).
“Luke, who had previously used the word sindon before the Resurrection (Luke 23:53), refers
to the othonia found in the tomb after the Resurrection (Luke 24:12). The word othonia,
therefore, can refer to collective cloths of various sizes. Evidence to support this theory can
be found in a fourth century inventory made by a Roman government official who was
making his way from upper Egypt to Antioch around the year 320 A.D. Under the heading of
othonia he listed a number of linens, including four sindones and two types of handkerchiefs.
[Humber, T., "The Sacred Shroud," Pocket Books: NY, 1978, p.68]" (Guerrera, V., "The
Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.32-33, cited S.E.
Jones on http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/TSoT/stuc0806.html).
130
J. Neusner, The Mishnah – A New Translation, Yale 1988, p. 863; “The Chamber of the
Hearth was a large, domed structure, surrounded [on the inside] with projections of stone. The
elders of the priestly watch of that day slept there(24) with the keys to the Temple Courtyard
in their hands. The priests on watch did not sleep in the priestly garments.(28) Instead, they
40
Maimonides says that they did not lay the clothes under their heads and use them as pillows,
for they were not allowed to derive benefit from the priestly clothes outside the sacrificial
service, because they contained a mixture of linen and wool (Sha’atnez).131 And in his text the
hebrew word used here for “doubled”/“folded” is 132
and in the Jastrow Hebrew
Dictionary the verb
is translated as “to double, fold, roll up”.133 So,
certainly could
134
be expressed in Greek as entetuligmenon, which means “rolled up”. And the fact that the
priests first spread out the clothes, also indicates that they probably rolled them up, for folding
could be done while the garment hung down from the hands. And a priest probably first
spread out all his garments on top of each other (cloak = ‘talith’, tunic = ‘ephod’, girdle,
underpants and head covering)135, and then made one single roll of them, for in this way his
garments would not get mixed up with the garments of the priests who slept next to him. It is
important to note, that only the girdle contained a mixture of wool and linen, and therefore
could not be allowed to be used outside the sacrificial service.136 So, it indeed must have been
the fact that the girdle was inside the roll, which was the cause that the whole roll could not be
used as a pillow: all his clothes were rolled up together and in one place, at his head. Now,
when the beloved disciple – the secretary of the Council of the Temple, which regulated these
folded them, placed them at their heads(29), and wore their own clothes.” Footnote 24: Tamid
26b explains that they slept on these protrusions, because it was disrespectful to bring beds
into the Temple complex. Footnote 28: This refers to the four priestly garments which an
ordinary priest was required to wear while serving in the Temple.
Rambam, Beis Habechirah 8,
www.chabad.org/dailystudy/rambam.asp?tDate=9/30/2021#footnoteRef29a1007193)
131
“Instead, they folded them, placed them at their heads,(29) … Footnote 29: The priests
could not place their priestly garments under their heads to serve as pillows, for they were
forbidden to derive benefit from them. See Yoma 69a. In his commentary to Tamid, Chapter
1, Mishnah 1, the Rambam explains that this prohibition was instituted because the priestly
garments contained Sha'atnez, a mixture of linen and wool. Hence, though a priest was
permitted to use them during the Temple service, once that service was concluded, he was
forbidden to do so. See also the Kessef Mishneh.”
(Rambam, Beis Habechirah 8,
http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/rambam.asp?tDate=9/30/2021#footnoteRef29a1007193)
132
The Hebrew text according to Maimonides is:
ע
.
:
ע
ע
(http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/rambam.asp?tDate=9/30/2021&rambamChapters=1&lang=heb)
133
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and
Midrashic Literature, Judaica Treasury, 1971, 2004, p. 1401
134
Online Bible Greek Lexicon 1794; the 1984 New International Version even translates
John 20,7 as “The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.”
135
“The priests (Piske Tosaphoth in Menacoth numer. 150.) who veil themselves when they
go up into the pulpit, Mhl wny)# tyl+b with a cloak which is not their own,” (J. Lightfoot,
on Mark 14,51, vol. 2 p. 458-460); “And he in whom no cause of invalidation was found
dresses himself in white clothing and cloaks himself in a white cloak and goes in and serves
with his brethren, the priests.” Middot 5,4 (J. Neusner, The Mishnah – A New Translation, p.
883); “The high priest serves in eight garments, and an ordinary priest in four: tunic,
underpants, head covering, and girdle.” Yoma 7,5 (J. Neusner, p. 277) So, a priest entered the
sanctuary wearing the four ordinary clothes plus the cloak (‘talith’), but put off the cloak,
when he actually performed the rites of the service.
136
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Kli Hamikdash 8, halacha 11-12
(http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1008233/jewish/Chapter-8.htm)
41
details – entered the tomb, he “saw (the roll, placed at the head) and believed” (that Jesus had
risen – and he didn’t know this from Scripture) (John 20,7-9).
If Joseph of Arimatea had taken away Jesus’ dead body on the first day after the Sabbath for
reburying (this is discussed below), he would have taken the ‘sindōn’ too, not only because it
was his property, bought from the ‘hypēretai’ for a high price, but also because it facilitated
the carrying of Jesus’ body. This last argument is the reason why, when the empty grave and
linen cloths were found, they kept the departing Peter “wondering in himself at that which
was come to pass” (Luke 24,12). But the moment John Mark sees his ‘sindōn’ lying there in
the grave, identifiable by the ornamental seam and rolled up as a priest’s garment and placed
at the head, he realizes it must have been laid there by Jesus for him: it had to have been done
by someone who knew it was a priest’s garment and nevertheless left it in the grave, and thus
by someone who had seen that John Mark fled from the ‘hypēretai’ leaving his ‘sindōn’, and
who knew that Joseph of Arimatea bought it, and who would understand that John Mark, as a
secret disciple, would want the garment back as it was the proof of his discipleship (and who
knew that John Mark would be one of the first visitors of the grave).137 This person was not
one of the ‘hypēretai’, for they would simply have taken possession of the precious linen cloth
again and would not have left it in the grave, nor Joseph of Arimatea (or Nicodemus) – he
would have taken the body with the ‘sindōn’ –, nor Simon Peter – he had been with John
Mark all night and didn’t know the grave was empty and wondered about what had happened
–, nor John Mark himself, so only a risen Jesus could have done it. John Mark interprets the
rolled up ‘sindōn’ as a personal gift from Jesus to himself, and takes it from the grave, and
thus takes away the proof of his discipleship. In this sense the risen Jesus “had given the grave
cloth(s) to the servant of the priest”, as Jerome cites the Gospel of the Hebrews. Perhaps John
Mark already then, or some time after he had seen the risen Jesus in person, found the image
of Jesus’ face and its bruises, but he certainly understood that Jesus had returned his
bloodstained garment to him, as a sign that Jesus forgave him his secret discipleship, his
fleeing from the ‘hypēretai’, and his slapping Jesus’ face in Annas’ room in Antonia, just like
the three identical questions which the risen Jesus directed to Simon Peter at the See of
Tiberias – “do you love me?” (John 21,15.16.17) – referred to Simon Peter’s three denials of
Jesus in the high priest’s courtyard and porch. John Mark doesn’t destroy the ‘sindōn’,
perhaps because it could be regarded as the proof of Jesus’ resurrection, and perhaps because
of its significance: Jesus’ personal forgiveness for John Mark, “the servant of the priest”. John
takes the ‘sindōn’ with him to Ephesus in Asia Minor.138
Now the Talmud says that the garments of the priests who had been dismissed from their
sacrificial service in the temple (of a week’s shift, about twice a year) were laid in “wall
niches there, on which were written [the names] of the various pieces of clothing”.139 And the
fact that the priests put on a ‘talith’ “which was not their own”,140 indicates that also a
137
It is not sure whether the women who entered the empty grave first, saw the ‘sindōn’
(Luke 23,55-24,12 Mark 16,1-8 Matt 28,1-8), so it is possible that either they didn’t pay
attention to it because they saw the angel(s), or didn’t know what to think of it (just as Peter),
or that it was taken out of the grave before the women arrived and then put back there
deliberately (by Jesus) only after the women had left and before Simon Peter and John Mark
reached the grave.
138
Sora: 46, Van Haelst: 28. According to Ian Wilson the Shroud of Turin may have been the
same as the “Mandylion”, a cloth with the “Image of Edessa” (of at least Jesus’ face) that
showed up in 525-600 CE in Edessa, another town, now called Sanliurfa, in Asia Minor,
today’s Turkey. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa#Links_with_the_Shroud_of_Turin and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Possible_history_before_the_14th_century:_The_Image_of_Edes
sa)
139
Tamid 5,3; Neusner: 869-870
“The priests (Piske Tosaphoth in Menacoth numer. 150.) who veil themselves when they
go up into the pulpit, Mhl wny)# tyl+b with a cloak which is not their own,” (J. Lightfoot,
140
42
sacrificing priest’s ‘talith’ was perhaps a garment that was rolled up and kept in a wall niche
in the priests’ dormitory or in the Chamber of Hewn Stones for the next shift of priests. It
were the members of the Council of the Temple who judged, in the Chamber of Hewn Stones,
whether a new priest was fit to start his sacrificial ministry in the temple141 and who allowed
him to wear a priest’s ‘talith’:
“And it judged the priesthood. And a priest in whom was found a cause of
invalidation dresses himself in black clothing and cloaks himself in a black cloak
and departs and goes his way. And he in whom no cause of invalidation was
found dresses himself in white clothing and cloaks himself in a white cloak and
goes in and serves with his brethren, the priests.”142
In this way Jesus’ leaving his rolled up ‘talith’ in the empty tomb, hewn in the rock, for the
priest John Mark perhaps could be seen as a sign that Jesus judged John Mark fit and that He
extended his New Testamental high priestly sacrificial ministry to John Mark.
After Jesus had been wrapped in the ‘sindōn’, it couldn’t be used as a garment anymore,
for it had been used as the burial cloth of a dead man, and was thus, to John Mark’s standards,
ritually unclean. Perhaps this is the reason why John Mark called the initial cloth in which
Jesus was to be buried a ‘sindōn’ (Mark 15,46), but called the empty grave cloths ‘soudarion’
and ‘othonia’ (John 20,6-7). But of course John Mark also knew that the words ‘othonia’ and
‘soudarion’ would not as easily be associated with his own garment as the word ‘sindōn’
would. Nevertheless, the Greek word ‘soudarion’ is one of the many Aramaisms in the Gospel
of John; it derives from the Aramaic word ‘soudara’, meaning large veil or mantle (cf.
Targum Ruth 3,14-15).143
6. John Mark, author of the Gospel of John with Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus
Since Jesus’ crucifixion, when Jesus told his mother Mary “Woman, behold, your son”, and
told the beloved disciple, standing by, “Behold, your mother”, these two lived together in
Jerusalem in John’s house144. It is thought that together they lived in Ephesus, where they
arrived together. At Ephesus John published the Fourth Gospel.145 It is not unreasonable to
assume that John wrote this gospel together with Mary. John Mark was in Ephesus with
Timothy (2Tim 4,11) and if he was the evangelist John, the co-authorship of Mary would
explain the difference in style and contents between the Gospel of Mark and the Fourth
Gospel, named the Gospel of John. The author of the Fourth Gospel is a man according to
grammar (“the disciple, whom (‘on) he loved”, “what shall happen to this man” – ‘outov)146,
and so it was John who put the pen to papyrus for the Gospel of John, but also for the Gospel
of Mark. The Gospel of Mark are Simon Peter’s oral narratives put in writing, perhaps almost
literally, by John Mark.147
on Mark 14,51, vol. 2 p. 458-460)
141
A. Edersheim (1825-1889), The Temple – Its Ministries and Services (Peabody 1994), ch.
4, p. 70, S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), The Jewish People in the
First Century (Assen/Amsterdam 1976) p. 602, 874
142
Middot 5,4 (J. Neusner, The Mishnah – A New Translation, p. 883)
143
See above, note on St. Ephrem, supported by Levesque, Wuenschel, Green, Barbet,
Bonnet-Eymard, Guerrera, and Humber.
144
John 19,25-27
145
Irenaeus (Eusebius: 5,8,4)
146
NA27 John 16,26 21,21
147
Eus 2,14-15 3,39,15 5,8,2-3, 6,26
43
Internal evidence concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is indirect. B.F.
Westcott’s well-known “concentric circles of proof” for the authorship148 (see table 8), which
he used in 1881 CE to identify the apostle John of Zebedee, can all be applied to the ‘motherand-son’ couple John Mark and Mary. Here must be stressed that the claims of Westcott’s
fourth and fifth circles of proof, claiming that the evangelist was an apostle and ‘the apostle
whom Jesus loved’, are invalid:
B.F. Westcott:
John of Zebedee, fisherman-apostle
My study:
John Mark and Mary, Jesus’ virgin mother
1
The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew.
Jesus’ virgin mother Mary and John Mark
both were Jews.
2
It was a Jew of Palestine.
The details known about Jerusalem (e.g.
the Pool of Siloam and the Pool Bethesda,
John 5,2 9,7.11) fit with the knowledge of
John Mark, who lived in Jerusalem (better
than with the knowledge of the Galilean
fisherman John of Zebedee).
3
The author was an eyewitness of the events he Jesus’ mother Mary was in the company
describes.
of Jesus and his disciples at least at Cana
and in Capernaum and (until) at the foot
of the cross149. John Mark was an
eyewitness of the events in Jerusalem: the
entrance into Jerusalem and the temple,
the Last Supper, the arrest, the trials, the
crucifixion, the empty grave and the
appearances.
4
a) The author was an Apostle, because of the
scope of his description, the acquaintance
with the thoughts and feelings of the disciples
at critical moments, the recollection of words
spoken among themselves, the familiarity
with the places to which they withdrew from
time to time and the acquaintance with
imperfect or erroneous impressions the
apostles received initially.
b) The author was an Apostle because he
stood very near to the Lord: he knew the
Lord’s emotions, the grounds of his actions
and even the mind of the Lord in many
cases150.
148
a) All of these reasons (on all the
occasions, mentioned by Westcott) can be
explained either by the presence of Jesus’
virgin mother Mary as one of the
“women” who followed and served Jesus
and his apostles (Mark 15,40-41 Luke 8,13), or by the presence of John Mark.
b) This standing very near to the Lord and
this knowledge serve as very good
arguments to defend that the author was
Jesus’ virgin mother Mary.
See bibliography. See also http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1150
John 2,1.12 19,25-27; Pope Benedict XVI, during the general audience of February 14,
2007, stated about Jesus’ mother: “Becoming a disciple of Christ, Mary manifested at Cana
her complete trust in him (cf. John 2:5) and followed him to the foot of the cross, where she
received a maternal mission from him for all his disciples of all times, represented by John
(cf. John 19:25-27)” (www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070214_en.html).
150
John 2,24 ff, 4,1 5,6 6,15 7,1 16,9 (motives), 11,33 13,21 (emotions), 6,6.61.64 13.1.3.11
(thoughts)
149
44
5
The author was the Apostle John.
a) John 21,24 assigns authorship to “the
apostle whom Jesus loved”.
b) He was known to the high priest.
c) He stood in close relationship to Peter.
d) the author should be one of the three
favorite apostles of the synoptics:
Peter, James and John.
a) This is not accurate, because John
21,24 and John 21,20 and 21,23 all say it
was the “disciple” – not the ‘apostle’ –
“whom Jesus loved”.
b) The being known to the high priest was
a characteristic of the anonymous disciple
at the gate, and needn’t be applied to the
beloved disciple (and it certainly was a
characteristic of another secret disciple,
Joseph of Arimatea, as he was a member
of the Great Sanhedrin).
c) Simon Peter lived in John Mark’s house
from 30 to 44 CE.
d) There is no basis for this assumption.
6
Corroboration: John (the apostle) is not (Refutation of Westcott’s argument: The
mentioned by name anywhere in the Fourth apostle James of Zebedee, brother of the
Gospel.
apostle John, isn’t mentioned by name
anywhere in the Fourth Gospel either.)
Corroborations for John Mark:
1) John Mark is not in the Fourth Gospel
at all: not by name, nor by deeds (as rich
young ruler).
2) Jesus’ mother is not mentioned by
name anywhere in the Fourth Gospel
either.
3) John Mark is not mentioned by name
anywhere in the Gospel of Mark.
Table 8. Westcott’s concentric circles of proof
Another argument that supports the authorship of Mary is that the Fourth Gospel proclaims
Jesus as being God, born in the flesh: “The Word was God”, “the Word was made flesh”
(through Mary), “the only begotten God” (John 1,1.14.18). Mary, Jesus’ virgin mother, could
be posited as the author of the Fourth Gospel in the sense in which antiquity defined
authorship: “The author is the person whose ideas the book expresses, not necessarily the
person who set pen to papyrus”151. The renowned New Testament scholar Brown identifies
several phases in the development of the Fourth Gospel, and these phases could correspond to
its several authors (see table 9):
151
Brown and Collins: 1034-1054; Brown: lxxxvii.
45
Phases in the development
Possible authors
(R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved
Disciple, New York 1979; www.beloveddisciple.org)
(my study)
1 the initial pre-Gospel version
Jesus’ virgin mother Mary
2 the pre-Gospel work produced by
“the evangelist” or main writer
John Mark (and perhaps a third person)
3 the final version written by a redactor
the “I”-person of the addition (John
21,25), who had (had) the help of another
(third) person: “we” (Jo 21,24)152
Table 9. Phases in the development of the Gospel of John
That the mother of Jesus is not mentioned or known as the co-author of the Gospel of John, is
explained by the fact that the gospel itself says it was a male disciple who wrote it (‘hon’ and
‘houtos’ John 16,25 21,21). The male authorship is only mentioned in the addition (chapter
21) to the original work (chapters 1 to 20), but John 20 and John 21 have always been found
as a unity in all known manuscripts, and that is why Craig, another New Testament scholar,
states that chapter 21 was probably added before the gospel was published153. So the fact that
the author was a man, was known from the start, and thus, at least at certain stages, no one
thought about Mary.
152
About this possible third person, see chapter 9 below, and my article “The Elder and the
Elect Lady – Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”, www.JesusKing.info.
153
Craig: 204.
46
7. Not John of Zebedee
The most usual identification of the gospel’s author “John” is with the apostle John, one of
the sons of Zebedee. This is not the same person as John Mark, for in the Acts is first spoken
of the killing of “James, the brother of John” by Herod Agrippa, king of the Jews,154 so, of the
sons of Zebedee (Mark 1,17-20), and ten verses further is spoken of the house in Jerusalem of
“Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark”155. The name Mark is probably
mentioned here to distinguish this John from the before mentioned John, the brother of James.
And the mother of (James and) John of Zebedee was preferably called “the mother of the sons
of Zebedee”156 and probably still lived in Galilee.
7.1. Muratorian Canon – evangelist is disciple to be reviewed by Andrew
The so-called Muratorian Canon (c. 170 CE) states that the Fourth Gospels’s author John was
“[one] of the disciples”, and that, while he was among “his fellow disciples and bishops”,
Andrew, “[one] of the apostles”, said John should write a gospel in his own name, and all of
them should review it. The canon also identifies the author of the gospel with the author of
1John, and refers to 1Jn 1,1-4 when stating that this author was “not only an eye-witness and
hearer, but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord”.157 So, the canon doesn’t
explicitly identify the author as the apostle John. The description also fits, and even better,
with the disciple John Mark, for it distinguishes between “[one] of the disciples” (John) and
“[one] of the apostles” (Andrew), and suggests the writings of the disciple John needed to be
reviewed by the apostle Andrew and the bishops and other disciples.
7.2. Killed by the Jews
On the apostle John of Zebedee, brother of the apostle James of Zebedee, the following
tradition exists:
“Papias in the second volume says that John the theologue and James his brother
were killed by Jews.”158
“Thus, the learned Origen also affirmed in his commentary of Matthew, that
John was martyred, having intimated that he learned this from the sucessors of
the apostles.”159
But Apostolic Father Polycarp, who was just as early as Papias, and who said he received the
truth “from the apostles”, also said “John, the disciple of the Lord” lived in Ephesus until
Trajan’s reign (98-117 CE) (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3,4).160 As he talks about a John in
154
Acts 12,1-2
Acts 12,12
156
Matt 20,20 27,56
157
www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html; about the author of 1John, see my article
“The Elder and the Elect Lady – Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”, www.JesusKing.info.
158
Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/papias.htm) on Papias’ lost work “The
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord”.
159
Interpolation (Codex Coislinianus 305) in George the "Sinner," Chronicon (9th cen.)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/papias.htm)
160
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
155
47
Ephesus, and calls him “the disciple of the Lord”, he probably meant the evangelist, and as he
calls him a “disciple”, while elsewhere he talks about “the apostles”, this John probably
wasn’t an apostle. And the Monarchian Prologue to John (200-400 CE) says that John, whom
is considered apostle and author of the Apocalyps and evangelist in it, stepped in his grave in
Ephesus when he knew his death was near, and was buried (“laid by his fathers”).161 This
contradicts the early testimony of Papias (from about 185 CE) about the apostle John being
killed by the Jews. So, it seems that it was only the evangelist (and perhaps author of the
Apocalypse) who peacefully died in Ephesus in the time of Trajan.
7.3. Finding the Cenacle
“Peter and John”, sent to prepare for the Passover (Lu 22,8), had to find the
house of the Cenacle by following an anonymous man carrying water and ask the “master of
the house” where the upper room for Jesus was (Mr 14,14). But the apostle John wouldn't
have needed to follow an anonymous man carrying water to find his own house in Jerusalem,
and probably wouldn't have had to ask the “master of the house” where the upper room for
Jesus was, so the Cenacle probably wasn't in the apostle John's house. Chapter two has shown
that the Cenacle probably was in the beloved disciple’s house. So, the beloved disciple
probably wasn't the apostle John.
7.4. Before the Council
After Jesus had risen and ascended to heaven the following event took place in the temple,
when Simon Peter and John of Zebedee had healed a lame man there:
“11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran
together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering. 1 And as
they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the
Sadducees, came upon them … 3 And they laid hands on them and put them in hold
unto the next day ... 5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders,
and scribes, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and
as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what
name, have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them,
Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, … by the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him
doth this man stand here before you whole. …
13 Now when they saw the boldness (‘parrhesia’ = ‘all out-spokenness’) of Peter and
John, and perceived that they were unlearned (‘agrammatoi’ = ‘un-lettered’), and
ignorant men (‘idiōtai’), they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them
(‘epignōskon’ RSV: recognized), that they had been with Jesus. 14 And beholding the
man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But
when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among
themselves, 16 Saying,
What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been
done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot
deny it. 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly
threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
18 And they called them …” (Acts 3,11 - 4,18 AV, NA27)
161
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/12/prologues-to-the-gospels-john/
48
Some characteristics of John of Zebedee, and of the beloved disciple, and of John Mark, that
can be drawn from this and other New Testament texts, are the following (see table 10):
John, son of Zebedee
Beloved disciple
John Mark
fisherman in Galilee
(Matt 4,18-22)
has a home in Jerusalem
(John 19,27)
a ‘hypēretēs’ (of the temple)
and lives in Jerusalem (Acts
13,5 and 12,12)
alludes to the temple service
(John 13,10)
alludes to the temple service
(Mark 13,35)
unknown to the high priests:
they marveled at his boldness,
illiteracy and ignorance
boldness
(‘parrhesia’: all out-spokenness)
as an ‘hypēretēs’ probably
known to the temple priests
doesn’t reveal the identity of
“the disciple known to the
high priest” at the gate and
is anonymous himself in his
own gospel (of John)
is anonymous in his own
gospel (of Mark)
unlettered, illiterate
(‘agrammatos’)
is literate
(author of Gospel of John)
is literate
(author of Gospel of Mark)
ignorant = without public office
(‘idiōtes’ = a private person,
without public office, i.e. by
implication: ignorant, rude,
unlearned – compare: “idiot”)
seems to have been present
when Jesus was interrogated
by Annas (for he cites their
conversation)
a ruler
(‘archōn’ = a ruler in a public
office)
and a ‘hypēretēs’ = an
attendant
in
a
public
hierarchical function
is recognized as having been
with Jesus
is not recognized at the
cross as having been with
Jesus (John 19,26)
escapes
the
unrecognized
was called by Jesus and
immediately left his boat and
father and followed Jesus (Matt
4,22)
wants to follow the risen
Jesus, but has to “remain”
and is not allowed to follow
Him (John 21,20-23)
ran to Jesus, was invited by
Jesus to follow Him, but sadly
left Jesus as he was rich
is impetuous, a
plain,
downright
fellow,
and
nicknamed as one of the
“Boanerges” = ‘sons of thunder’
(Mark 3,17);
wanted to command fire to
come from heaven to consume a
village that was hostile to Jesus
(Luke 9,54)
runs and reaches Jesus’
grave first, but doesn’t enter
it;
(for fear of the Jews denied
Jesus by slapping Him in the
face before Annas, but
reports this incident in his
gospel;)
recognizes the risen Jesus
first, but doesn´t go to Him
first.
secretly follows Jesus, but
flees the ‘hypēretai’ that held
Jesus
Table 10. John of Zebedee versus John Mark
‘hypēretai’
49
The fact that the high priests recognized (or got to know) that Peter and John of Zebedee had
been with Jesus, also excludes that this John was the beloved disciple, for the beloved disciple
was not recognized as one of Jesus’ disciples when he stood at the cross. Simon Peter and
John of Zebedee both were apostles of Jesus in public and they also both were near Him when
Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, but still only Simon Peter got
recognized by the ‘hypēretai’ as a disciple of Jesus, and one of them said: “Did not I see thee
in the garden with Him?”162 If the beloved disciple was John of Zebedee, the ‘hypēretai’
would have seen him too in the garden and should have recognized him too as a disciple of
Jesus when he stood at the cross the next day. So, the beloved disciple was not John of
Zebedee and not an apostle, but a disciple of Jesus in secret, like Nicodemus (John 3,1) and
Joseph of Arimatea (John 19,38) and like “many” “among the rulers”163. The beloved disciple
also later could never be recognized by anyone as someone who had been with Jesus, for he
never had been with Jesus the way Simon Peter and John of Zebedee had been:
“And Jesus said to them [Simon and Andrew], "Follow me and I will make you become
fishers of men." And immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on a
little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their
boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee
in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.” Mark 1,17-20 (RSV)
“And a ruler (‘archōn’) asked him, …” Luke 18,18 (RSV)
“…And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell
what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,
follow me." At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had
great possessions.” Mark 10,21-22 (RSV)
“Nevertheless many even of the authorities (‘archontōn’ plural of ‘archōn’) believed in
him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12,42-43
(RSV and NA27)
Why would the beloved disciple have preferred to stay anonymous in his gospels? One of the
reasons was probably that he was not proud of the fact that he had not followed Jesus
immediately and that he had been a secret disciple. Obviously, the evangelist was willing to
be identified with the beloved disciple – who lay on Jesus’ breast, who stood at the foot of the
cross, who saw and believed, who said “It is the Lord!”, and who wanted to follow the risen
Jesus164 – for the evangelist published the second ending (chapter 21), which revealed that the
evangelist was the beloved disciple. But to be identified with the secret disciple, who knew
and probably was known to the ‘hypēretai’ and who had probably slapped Jesus’ face and
who probably was silently present, or even spoke his consent, when Jesus was condemned to
death (“they all condemned him as deserving death” Mr 14,64 and “those who live in
Jerusalem and their rulers (‘archontes’), … , fulfilled these by condemning him. … they asked
Pilate to have him killed. … they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.” Acts
13,27-29), was the last thing he wanted.
Of course he did write that eventually he had wanted to follow Jesus, after He had risen:
“He [Jesus] said to him [Simon Peter] the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love
me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And
he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to
162
John 18,26 Matt 26,37
“rulers” (NKJV) = ‘archontōn’ NA27 John 12,42-43
164
John 13,22.25.28 19,26 20,8 21,7.20
163
50
him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded
yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your
hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he
said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him,
"Follow me."
Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved … When Peter
saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my
will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread
abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to
him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is
that to you?"” (John 21,17-23)
Perhaps Jesus didn’t allow John Mark to follow Him with Simon Peter after He had risen,
because John Mark hadn’t voluntarily followed Jesus when He was still a mortal human
being. But there may have been another reason. Simon Peter’s position as leader of the
apostles – “you are Peter (‘petros’ = rock) and on this rock I will build my church. … I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16,18-19) –, a
position given to Peter before he denied Jesus, was continued by Jesus after He had forgiven
Peter his three denials and had let him declare his love for Jesus three times. Thus probably
also John Mark’s position as secret disciple and secretary of Caiphas was continued by Jesus
– after Jesus had forgiven him his slapping his face, and John Mark had shown his willingness
to openly follow Him – as Jesus said to Simon Peter “"If it is my will that he remain until I
come, what is that to you?” This (temporary) continuation of John Mark’s secret discipleship
(“remain until I come”) may have been the main reason for his anonymity in both of his
gospels. Jesus didn’t mean that John Mark would remain alive, for this is explicitly refuted in
the gospel’s next verses. John Mark had to remain a secret disciple. And the reason why John
Mark had to stay a secret disciple wasn’t Simon Peter’s business, only Jesus’. And John could
call himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21,20 cf. 13,23 20,2 21,7), as he could be
sure Jesus loved him, for Jesus had shown him He had forgiven him – the secretary of Israel –
by returning his ‘sindōn’ after He had risen.
“God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to
Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5,31)
And he also loved Jesus for “he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Lu 7,47) and he who is
forgiven much, loves much.
So, you may have been right if you spotted our John Mark as the first priest mentioned next to
the high priests Annas and Caiaphas in the council gathered around the apostles Peter and
John of Zebedee and the lame man who was healed in the temple (Acts 4,6). And you may
have been right in thinking that the private conference held by this council (Acts 4,16-17) was
transmitted to us by John Mark. Perhaps the transmission of details like these was one of the
reasons why Jesus wanted John “to remain” in his position right beside Caiphas.
The returning of the grave cloth before it could be identified as John Mark’s ‘sindōn’ had not
only served the demonstration of Jesus’ resurrection and forgiveness, but also the
continuation of John Mark’s secret discipleship. And also the preserving of the anonymity of
the Cenacle’s householder had served the continuation of John Mark’s secret discipleship: if
Nicodemus would be exposed as a disciple, the same would probably happen to his heir and
inmate John Mark.
51
7.5. At Jesus’ tomb
“43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself
looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the
body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked
him whether he was already dead.
45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to
Joseph.
46 And he bought a linen shroud (‘sindōn’), and taking him down, wrapped him in the
linen shroud (‘sindōn’), and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock;
and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.” Mark 15,4347
“1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was
still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved,
and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know
where they have laid him."
3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths (‘othonia’) lying there, but he did not go
in.
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths
(‘othonia’) lying,
7 and the napkin (‘soudarion’), which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths
(‘othonia’) but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and
believed;
9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
10 Then the disciples went back to their homes (unto their own home (AV)).
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the
tomb;” John 20,1-11 RSV
[“Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen
clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to
pass.” Luke 24,12 (AV)]
In the early morning of the resurrection Mary Magdalena had not entered the open grave, but
had only seen that the stone had been taken away, so she had only guessed that Jesus’ body
had been taken away. She said “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not
know where they have laid him” (John 20,1-2). She probably thought that Joseph of
Arimatea, who had asked Pilate for Jesus’ dead body, had taken the body out of this grave –
“his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock” (Matt 27,60) – and had reburied it
somewhere else, for the first burying had been done in a hurry as Jews weren’t allowed to do
any work on the Sabbath which started at the end of that afternoon: “And when evening had
come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of
Arimathea, … took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (Mark 15,4243), and “because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid
Jesus there” (John 19,42). And the women saw “how his body was laid; then they returned,
and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the
52
commandment” (Luke 23,55-56). This indicates that the women prepared for the next,
definitive, burial on the first day after the Sabbath.
Having heard what Mary Magdalene had said, and probably knowing that Mary had not
looked inside the grave, the beloved disciple rushed to Jesus’ grave with Simon Peter, but
eventually Peter “came, following” the beloved disciple (John 20,1-6), and also Mary
Magdalene followed later, for the beloved disciple “reached the tomb first” (John 20,4).
Apparently the beloved disciple knew which grave had been used for Jesus, for he found the
grave on his own. The beloved disciple then most probably had been present at the burial of
Jesus, also because “the tomb was close at hand”, close to the cross (John 19,42), at the foot
of which John had stood (John 19,26). This again indicates that the beloved disciple was a
secret disciple, for he could take the risk of being near Jesus in his last hour, both at the cross,
where also other (high) priests, scribes and elders were present, and at the burial by Joseph of
Arimatea and Nicodemus – members of the Great Sanhedrin and rulers of the Jews165 –, only
if he was, just like Joseph and Nicodemus, and unlike John of Zebedee, a ruler of the Jews
and a secret disciple. And although John Mark will not have ritually defiled himself by
touching Jesus’ dead body, Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus and possibly also John Mark
are described as the inhabitants and rulers (‘archontes’) of Jerusalem by Paul, when he speaks
about Jesus’ condemnation and burial:
“those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers … fulfilled these [utterances of the
prophets] by condemning him. … they asked Pilate to have him killed. And when they
had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid
him in a tomb.” Acts 13, 27-29
When John reached the tomb on Easter morning he didn’t enter it, but waited for Simon Peter
to arrive and take a look inside. Only after Simon Peter had seen it was empty, except for the
grave cloths, John entered the grave himself. The reason may have been that he didn’t want to
be ritually defiled by the tomb or the dead body unnecessarily, for it was only the beginning
of “the first day of the week” (John 20,1), the first day after the Sabbath. He had to be
Levitically clean to be able to enter the temple and go to work.166 A defilement by entering an
occupied grave or touching a dead body lasted seven days (Lev 21,1-4 Nu 19,16-22). And his
running to, but not entering, the grave first doesn’t comply at all with the impetuousness of
John of Zebedee, who left his father at once, and who wanted to command fire from heaven.
Also the beloved disciple’s recognizing the risen Jesus first, but not going to Him first,
strongly contrasts John of Zebedee’s impetuousness.
John’s description of what he saw in the grave, and what and why he believed, is very
unclear. A seemingly more simple explanation than the one based on John’s secret
discipleship, of what and why John “believed” when he saw the empty ‘soudarion’, has been
given by some, e.g. by M. Poole (1624-1679) and J. Wesley (1703-1791)167: John didn’t
believe Jesus’ dead body had been taken away, as Mary Magdalena had told them, until he
entered the tomb and saw that the tomb (and ‘soudarion’) was empty. But this explanation is
not logical, for it was the emptiness of the grave, reported to him by Simon Peter, which made
him enter the grave. So, already before he entered and saw, he could have believed that
someone had taken Jesus’ body away. But the text says that only after he entered and saw,
John Mark believed. Now the seeing of the rolled up ‘sindōn’ was actually an argument
against the belief that someone had taken the body away (whether Joseph of Arimatea or a
thief), but – only for John Mark! – it was a positive argument for the belief that Jesus had
165
Matt 27,41; Mark 15,43 Luke 23,50-51 resp. John 3,1
Likewise the high priests, when they brought Jesus to the Roman procurator Pilate, “did
not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover” (John
18,28).
167
http://wes.biblecommenter.com/john/20.htm
166
53
risen. Simon Peter, at seeing the grave cloths, must have considered that the body probably
was not stolen, for a wrapped body is much easier to handle than a naked body, without
anything bound around hands and feet, and a theft would have to have been done in a hurry.
Simon Peter may therefore have wondered why Joseph of Arimatea had taken off the grave
cloths first (and perhaps anointed and rewrapped the body in another cloth), and then took the
body to its definitive tomb without even taking the ‘sindōn’, and all this even during the night
and not by day. Peter may therefore even have started to wonder whether Jesus had risen or
not. Perhaps John deliberately edited this particular gospel recount in such a way that it could
be interpreted in both ways, the first given interpretation – the seeing how his ‘sindōn’ was
neatly rolled up as a priest’s garment and the believing that Jesus had risen – relating to John,
and the second interpretation – the seeing that the body was gone (and perhaps taken) and the
grave cloths weren’t – relating to Peter. Also this ambiguous description by the evangelist
doesn’t comply at all with the outspokenness of John of Zebedee.
If the beloved disciple already believed that Jesus had risen, when he returned home with
Peter, he apparently didn’t tell Peter about it, nor Mary Magdalene, for Peter was “wondering
in himself” and Mary Magdalene kept “weeping outside the tomb”.168 Also this doesn’t
comply with the outspokenness of John of Zebedee at all, but it complies exactly with the
anonymity and secret discipleship of John Mark, who apparently hadn’t told Simon Peter or
Mary Magdalene that Joseph of Arimatea had bought his ‘sindōn’ from the ‘hypēretai’ either.
The less people who knew this, the smaller the chance it would ever reach the ears of possible
traitors of his discipleship.
So, when Peter first entered the tomb and told John Mark that the tomb was empty except
for a linen roll, John Mark must have thought “A roll? But it was only folded once at Jesus’
head, enveloping his body, at the burial! Is this roll really my ‘sindōn’ then?” But as Peter
didn’t know – and wasn’t supposed to know – that Jesus had been buried in John Mark’s
‘sindōn’, bought from the ‘hypēretai’, John Mark could not ask him “Is the linen roll you’re
seeing my ‘sindōn’?” So, John had to enter the grave himself, for if it was his unique ‘sindōn’
he would have to take it away as it was the proof of his discipleship. He entered the tomb, not
to verify it was empty, for Peter had already told him this. He entered it to check out the roll.
Then, at seeing the roll, placed at the head, and identifying it as his ‘sindōn’ (e.g. by the seam
near the edge), he realized it was rolled up by Jesus for him, and believed, and took it.169
168
Luke 24,12 John 20,11
In this context the following interview given by Barrie M. Schwortz on the Turin Shroud
in NBC's Today Show with Matt Lauer, Friday 21 March 2008, is interesting. Question: “If it
were really dating back to one AD, it would look much older. How do you answer that?”
Answer: “Well, I would answer it by saying that simply this cloth that bears this image would
have been carefully protected. And asuming for a moment that it really was first century, it is
a bloodstained cloth, it was against Jewish tradition to even handle. So, they would have kept
it a secret. It would have been well preserved, probably kept hidden most of the time. And
perhaps that’s the reason why the condition is as good as it was, when I first saw it in 1978. I
felt the same thing, it seemed to be quite well preserved for something that potentially was
that old.” (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23742321#23742321)
169
****************** Intermezzo: THE SHROUD OF TURIN ********************
There was enough room in Jesus’ grave to be able to neatly roll up the ‘sindōn’, for if it was folded in half on the
platform where Jesus’ body had lain – as it seems to have been folded according to the images on the Shroud of
Turin –, it could be rolled up from the fold (at the images of the head) in the direction of the two ends of the
‘sindōn’ (at the images of the feet).
Perhaps the images on the Shroud of Turin were like photographs (e.g. formed by corona discharge170),
‘taken’ when the ‘sindōn’ was still enveloping Jesus’ body and the upper half of the cloth was kept straight and
horizontal by the voluminous “mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight” brought by
Nicodemus (John 19,39) and laid beside Jesus at either side, and/or by the “two angels in white, sitting where
the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet” (John 20,12), seen by Mary Magdalene. Jesus’
face probably was at a certain angle to his body when He died on the cross, as his chin probably rested on his
breast then. This could explain the absence (or shortness) of Jesus’ throat in the front image on the Shroud. It
also seems that a certain object is present beneath the chin.
Perhaps John Mark, after having taken his ‘sindōn’ home from the grave, at the edge of the roll cut off a
strip along the seam in the upper layers of the roll, to render the roll less recognizable as his ‘sindōn’, of which
the seam and unilateral tassels distinguished it from every other ‘talith’ or toga171.
170
G. Fanti, F. Lattarulo and O. Scheuermann, Body Image Formation Hypotheses Based On Corona Discharge, Third
Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin: Dallas, Texas, September 8-11, 2005,
www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/PDFpresCORONA.pdf (presentation slides), www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf (article)
171
On January 24, 2011, I read about the book of the renowned antiquities expert John N. Lupia, The Ancient Jewish Shroud
at Turin, Regina Caeli Press, 2010, and its cover says that “the Shroud of Turin is an ancient linen tallit garment type worn
by Essenes at Qumran before A.D. 66” (http://www.reginacaelipress.com/home). This supports my thesis on John Mark’s
temple garment, in that the Essenes were originally orthodox temple priests, Levites and Nethinim, who focussed on purity in
the temple and therefore protested against its illegal practices and its desacration and moved to Qumran. The white clothing
of the Qumran Essenes corresponded to the obligatory white linnen temple clothing (see my article The Eleven – Jesus
appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info). Besides, Joseph Caiphas probably had been a
Qumran Essene, and lived in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem (see my articles With Child of the Holy Spirit – Joseph willing
to give her in marriage to his heir, and Jesus and Isaac – Joseph Caiphas, both www.JesusKing.info), and his secretary
John Mark lived in the house of the Cenacle, virtually next door to Caiphas (see my article John Mark – Author of the Gospel
of John with Jesus’ mother, www.JesusKing.info).
55
See the image, of a Jew with a ‘talith’ as long as the Shroud, with border(s) and fringes, worn thrown loosely
around the shoulders, from a fifteenth-century Jewish prayer book, through this link to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14210-tallit
If a strip of cloth, as long as the circumference of the roll, was cut off from the last layer(s), exactly along the
seam, this seam would from that moment lie exactly at the edge of the cloth and thus would seem to be an
ordinary functional hem, applied to prevent the edge from loosening. It would no longer seem a useless, only
ornamental, seam somewhere inside the cloth near the edge. And of course the holes and tassels at the corners
would be removed simultaneously as well (if the blue cords originally were inside the seam, which looks corded
anyway 172, he may have removed them when transforming the seam into a hem). And if a cloth, folded in half (=
doubled), is rolled up from the fold to the ends, the upper half forms circles with a smaller circumference than
the circles formed by the lower half of the cloth. So, in the last layer of the roll the lower half would not
completely cover the upper half, which thus would protrude from underneath the lower half. So, the ornamental
seam would not only be visible in the last layer of the roll, formed by the lower half, but also, for a shorter
length, in the next to last layer of the roll, where the upper half protrudes (see the figure below). This might
explain the two removed strips of cloth -already removed before the fire of 1532 CE-, one 35 cm and one 14 cm
in length, at the edge of the Shroud of Turin in the corners along the seam. When the Shroud of Turin, 4,4 m in
length and about 0,4 mm in thickness, is rolled up loosely (thickness of one layer 1 mm) with an initial circular
circumference of 24 cm or less, the complete roll would attain a circumference of 34 cm or less. And if it is
rolled up a bit askew, the last ‘hemmed’ layers would cover the seam and the transition from seam to ‘hem’ in
the inner layers.
“Dr. Flury-Lemberg found the cloth's finishing, at its hems, and in the joining seam to have been done using an
unusual type of stitching very nearly invisible on one side, and as such closely resembling that of ancient Jewish
textiles as found at Masada, the Jewish palace-fortress that was overthrown by the Romans in AD 73, never to
be occupied again”.173 She also says that “at no time has the need to reinforce the corner parts arisen!”174 And
discussing the patches, which were stitched on the burned holes of the Turin Shroud, Dr. Flury-Lemberg says,
that there wasn’t any other stitching done, “apart from the one vertical seam and the small rolled hems at the
edges of the width. This is all that ever needed to be done - leaving out, for now, the two cut away corners.”175
The seam rejoins two sections of the same cloth by two lines of tiny overcast stitches; Flury-Lemberg published a
photograph of the seam, showing that, when the seam was opened by removing the sewing thread, two cutting
edges appeared.176 The ancient Egyptians specifically used two lines of overcast stitches to sew on a fringeless
braid along an edge of a garment.177 Moreover, the seam has been planned before manufacture, as it is located
172
A.D. Adler and A. and M. Whanger, Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin (www.shroud.com/adler2.htm) and
M. Guscin, Some notes on the Nice Symposium 12-13- May 1997, (www.shroud.com/bsts4603.htm) and M. Antonacci,
Private Internet Debate Challenges Ray Roger’s Thermochimica Acta Paper (www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf)
173
‘The Turin Shroud – past, present and future’, Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 – probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium,
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n51part2.pdf
174
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality, BSTS Newsletter No. 65 –
Part 5, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf
175
Ibid.
176
Flury-Lemberg, Die Leinwand des Turiner Grabtuches zum technischen Befund, Proceedings of International Scientific
Sympsosium Turin 2000, Abb. 3 a, p. 34 and p. 23; a drawing of the seam type is visible in P. Soons’ “Presentation: Halo”,
slide 11, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/soonspanppt.pdf
177
“Only a limited range of structural details, such as seams and hems, were used in ancient Egypt. The most common of
these were: simple hems, rolled and whipped hems, simple (open) seams, and lap-over seams. Other seams known from the
Dynastic period include a form of run-and-fell seam and overcast seams (see Fig. 11.11), but these were rarely used on items
of clothing. When a braid was added to a garment, one of several techniques was used, depending on the nature of the braid
56
at a woven-in selvedge of warp threads with spun-in cotton,178 and joins two sections of the cloth with almost
perfectly matching weft threads across the seam – so without a missing third section –, and without frays in the
seam.179
Thus the faults in the loom shaft preparation typical of ancient manufacture180, the extreme fineness of the
linen,181 the presence of the singular original seam (present before the hems were)182, the reversing twill weave
typical of expensive apparel fabric,183 the threads’ Syro-Palestinian, possibly sacerdotal, Z twisting,184 the fact
that the Shroud was doubled and rolled up, the starch impurities185, and the missing corners to which the tassels
were fastened, indicate that the Shroud once was a starched Jewish sacerdotal garment, that was not supposed
to be creased. Recently I found that also its other physical and chemical properties indicate it was a Jewish
temple garment.186 The inside part of the sharp crease below the image of the chin doesn’t contain an image,187
so the crease was probably formed before the image was; and the crease is in the upper half of the cloth, so the
crease was not formed by the weight of Jesus’ dead body; the crease is not completely horizontal and is slightly
curved, so it probably wasn’t formed by folding by Joseph of Arimathea or the seller of the cloth. So, the crease
may have been formed by the weight of John Mark’s body, when he was wearing the sindōn and was leaning
against Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper. All this indicates that the Shroud may have been the cloth which the
prison officers snatched off from the fleeing John Mark and used to cover up and beat Jesus and then sold to
Joseph of Arimathea.
and the place where it was to be attached. If it was a fringed braid placed at the lower edge of a garment, it would normally
be secured with one line of overcast stitching (e.g. Carter no. 367i; Cairo JE 62625). On the other hand, two lines of
overcast stitching were used to sew on fringeless braids, whether along an edge of a garment or down the middle” (P.T.
Nicholson and I. Shaw, Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 282-283,
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vj7A9jJrZP0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ancient+Egyptian+materials+and+technolo
gy,+Cambridge+University+Press,+2000&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=pSv0UN7RC_Sr0AXYsoHwBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA&q=fri
ngeless&f=false#v=snippet&q=fringeless&f=false).
178
Selvedge at seam: J. Tyrer, Looking at the Turin Shroud as Textile, Textile Horizons, December 1981, 20-23, p. 22,
www.sindone.info/TYRER1.PDF; cotton spun-in at internal selvedge: A.A.M. van der Hoeven, Internal Selvedge, par. 2.1.,
http://jesusking.info/Internal%20selvedge.pdf
179
A. Adler and A. and M. Whanger, Concerning the Side Strip, http://www.shroud.com/adler2.htm
180
Textile expert Vial noted during the 1988 sampling of the Shroud, that “faults in the preparation of the shafts point to a
specifically ancient twill weave manufacturing method” and said that “the only European 3.1 chevron twill in linen that
stands some comparison to the Shroud is the canvas of a late 16th. century 'Last Supper' painting attributed to Martin de Vos
- and even so its weave is much simpler than that of the Shroud. In effect, he concludes, the Shroud weave is 'incomparable'”
(BSTS newsletter 26,9, p. 2, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n26part9.pdf )
181
The Shroud has about 38 warp threads and 25 weft threads per square cm.( Gian Marco Rinaldi, Autogol a Tucson,
http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html). Each thread (ca. 0.25 mm diameter) consists of 70-120 fibers of 10-20
micrometer diameter (Fanti et al., Evidences for testing hypotheses, introduction p. 2, and evidence A6
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf ). A sample of a herringbone weave of Z-twisted threads from ca. the second half of
the fourteenth century has only 22 warps and 12 wefts per square cm and coarser yarns than those of the Shroud, and thus
“is not a candidate for a parallel to the fabric of the Turin Shroud”( Tyrer, The textile said to be similar in weave to the
Turin Shroud, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n27part5.pdf ).
182
See the Raes sample, cut from the Shroud in 1973 in fig. 15 of T. Heimburger, COTTON IN RAES/RADIOCARBON
THREADS: THE EXAMPLE OF RAES #7, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibaultr7part3.pdf .
183
J. Tyler, Looking at the Turin Shroud as Textile, Textile Horizons, December 1981, 20-23, www.sindone.info/TYRER1.PDF
184
““Z”twisting
suggests
sacerdotal
Syro-Palestinian
origin”,
G.
Fanti
e
B.
Faccini,
www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/Mostra%20Sindone.pdf p. 2; Prof. Fanti read that in the Biblical description of the materials for the
tabernacle and the high priest’s garments often the Latin expression ‘bysso retorta’ is used: “finely twisted linen”, in
Hebrew: ‘shesh mshzr’ (Ex 39,2.5.8.22.24.28.29 NIVUS, Ex 39,2.8.22.28 Vulgate), next to the ordinary ‘bysso’: “fine linen”,
in Hebrew: ‘shesh’ (Ex 1, (25), 26, (27) Vulgate). This ‘re-torta’ (in Hebrew from ‘shazar’ = to twist, Strong’s 07806 Ex 39,
2.5.8.22.24.28.29) – in stead of ‘torta’ – may refer to the Z-twisting, as opposed to the ordinary S-twisting of Egyptian linen
(J. Tyler, Looking at the Turin Shroud as Textile, Textile Horizons, December 1981, 20-23, www.sindone.info/TYRER1.PDF,
p. 20). For ‘bysso retorta’ the Septuagint has byssou keklōsmenēs = spun Egyptian linen, from klōthō = to spin. The Hebrew
women spun the (white) byssus, and all the other blue, purple, and scarlet linen, themselves (Ex 35,25). Egyptian fine linen
was called byssus, in Hebrew: ‘shesh’ (Easton’s Revised Bible Dictionary on ‘linen’ http://topicalbible.org/l/linen.htm), and
could have up to 140 x 64 threads in an inch (warp x weft). If ‘retorta bysso’ meant “fine twined linen” (RSV), in the sense
that the threads would consist of two or more yarns plied around each other, the threads would be at least twice as thick, and
the weave could not be as fine as Egyptian fine linen anymore. (The Shroud has about 98 x 65 threads in an inch.) It’s
important to note that either way ‘retorta’ refers to a Z-twist: either as a) the (primary) Z-twist of the first spinning of the
linen fibers into a yarn, or as b) the (secondary) Z-twist of the twining/plying of two S-twisted, Egyptian spun, yarns into one
Z-twisted twined thread. “Plying is twisting two or more single threads together, in the opposite direction from which they
were spun” (www.joyofhandspinning.com/yarn-plied.shtml, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_spinning). Even if the
Hebrew text originally meant the secondary Z-twist of twining (b), first-century Jews/the Septuagint may have interpreted it
as the primary Z-twist of spinning the linen fibers (a).
185
Fact A15 in “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti et
al., September 2005, www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf ; I removed the former reference to soap because fact B58 of the list
of evidences says “It is unknown whether Saponaria officinalis can be detected on the Shroud”.
186
My article “Internal selvedge in starched and dyed temple mantle – No invisible repair in Turin Shroud – No Maillard
reaction”, http://jesusking.info/Internal%20selvedge.pdf .
187
Fact B16 in “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti et
al., September 2005, www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
57
B. Schwortz, a sindonologist, said about the Shroud: “It is a bloodstained cloth. It was against Jewish
tradition to even handle. So, they would have kept it a secret. It would have been well preserved, probably kept
hidden most of the time, and perhaps that’s the reason why the condition is as good as it was when I first saw it
in 1978.”188 And perhaps that’s also why its history is so hard to trace. In 750 John Damascene called the Image
of Edessa – allegedly sent to Edessa by Jesus, and often regarded as the same as the Turin Shroud – a
‘himation’ (= mantle, cf. Mr 10,50 Jo 19,5); in 1204 the Shroud probably was in Constantinople and (later)
equated by some with the Mandylion of Edessa, in which ‘Mandylion’ is a unique Greek corruption of either the
Latin mantellum = mantle, or the Latin mantile (also mantele) = towel.189
The three protuberant hebrew characters on the oval plate under the chin of the body image on the Turin
Shroud, seen by Dr. Petrus Soons on a hologram,190 (see photograph © 1978-2011 Barrie M. Schwortz
Collection, STERA Inc.; enhanced by Dr. Petrus Soons, and also visible in an isolines view of a 1978 photo
made by Schwortz,191 may have been n ) ( ayin – aleph – nun.192
The last of the three characters, the nun, is not written as a final nun
(long N), but as a non-final nun (short n). This means that the three
characters probably aren’t one single word, but may be an
abbreviation. A possible interpretation is that the ayin – aleph are
hebrew numbers: 70 – 1,193 and that the nun is an abbreviation of the
hebrew word My)#n ‘nesiim’ = rulers or )#n ‘nasi’ = ruler
(Strong’s 05387), and that the three characters mean: the 71 rulers
of the Great Sanhedrin, the seventy ordinary members plus the
president (the Nasi or the Ab-beth-din).194 In the Septuagint, the
Greek version of the Bible in first-century Judea, the word ‘nesiim’ in
“Aaron and all the ‘nesiim’ of the congregation” (Ex 34,31) is
translated as ‘archontes’ (plural of ‘archōn’), which word was used
for the members of the Great Sanhedrin in the first century.
Jesus was buried by three ‘archontes’ of the Great Sanhedrin (“those
who live in Jerusalem and their rulers (‘archontes’), … took him
down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb” Acts 13,27-29), and one
of them may have held the oval object which represented the authority of this council. This person may have
been John Mark, the secretary of the council, who was ‘a priest wearing the’ petalon’’.195 The “petalon” (Ex
28,36 LXX = leaf, cf. petal, greek translation for the hebrew ‘tsiyts’ = blossom, flower, Ex 28,36 BHS) originally
188
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23742321#23742321
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa#Links_with_the_Shroud_of_Turin and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Possible_history_before_the_14th_century:_The_Image_of_Edessa
190
Dr. Petrus Soons had the gray-scale values of the Shroud mapped and displayed in a hologram and the natural form of a
3D-body appeared. It also showed the presence of a flat oval object beneath the chin (see http://shroud3d.com/findings/solidoval-object-under-the-beard and http://shroud3d.com/findings/three-hebrew-letters-on-surface-of-solid-object). The presence
of this object was confirmed by Pete Schumacher, who displayed the gray-scale values of the Shroud as height in a so-called
VP8 Image Analyser (http://shroudnm.com/docs/SEAM-VP8-Presentation.pdf).
191
The thumbnail of the 1978 copyrighted STERA photo is online at http://www.shroud.com/gallery/images/Face300C.jpg
192
In the image, the lower right part of the ayin ( is just as broad as the lower right part of the nun n. So this lower right
189
part of the ayin needn’t be the lower right part of a tsade c, but may be only an ornamental part of the letter, as in the nun.
The lower left part of the ayin seems perhaps even lower than the aleph and nun, which would correspond better with an ayin
than with a tsade.
193
A Mishnaic textual source (Pirkei Avot 3:23) makes clear that the use of gematria (and thus of numeric value of individual
letters) is dated to at least the Tannaic period (0-200 CE)
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gematria).
194
T. Bab. Sukkah 5 speaks of the 71 golden seats in a palace (“the glory of Israel”) in Alexandria “for the seventy-one
sages of the Great Sanhedrin” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sukkah5.html). And when Aaron was the
high priest, the priest Eleazar, the son of Aaron, was “the chief leader”, the ‘nasi nasii’ , of Levi, ywlh y)y#n )y#n (Nu
3,32 NIVUS and BHS).
195
'hos egenēthē hiereus to petalon pephorekōs' (Eusebius (275-339 CE), Church History 5,24,2) in which ‘pephorekōs’ is
the verb ‘pherō’ = to carry (translation of Kirsopp Lake, Ecclesiastical History, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University
Press 1926: “John, … who was a priest wearing the breastplate”; another translation : “John, … being a priest, wore the
sacerdotal plate” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxi.html). That John’s petalon was a Jewish and not a
Christian ornament, is convincingly demonstrated on http://geocities.ws/aleph135/Storage/polycrates.html. To this can be
added that the word for a Christian priest was ‘presbyteros’ (= literally ‘oldest’; elder/ruler, ecclesiastical officer)(e.g.
Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE), Stromata 3,12,90), while ‘hiereus’ (= man busied with sacred rites, temple officer,
from ‘hieros’ = sacred, a sacred thing, temple, e.g 1Co 9,13) was a general designation, used forJewish temple priests (e.g.
Mt 8,4 12,4.5) and heathen priests (Ac 14,13), and for Christ as a high priest like Melchisedek (Heb 5,6 7,1.17 8,4 10,21) and
for the general priesthood of all Christian believers (Re 1,6 5,10 20,6).
58
was the unique golden crown plate of the anointed high priest, engraved with the words ‘Holy to the Lord’
and attached to his mitre with a blue ribbon,196 and Josephus says it still existed in the first century.197
ImageJ isolines view of thumbnail of 1978 STERA photo
Maimonides says it was two fingers broad, and that it reached from ear to ear, and that the letters were
protuberant, or stood out.198 But in Jesus’ days the high priest’s splendid liturgical clothes with all their
ornaments were kept locked up by the Romans in the fortress Antonia,199 so, the mitre with the golden crown
plate attached to it (Ex 28,37), was there too. As an alternative, the Jews may have made another oval (= petalshaped) plate, engraved with the characters n ) ( , for the high priest and perhaps all other members of the
Great Sanhedrin, expressing the ruling authority of its wearer.200 From 6 CE the high priest was arbitrarily
196
kai poihseiv petalon (petalon) crusoun kayaron kai ektupwseiv en autw ektupwma sfragidov
agiasma kuriou … (Ex 28,36-37 LXX)
197
Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, briefly mentions the crown plate as “a golden plate, which had inscribed
upon it the name of God in sacred characters” and says that “the crown upon which Moses wrote [the name of God], was
only one, and hath remained to this very day” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 3,7,6 and 8,3,8 (93), Hendrickson, The Works of
Josephus, 1987, reprint 2003, p. 90 and 218). Talmud Sabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a quote Rabbi Eliazar bar Yossi as saying: “I
saw it in Rome (where it had been taken after the Temple’s destruction) and the words hyhl #dq were written on one line.”
(www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1008234/jewish/Chapter-9.htm#footnote4a1008234)
In Jesus’ days the high priest’s official clothes only consisted of the purple robe and a crown/turban, because “the oracle
[the big square breastplate which contained the Urim and Thummim Ex 28,15-30] … did not exist during the period of the
Second Temple” (S. Sarfrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century
(Assen/Amsterdam, 1976) 874). Sirach 45,12 speaks of the golden crown of the high priest and in 1Macc 10,21 Jonathan, the
high priest, puts on the holy robe on the Feast of Tabernacles.
198
Mishneh Torah, Sefer Avoda, Kli Hamikdash 9,1-2 (www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1008234/jewish/Chapter9.htm)
199
Jos., J. Antiq. 15,11,4(403); and 18,4,3(93-95); The clothes were only given free the day before the three great liturgical
feasts of the Jews and before the Day of Atonement.
200
Of king David is said in Ps 132,18: “His enemies will I clothe with shame: but upon himself shall his crown (‘nezer’)
flourish (‘tsuwts’).” As the ‘nezer’ will flourish (‘tsuwts’ = to blossom), it may have had the form of a petal, just as the
‘nezer’ (= sign of dedication) of the high priest (his ‘nezer’ is his ‘tsiyts’ Ex 28,36 29,6). So, the wearing of a ‘petalon’ was
perhaps not restricted to the high priestly dignity, but could also have been a sign of royal or ruling dignity. This is
confirmed by Epiphanius, who says that even Herod wore a diadem just as the high priest-king Alexander: “(3) …
Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) … Alexander was crowned (‘diadēma epetheto’ diadhma epeqeto) also,
as one of the anointed priests and rulers (eij twn xristwn kai ‘hgoumenwn ‘uparxwn ). (5) For when the two tribes, the
kingly and priestly, were united – I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi – kings also became
priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned
(‘diadēma epethento’ diadhma epeqento), and not David’s descendants any more” (Panarion 29,3,3-6
http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&id=IKyxt9kyys8C&dq=inauthor:%22Saint+Epiphanius+(Bp.+of+Constantia+in+Cypr
us.)%22&q=alexander&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Herod%20crowned&f=false and
59
appointed and dismissed by the Romans, but the Great Sanhedrin was independent, and legally represented
and ruled the Jewish people under the Romans. Also James the Just, head representative of the people in the
temple liturgy and probably member of the Great Sanhedrin, wore the petalon.201 Interestingly, the earliest
known representation of a Jewish high priest – in a mural in the synagogue of Dura-Europos, Syria, of 245-256
AD (see figure below) – shows him wearing a headdress without a crown plate, and wearing a mantle closed on
his breast by a golden oval-shaped engraved plate.202 A mantle did belong to the biblical outfit of the high priest
but a plate attached to the mantle did not (Ex 28,31-35 and 39,22-26).
The high priest (Aaron) wearing a golden oval-shaped engraved breastplate
Mural in Dura-Europos 245-256 AD
The Jewish rulers – high priests, elders, and scribes – probably didn’t all wear a mitre/turban, and for this
reason the alternative petalon may have been worn as a breast plate, also by John Mark. In this case it would
have been very appropriate, and in line with the “burial custom of the Jews” (to bury a person of high rank with
his most costly ornaments and weapons), and also in line with the high priestly/royal spices brought by
Nicodemus and with the high priestly temple ‘sindōn’ brought by Joseph of Arimathea, that John Mark put his
high priestly authoritative ‘petalon’ on the breast of Jesus, the everlasting high priest. The fact that the linen
shroud (one of the ‘othonia’ of John 19,40) and the spices are explicitly mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, and the
‘petalon’ isn’t, suggests that its anonymous author, the secret beloved disciple, was himself the one who offered
it to Jesus. John Mark, as the very rich secretary of the Great Sanhedrin, may very well have been the executive
who confered such a breast plate to each new member of this council. In that case, when he put his own
’petalon’ on Jesus’ breast – where he expected it to remain, especially after they had sealed the grave (Mt
27,66) –, he knew how to get himself a new one, secretly.
On the hologram dr. Soons also found the presence of a certain object lying on the hand of the crucified man:
one part that is visible looks like a rope or a rod, and another part, at the other end, looks like an ampoule or
bud or fruit, and two parts in the middle look like two leaves (see fig. 4 on the page Ongoing Holographic
http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&id=4LfUAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Saint+Epiphanius+(Bp.+of+Constantia+in+C
yprus.)%22&q=29+&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=82&f=false).
Also in Panarion 51,22,21 he speaks of the “anointed rulers descended from Judah and Aaron”
(http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&id=brxgNsxJKkUC&q=anointed+rulers#v=snippet&q=descended%20from%20Judah
%20and%20Aaron&f=false). After king Herod there was no Jewish king and the Jewish ruling dignity passed on to the
rulers of the Great Sanhedrin. In Egypt (Joseph) and Babylon (Daniel) a gold necklace had been a sign of ruling dignity (Ge
41,42 Da 5,7.16.29).
201
That James the Just, the brother of Jesus, wore the petalon: note 862 on Eus., Church History 3,31,3 by Cushman
McGiffert, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxi.html#fnf_iii.viii.xxxi-p13.2, says it’s written in Epiphanius, Haeres.
LXXVII.14; I found it online in Epiphanius “Panarion” 29,4,4
(http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&id=IKyxt9kyys8C&dq=inauthor:%22Saint+Epiphanius+(Bp.+of+Constantia+in+Cyp
rus.)%22&q=priestly%20tablet21&f=false p.125). It is possible that he wore it as an elder and member of the Great
Sanhedrin, for according to my article James and the brothers – Davidic representatives in the temple liturgy on
www.JesusKing.info James the Just was the head of the representatives of the people of Israel in the temple liturgy. There
even
seems
to
be
a
trace
of
a
tradition
that
Mark
wore
the
petalon
(http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/James/James_lesson2_intro_part2.htm, 6th answer), although I haven’t found it in any of
the sources referred to.
202
http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/801/flashcards/405801/png/tabernacle1305588413983.png and
http://www2.palomar.edu/users/mhudelson/WorksofArt/32Jewish/2892.html and
http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/eatherton/earlycristian.html
60
Research of Dr. Soons).203 One of its possible explanations is that the object (if it is one single object) is the
twig of an almond tree, with two leaves and a fruit on its end or in the middle.204 The reason why such a twig
would have been laid on the hand of Jesus is, that it represented the rod of the high priest Aaron, which, when
put in the temple, miraculously put forth buds and flowers and even ripe almonds, as a sign that only Aaron was
the chosen high priest of the Lord and no one else (Nu 17,5-10). According to Heb 9,1-6 “Aaron’s rod that
budded” was still inside the Ark of the Covenant in the temple, so it was still a vivid concept in the first century.
Also the mocking soldiers had put a reed in Jesus’ right hand, referring to the staff of a (high priest-)king (Mt
27,29). But the Messiah, the Christ, would receive his scepter from God and rule in the midst of his foes (Ps
110,2).
Another, probably better, interpretation is that the object on the hand is a
cylinder seal in a pendant,205 in the shape of a fruit bearing almond twig,
probably signifying it belonged to the high priest. It seems attached to a cord
as a necklace (cf. Ge 38,18 “your seal and its cord” NIVUS).206 The ropeshaped object along the lower arm, of which on a certain photograph there
even seem to be two207, and which seems to run up to the upper arm, then
probably is the seal’s corresponding cord. The high priests sealed Jesus’
grave with a seal or mark (Mt 27,66). And John Mark, as the Great
Sanhedrin’s secretary, must have had a seal, perhaps even that of the high
priest himself. Joseph of Egypt received fine linen, a gold necklace, and a seal
as signs of his ruling authority (Ge 41,42-43). And the reason why he left it in
the grave? It wasn’t just the most appropriate honorific grave good for the
Christ. It was also the ‘murder weapon’, the seal that had sealed Jesus’ fate,
the proof that he, John Mark, had personally consented to Jesus’ death, as
this seal’s impression was on the written verdict.Perhaps he wanted to get rid
of it and get himself/the high priest another, different one. But the risen Jesus
returned it to him. It was inside the rolled up ‘sindōn’, along with the
‘petalon’, as another proof of his resurrection: “your seal and its cord”.
A suggestion for the cause of the seemingly imageless area below the
anatomical right side of the lower lip, is that the “vinegar”, that was “held to his mouth” by a soldier and
“received” and perhaps spilled by Jesus right before He died (Mt 27,48-50 Mr 15,36-37 Jn 19,29-30), blocked
the formation of an image.208 And perhaps some other imageless areas on the face and body209 were caused by
dielectric salt crystals from sweat. In Gethsemane Jesus’ “sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling
down to the ground” (Lu 22,44 AV). They may have also been salt crystals from the salt that Jews used for
preserving a corpse before burial.210 Jesus’ hurried burial probably was a preliminary one (cf. Jo 19,42 Lu
23,56-24,1 Jo 20,2) . A thick dielectric salt layer on the floor on which the shroud was, might also explain the
absence of a second image on the dorsal reverse of the Shroud (as opposed to the presence of a second image on
the frontal reverse)211, and would comply with the preliminary burial of Jesus as well. *******************
203
http://shroud3d.com/findings/ongoing-holographic-research
The almond tree blooms in february-march (http://www.tytyga.com/category/Almond+Trees). For some pictures see:
http://www.iknow-portugal.co.uk/tourist_information/portugal_holidays/the_douro/ (“A young almond tree growing wild”),
http://free-photos.biz/photographs/food/fruits/322206_almond_tree.php, http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-27168472/stockphoto-almond-tree.html.
205
For instance a cylinder seal or a stamp seal in a pendant. “Graves and other sites housing precious items such as gold,
silver, beads, and gemstones often included one or two cylinder seals, as honorific grave goods”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_seal). “… the seal [of king Ahaz] with which it was impressed was set in a metal
bezel, either in a signet ring or in a pendant. … The letters are small (the seal itself is only 2/5 of an inch wide), but they are
of very high quality” (http://www.archaeological-center.com/en/monographs/m1). For a cylinder seal which may have
closely resembled the seal on the Shroud, see http://art.thewalters.org/viewwoa.aspx?id=4399. A precious cylinder seal
could also have a silver knob on its top (L.H. Grollenberg, Kleine Atlas van de Bijbel, Elsevier 1973, p. 49: photograph of a
cylinder seal of a priest). Another cylinder seal with a knob:
http://www.lessing-photo.com/dispimg.asp?i=08021531+&cr=5&cl=1.
206
“He said, "What pledge shall I give you?" She replied, "Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand."”
(Ge 38,18 RSV)/ “And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand” (AV). Here
“cord”/“bracelets” translates lytp, ‘pathiyl’ = cord, thread (twisted) (Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon 06616). The
Septuagint has ‘ormiskos’ = creek (http://translate.google.com/?hl=nl#el|en|ormiskos), cf. the verb ‘ormizō’ = anchor, place
in a certain position, be suspended from (G.J.M. Bartelink, Greek-Dutch dictionary, 12th reprint 1978, p. 178). The Vulgate
has armillam = bracelet.
207
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0, at 01:56
208
Perhaps the electrons from a corona discharge (see G. Fanti e.a.., BODY IMAGE FORMATION HYPOTHESES BASED
ON CORONA DISCHARGE, http://www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf) were caught by the acid ions of the vinegar.
209
http://shroud3d.com/findings/ongoing-holographic-research
210
“the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to
prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes (Shab. xxiii.
5; Sem. i. 2, 3; Acts ix. 37; John xi. 44, xii. 7, xix. 39 et seq., xx. 6 et seq.; Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46 et seq.; Luke xxiii. 53
et seq.; Testament of Abraham, xx.).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1607&letter=B&search=burial
211
Fanti and Maggiolo, The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud, Journal of Optics A: Pure and
Applied Optics 6 (2004) 491-503, p. 501, http://www.sindone.info/FANTI.PDF
204
61
8. Abrupt end and not-connecting resumption of the Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark breaks off very suddenly, after it says that the women who discovered
the empty tomb and saw an angel, fled from the tomb without saying anything (Mr 16,8).
“And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come
upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.” (Mr 16,8)
[“Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had
been with him”] (Mr 16,9)
The reason for this sudden break in the story might be that the next thing that happened after
the women fled, was that John Mark himself arrived at the tomb and entered it – only after
Simon Peter had arrived and had said the tomb was empty –, and that Mark then saw his
‘sindōn’ and believed that Jesus had risen. Perhaps Peter, who had instructed Mark when he
wrote this Gospel,212 had given Mark a description of these events, that Mark didn’t want to
be published, because the description revealed his identity and that he was a secret disciple, as
he had come to the grave with Simon Peter. So, either the next chapter was written but not
published by Mark, or never got written. Only later, when Mary was the co-author of the
Gospel of John, the scene at the empty tomb got published in the Gospel of John, but only in
an anonymous and ambiguous way (John 20,1-10). The second ending of the Gospel of Mark
re-starts the story exactly at the moment when Simon Peter and John Mark had left the tomb,
viz. when Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mr 16,9).213 So, the author of the Gospel of
Mark is recognized by the gaps he created: an anonymous rich man (Mr 10,17), an
anonymous fleeing young man (Mr 14,51-52), and a gap in the story of Easter morning. He
just couldn’t write for a third time that some anonymous man went to Jesus’ grave with Peter.
He was the real one who said nothing to any one, for he was afraid.
9. Anonymous end and anonymous resumption of the Gospel of John - John the Elder
A fact which complicates the interpretation of the many, often conflicting, testimonies from
the ages about the author of the Fourth Gospel (probably published between 90 and 100
CE214) is, that John Mark initially was a secret disciple who hid his identity and activity in
real life and in the Fourth Gospel, and that he published the Fourth Gospel shortly before he
died and no-one was absolutely sure whether the John, who “published” the Gospel in
Ephesus (Irenaeus 3,1,1), was also the author and beloved disciple. The chapter John 21,
which was added to the chapters 1-20, seemingly by another author, says the beloved disciple
was the original author, but doesn't say his name (Jn 21,24-25). So, it may have been a puzzle
from the start, except for the author(s) themselves. Perhaps John Mark even deliberately
added chapter 21 himself and only published the gospel after he had added it, in order that he
212
Eusebius, Church History 5,8,2-3 and 3,39,15
First the big group of women arrived at the grave, of whom Mary Magdalene ran to Peter
and John, then the rest of the women saw the angel(s) and left, then John, Peter and Mary
arrived and John saw and believed but didn’t say anything, then Peter and John left, but Mary
stayed and saw the risen Jesus. This sequence is described in chapter 6 of my article The
Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info.
214
The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports 96 CE or one
of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing (Catholic encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm).
213
62
would seem only the author of chapter 21, and not seem the anonymous “beloved disciple”,
the author of 1-20. The chapters 20 and 21 have always been found as a unity in all known
manuscripts, and that is why the New Testament scholar Craig states that chapter 21 was
probably added before the gospel was published.215 It was Irenaeus, who wrote in about 185
CE that the beloved disciple was the same as the publisher John: “Then John, disciple of the
Lord, who also lay on his breast, himself published the gospel, while he was staying at
Ephesus in Asia” (Irenaeus: 3,1,1, cited in Eusebius: 5,8,4). Until then people may have
assumed the beloved disciple and author was the Apostle John (already “killed by the
Jews”216), and that another John, for instance ‘John the Elder’ (Presbyter John), after adding
the last chapter, published it. Pope Benedict XVI wrote “There seem to be grounds for
ascribing to “Presbyter John” an essential role in the definitive shaping of the Gospel”.217
The beloved disciple and publisher John may have been the person who had been called 1)
John, with the Roman surname Mark (Marcus), given to him by the Romans and the temple
administrators in Jerusalem (e.g. the temple physician Luke writing for the high priest
Theophilus)218, when he was still the rich young ruler and ‘hypēretai’ of the temple, as priestsecretary and collegue of the Roman secretaries of Pilate, and a secret disciple, but 2) was
called Mark in the Gentile world, when he proclaimed his gospel in Egypt and when he was in
Rome with Paul en the “elder” Peter (Col 4,10 Phm 1,24 1Pet 5,1.13) and in Ephesus with
Timothy (2Tim 4,11) (c. 54-66 CE),219 and 3) eventually was called ‘John the Elder’ by
himself and the Christians in Ephesus, about thirty years later, when he had become an old
Christian ‘presbyteros’ (= literally ‘oldest’; elder/ruler, also used in the official sense of
‘ecclesiastical officer’220) in Ephesus, where also a younger John seems to have lived.221
John the Elder is distinguished from John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, by Papias (c.115-140
CE)222, Irenaeus223 – who distinguished Papias’ ‘presbyters’ from the apostles –, Dionysius of
Alexandria (Eus. 7,25) – who said there were two tombs of John in Ephesus, which was
confirmed by Jerome (De Viris Ill. 9) –, and Eusebius224. But because of the assumed
identification of the beloved disciple as the Apostle John – almost fixed by the time of 185
CE (but not completely, cf. the Muratorian Canon)225 –, and Papias’ distinction, in about 130
215
W.L. Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection
of Jesus, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, volume 16 (Lewison QueenstonLampeter 2002 revised edition, p. 204
216
Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/papias.htm) on Papias’ lost work “The
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord”.
217
Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, 2004, 226
218
See my article “The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the officers of the temple prison”,
www.JesusKing.info
219
That he wrote his Gospel of Mark before he went to Alexandria, has been shown above, in
the next to last paragraph of chapter 2.
220
note 944 on Eus. 3,39,3
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html#fna_iii.viii.xxxix-p9.2
221
Dionysius of Alexandria says there were “two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the
name of John” (Eus. 7,25,12-13.16).
222
Eus. 3,39,4.7
223
“those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles” Fragments
from Lost Writings 2. See also Adv. Her. 3,2,2, 3,14,2 4,26,2 4,27,1 4,32,1 5,36,2.
224
Eus. 3,39,5-7
225
See paragraph 7.1 above. The canon may seem to identify the author as the apostle John,
but doesn’t do that explicitly. It is ambiguous and the description also fits, and even better,
with the disciple John Mark, for it distinguishes between “[one] of the disciples” (John) and
“[one] of the apostles” (Andrew), and suggests the gospel of the disciple John needed to be
reviewed by the apostle Andrew and the bishops and other disciples he was with.
63
CE, between this Apostle and John the Elder of Ephesus, people didn’t think that this John
the-Elder-and-not-Apostle could be the beloved disciple, even after Ireaneaus wrote in 185
CE that it was the beloved disciple himself who published the gospel in Ephesus. So, since
then, one was minded to defy Papias’ distinction and identify the Apostle and the Elder John.
See fig. 6 below, for an illustration.
Fig. 6. “beloved disciple”: from John the Apostle via John the Elder to John Mark
John the Elders’ reason for not wanting to be identified as the author, also after having
become a public Christian, may have been that he then might also be identified as the
‘hypēretēs’ who beat Jesus’ face before Annas, as it was written in his Gospel (Jn 18,22). Not
only was this first slap the cause of the further beating by the lower ‘hypēretai’226, but after
this identification as a traitor, people could also start to surmise that he had also condemned
Jesus to death, as in the trial in which he was present as its secretary “they all condemned him
as deserving death” (Mr 14,64) and “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, … fulfilled
these [prophecies] by condemning him. … they asked Pilate to have him killed. … they took
him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb” (Acts 13,27-29).
The ‘trick’ of the addition of a chapter of (seemingly) another author (had) worked in the
Gospel of Mark, so he probably did it as well at the end of his life at the end of the Fourth
Gospel. An Armenian manuscript attributes the added chapter Mark 16 to Aristion,227 who is
only known as a presbyter in the direct context of John the Elder, as having both been heard
by Papias in Hierapolis in Asia-Minor, not far from Ephesus (Papias, in Eus. 3,39,4.7.14). The
“we” in the ‘added’ chapter John 21 (Jn 21,24) probably were John Mark and Aristion (or
another presbyter), and the “I” of John 21,25 was the beloved disciple (John Mark) himself, as
Irenaeus says. This verse John 21,25, which is the end of the entire gospel, and perhaps was
added even later than Jo 21,1-24, also strongly resembles the end of the chapters 1-20 (John
20,30-31), as both say Jesus did many other things which weren’t written in this gospel. And
in the Gospel of John he inserts or refers to every incident given in his earlier Gospel of Mark
that Luke had passed over.228 It seems John Mark was someone who liked complete
information, except about his own identity.
At some time a certain ‘presbyter’ defended the Gospel of Mark in Ephesus/Hierapolis, for
Papias says “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote
down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done
by Christ”, and then follows the interpretation that Mark “was careful of one thing, not to
omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely” (Eus. 3,39,14-
226
Mark 14,65 Matt 26,67-68, see par. 5.2 above
Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Papias, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm
228
Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Papias, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm
227
64
15). This ‘presbyter’, possibly the same as the one called Aristion, may have been the
‘presbyter’ (“elder”) of 2Jn 1,1229 and 1Pe 5,1, who called Mark “my son” (1Pe 5,13).230
The Apocalypse
The author of the Apocalypse seems to have been the John who according to tradition was put
in boiling oil in Rome (‘San-Giovanni-in-olio’) and survived, and from there was banished to
the island Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse near 96 CE (Irenaeus, Against Heresies
5,30). The Anti-Marcionite and the Monarchian Prologue to John (c. 200 CE and 200-400 CE,
resp.) say the author of the Apocalypse, when released, went to Ephesus, and wrote and gave
his gospel (of John) there.231 Justin Martyr,232 and Tertullian,233 said the author of the
Apocalypse was the Apostle John, but they might have meant the Evangelist John (Patmos
being only twelve miles from Ephesus, and they supposed the Evangelist in Ephesus was the
Apostle).234 Dionysius of Alexandria was of the opinion that the Apocalypse’s author John
was not the apostle (Eus. 7,25,12-13). It is true he thought it wasn’t John Mark either, but the
reason he gives for this is that John Mark didn’t go to Asia with Paul and Barnabas from
Perge (Eus. 7,25,15) (Jesus’ seven messages in the Apocalypse were meant for seven specific
churches in Asia). So, Dionysius didn’t take into account that Mark was in Asia indeed much
later, when Timothy was there (2Tim 4,11). (That the Monarchian Prologue to John, which
229
2Jn probably was brought to its destination (Rome) by John Mark, and therefore was
called ‘of John’; also 1Jn and 3Jn were probably written by this elder and perhaps brought to
their destinations (Ephesus and Kolosse, resp.) by John Mark (see my article “The Elder and
the Elect Lady – Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”, www.JesusKing.info).
230
For the identity of this presbyter (Cephas/Aristion/Peter) and a person-time-place schedule,
see my article “The Elder and the Elect Lady – Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”,
www.JesusKing.info.
231
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/12/prologues-to-the-gospels-john/
232
Dialogue with Trypho 81 and Eus. 4,18,8
233
Against Marcion 3,14
234
Of course the Gospel of Mark is very different from the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of
John is very different from the Apocalypse. But each of these three works, perhaps written
down by the same secretary John Mark, had a different source and purpose. The Gospel of
Mark was the written account of what the young John Mark, and the other inhabitants of the
Cenacle, had remembered from Simon Peter’s teachings about Jesus’ ministry, passion and
resurrection; The Gospel of John was written by John as the secretary of Mary and Cephas
(see my article “The Elder and the Elect Lady – Joseph ‘Peter’ and Mary in Rome”,
www.JesusKing.info), about Whom they knew to be the Son of God, become man; the
Apocalypse perhaps was written by the Elder John, after he had lived in Alexandria and Rome
and when he thought he was for ever banished and isolated at the island of Patmos, and when
he had his own visions, and wrote them down, perhaps in an exalted state, as the secretary of
Him, who said He was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
Some similiraties between the gospels of John Mark and the Apocalypse are: Mark had been
in Ephesus and was planning to go to Colosse (2Tim 4,11 Col 4,10), and the seven churches
of Asia, addressed in the Apocalypse (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis,
Philadelphia, and Laodicea), are all not far from Ephesus and Colosse
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Anatolia). Both in Jo 21,25 and
Re 1,9 the author calls himself an “I” without further specification (of which John). Both in Jo
21,24 and Re 22,20 the author talks about the one “which testifies” (‘ho marturōn’) in the
book. And in Re 22,18 the author says nothing should be added or taken away from his book,
and the Gospel of Mark was defended for being complete and accurate, and the Gospel of
John inserts again every incident from the Gospel of Mark that was passed over by Luke. And
there may be more similarities, especially between the Gospel of Mark and the Apocalyps.
65
says that John, the apostle and author of the Apocalypse and finally evangelist, stepped in his
grave in Ephesus and was buried there (“laid by his fathers”)235, contradicts the earlier
testimony of Papias (from about 185 CE) about the apostle John being killed by the Jews,236
has already been explained in paragraph 7.2. above. It was concluded that probably only John
the Evangelist (and perhaps author of the Apocalypse), peacefully died in Ephesus; there he
died in the time of Trajan (98-117)237, after having had the (perhaps unexpected) chance to
add the last verse, and call himself “I”, in Jo 21,25, and to finally give Mary’s gospel to the
Christians of Ephesus.
10. Other candidates for the authorship
Besides that can be said that the apostle John, son of Zebedee, could not have been the author
of the Fourth Gospel and beloved disciple, the following can be said about the other
candidates238 (see table 11):
Already existing theories about the author of
My study
the Fourth Gospel
1 An existence of a ‘John of Jerusalem’ who
had access into the High Priest’s house was
first proposed by H. Delff (1889), “but no
external evidence of any kind supports this
theory” (www.bible.org).
This theoretical person complies exactly
with the historical John Mark, who was a
‘hypēretēs’ (attendant of synagogue,
temple and/or judge) and ‘archōn’ (ruler)
and lived in Jerusalem.
2 It is pseudepigraphical: meant is that the
author wanted to create the impression of
apostolic authorship of his/her work,
although he or she was not an apostle.
John Mark, who was known to be no
apostle, wrote the Gospel of Mark, and it
gained general acceptance in the Church.
So, the other gospel he wrote, the socalled ‘Gospel of John’, could gain
acceptance as well, without having been
written by an apostle. And also the
Gospel of Luke, who wasn’t an apostle,
gained acceptance. So, there was no need
to create the impression of apostolicity,
but it would help obscuring the real
identity of the author of the Fourth
Gospel: the not-apostolic John Mark.
3 John Mark being the author of the Fourth The different style of the Fourth Gospel,
Gospel is impossible because of the different when compared to the Gospel of Mark,
style of the Gospel of Mark
can be explained by the co-authorship of
Jesus’ virgin mother Mary.
235
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/12/prologues-to-the-gospels-john/
Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.)
(www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/papias.htm) on Papias’ lost work “The
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord”.
237
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3,4
238
1 to 6: www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1150, 7: www.beloveddisciple.org
236
66
4 John the Elder (‘presbyter’): he is mentioned Papias does not designate this John the
by Papias, who is cited by Eusebius.
Elder as the author of the Fourth Gospel:
“I would inquire for the sayings of the
Prebyters, what Andrew said, or what
Peter said, or what Philip or what
Thomas or James or what John or
Matthew or any other of the Lord's
disciples said, and for the things which
Aristion and the Presbyter John, the
disciples of the Lord, were saying.”
(Eusebius 3,39). But Papias does clearly
distinguish the apostle “John”, mentioned
between the apostles James and Matthew,
from “the Presbyter John”. So, perhaps
“the Presbyter John” was the same as the
priest John Mark (‘presbyter’, the Greek
word for ‘elder’, is the origin of our
modern word ‘priest’).
5 Lazarus: he is the only man in the Gospel of
John of whom is said explicitly that he was
loved by Jesus, viz. together with his sisters
Martha and Mary239.
If Lazarus was the evangelist of the
Fourth Gospel – who wanted to remain
the anonymous beloved disciple in this
gospel –, he wouldn’t have written in it
that Jesus loved Lazarus. Of the
anonymous rich young ruler (Mark) is
also said explicitly that he was loved by
Jesus, and he was loved on his own, but
this is in the Gospel of Mark and not in
John’s. John Mark, who published the
Fourth Gospel probably after he had
published his Gospel of Mark, could not
take back his verse Mark 10,21, which
revealed that Jesus loved Mark. So, by
calling himself the beloved disciple he
gave a small clue for his identity.
(Likewise, by describing how Jesus was
slapped in the face before Annas, he left
a small clue for his identity.)
6 Lazarus and John Mark: the Fourth Gospel is It might as well - or even better - have
an Aramaic work by Lazarus, edited by John been an Aramaic work by Jesus’ virgin
Mark, who was the evangelist.
mother Mary, edited by John Mark (in
Greek). Mary lived in Nazareth (Luke
1,26.39) and “Generally, scholars believe
that the towns of Nazareth and
Capernaum where Jesus lived were
Aramaic-speaking communities”240.
239
240
John 11,3.5.11.36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boanerges#Boanerges
67
7 Mary Magdalene
The author of the Fourth Gospel was a
man, but the co-author may have been a
woman who stood very near to Jesus. As
the Fourth Gospel primarily testifies to
Jesus’ being God, become flesh (John
1,1.14), this co-author could also have
been Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, to
whose care the beloved disciple had been
entrusted (and visa-versa) by Jesus on the
cross, and who lived in John’s house in
Jerusalem and Ephesus, where the Fourth
Gospel was written.
8 Thomas (name of Aramaic origin), called Irenaeus said the author was a John
Didymus (Greek translation of Thomas)
(name of Hebrew origin). It is not
probable that someone with the names
Thomas and Didymus (both meaning
‘twin’), would have a third name John
(meaning ‘Jehovah is a gracious giver’),
especially because the Aramaic origin of
Thomas, ‘t(a)oma’ (Jn 11,16 Peshitta),
was very near to the Hebrew word
‘taom’, for ‘twin’.
Table 11. Other candidates for the authorship
11. Conclusion
The general view used to be that the apostle John of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel of
John, also called the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, some people have thought that John Mark
was the beloved disciple and evangelist of the Gospel of John and this article is meant as
corroboration, with some new arguments, especially that Jesus’ virgin mother Mary was a coauthor of the Gospel of John. This explains the difference with the Gospel of Mark. The
beloved disciple and Mary had been entrusted to each other’s care by the dying Jesus. The
Gospel of John was published in Ephesus by a John, and John Mark was in Ephesus with
Timothy. Both the beloved disciple and Jesus’ mother are anonymous in this gospel. Mark
was anonymous in the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of John starts by clearly testifying that
Jesus was and is God, become flesh, and this took place through the virginal motherhood of
Mary.
The beloved disciple knew (the names and family relations and other details of) the
officers of the temple prison and was not recognized as a disciple of Jesus by the officers,
high priests and elders at Jesus’ cross, and John Mark, a nephew of the Levite Barnabas, was
1) a ‘hypēretēs’ = a temple attendant and/or a judge’s secretary, and 2) an ‘archōn’ = ruler –
the two Greek titles of the secretary of the court of justice of Athens –, and therefore he
probably was the secretary of the priestly ruling Council of the Temple and possibly also of
the general court of justice of Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin in which the Council of the
Temple formed a distinct block. This is confirmed by Eusebius, who says that the beloved
disciple was a priest wearing/carrying the (high) priestly golden ornament. And this also
explains how the details of the high priests’ plans, words and councils found their way into
the New Testament. And both the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark refer to minutiae of
the temple service, which were regulated by the Council of the Temple. In Luke’s term
“ministers of the Word” for evangelists the two characteristics of John Mark (the ‘hypēretēs’
68
= minister Mark, and “the Word” as the unique expression used by John) are a unity. John
Mark, as the beloved disciple John and as Mark, was one of the “ministers (‘hypēretai’) of the
Word”, who “delivered” Jesus’ gospel to the people. Likewise, as Caiphas’ secretary
(‘hypēretēs’), he had delivered Caiphas’ decrees to the priests and people, as later Paul, as
one of the “‘hypēretai’ of Christ”, “delivered” “the decrees” of the apostles to the churches.
The beloved disciple wanted to stay anonymous in his gospel, probably because he had
been a secret disciple of Jesus, just like Nicodemus, ruler of the Pharisees, and Joseph of
Arimatea, member of the Great Sanhedrin, had been, and because Jesus had wanted him to
remain the, secretly Christian, secretary of Caiphas and the Council of the Temple. The risen
Jesus had said to Simon Peter: “If it is my will that he [the beloved disciple] remain until I
come, what is that to you?” The beloved disciple didn’t enter Jesus’ opened, but perhaps still
occupied, grave first, probably because he wanted to stay Levitically, i.e. ritually, clean, to be
able to go to work in the temple. The (ritually) clean linen cloth in which Jesus was buried
(probably the unique temple garment worn by John Mark at home at the Last Supper, and
then left in the hands of the temple officers on the Mount of Olives, and bought from them by
Joseph of Arimatea), a) made the beloved disciple write that Jesus was buried “as is the burial
custom of the Jews”, i.e. in a garment, b) compelled the beloved disciple to enter the grave
and see whether the cloth lying there was his own garment, c) triggered the beloved disciple’s
belief that Jesus had risen, when he saw it there neatly rolled up and placed at the head as a
priest’s garment, d) was given to “the servant of the priest” by Jesus after his resurrection
(Jerome citing the Gospel of the Hebrews) (i.e. the beloved disciple took it from Jesus’
grave), and e) was taken to Ephesus by the evangelist John and Mary.
The beloved disciple was known to the high priests, elders and scribes at Jesus’ cross (though
not as a disciple), was anonymous in his partly ambiguous and allusive gospel(s) and was
literate, but the apostle John of Zebedee was unknown to the high priests (although
recognized as a disciple), bold (out-spoken), illiterate, zealous, impetuous and plain. John the
Apostle had to follow a man carrying water to find the house of the Cenacle (and its upper
room) in Jerusalem, which probably was the beloved disciple’s house. John the Apostle was
killed by the Jews, but John the Evangelist peacefully stepped in his grave and was buried in
Ephesus. The Muratorian Canon says John the Evangelist was a disciple whose gospel had to
be reviewed by the apostle Andrew and the bishops and other disciples he was with. John the
Apostle was not the Presbyter John of Ephesus (Papias), who probably had a definitive role in
shaping the Fourth Gospel, but the John who published the Gospel in Ephesus was the same
as the beloved disciple (Irenaeus). Westcott’s fifth circle of proof, claiming that John 21,24
assigns authorship to ‘the apostle whom Jesus loved’, is invalid, for John 21,24 says it was a
disciple. All his other circles of proof can easily be applied to John Mark and Mary. John
Mark and Mary are a better alternative for John of Zebedee than all other proposed candidates
for the authorship. Manuscripts show that the chapters 1-20 plus the ‘added’ chapter 21 of the
Fourth Gospel were probably published as a unity, and the Presbyter John (Mark) probably
did this shortly before his death, without telling openly that he was himself the beloved
disicple. He didn’t want to be identified as the ‘hypēretēs’ who slapped Jesus’ face before
Annas (John 18,22), or as the secretary who wrote that in the Sanhedrin “they all condemned
him as deserving death” (Mark 14,64). The Gospel of Mark, by means of an abrupt end and a
not connecting added chapter, cleverly skips the scene at Jesus’ empty tomb in which the
beloved disciple saw his linen garment, rolled up as a priest’s, and therefore believed Jesus
had risen.
© A.A.M. van der Hoeven, June 6, 2013, The Netherlands.
69
Bibliography
Greek basic text of the New Testament:
NA27 NESTLE-ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece, (27. revidierte Auflage, 8. Druck, Stuttgart 2001)
Bible translations:
ASV
American Standard Version (1901)
AV
Authorized Version (1769)
BBE
Bible in Basic English (1965)
HNV Hebrew Names Version (World English Bible, Messianic Edition)
KJ21 21st Century King James Version (1994)
LXX The Septuagint: the 3rd to 1st century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible
NASB New American Standard Bible (1971)
NIV
New International Version (1984)
NKJV New King James Version (1982)
RSV
Revised Standard Version (1947)
Wey
Weymouth New Testament Translation (1912)
Other works:
G.J.M. Bartelink, Grieks Nederlands Woordenboek (Utrecht/Antwerpen 1958)
R.E. Brown and R.F. Collins, Canonicity, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1990)
R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (New York 1966)
R. Brownrigg, Who's Who in the New Testament (London 1971, 1993)
W.L. Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Studies in
the Bible and Early Christianity, volume 16 (Lewison-Queenston-Lampeter 2002 revised edition)
A. Edersheim (1825-1889), The Temple – Its Ministries and Services (Peabody 1994)
Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century CE), Ecclesiastical History (or The History of the Church), translated by K.
Lake (Harvard University 1926, reprint 2001)
J. Goldin, The Living Talmud (Yale University first printing 1957)
L.H. Grollenberg, Kleine Atlas van de Bijbel (Amsterdam/Brussels 1973)
R. van Haelst, Het gelaat van Kristus, de lijkwade van Turijn (Antwerpen 1986)
Irenaeus of Lyon (2nd century CE), Against Heresies (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)
R.L. Harris, Exploring the World of the Bible Lands (London 1995)
Flavius Josephus (1st century CE), War of the Jews and Jewish Antiquities and Life
Justin (the) Martyr (100-169 CE), Dialogue with Trypho (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)
K. Lake, Eusebius – Ecclesiastical History Books I-V (Harvard University 1926, reprint 2001)
J. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Peabody fourth printing
2003 (originally published in 1859))
J. Neusner, The Mishnah – A new translation (New Haven/London 1988)
J. Neusner, The Tosefta – Translated from the Hebrew With a New Introduction (Peabody first printing 2002)
Papias (1st half of 2nd century CE), Expositions of the sayings of the Lord (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History)
Polycrates of Ephesus (2nd half of 2nd century CE), Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church (cited in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History)
R. Reich, Caiaphas name inscribed on bone boxes, Biblical Archeology Review 18/5 (1992)
G. Ricciotti, Leven van Jezus (Utrecht 1944) (translated by J. Simons)
D. Rops, Het dagelijks leven in Palestina ten tijde van Jezus (Utrecht/Antwerpen 1965)
S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century
(Assen/Amsterdam 1976)
J.N. Sanders and P. Parker, John and John Mark, JBL 79 (1960)
E. Schürer, Geschichte des Juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (1901)
S. Sora, Treasures from Heaven: Relics From Noah’s Ark to the Shroud of Turin (Hoboken 2005)
C.P. Thiede, Jesus: life or legend? (Oxford 1990 (1997))
H. Verreth, De instellingen van de Griekse wereld (University of Gent 2003)
B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; reprint Grand Rapids 1978)
Abbreviations
BCE = Before Common Era or Before Christian Era, an equivalent of Before Christ (BC)
CE = Common Era or Christian Era, an equivalent of Anno Domini (AD) (= “in the year of the Lord”)
70
Fig. 1. Jerusalem in the days of Jesus
(adapted from Rops: 107)
Cenacle: the house of the Last Supper
71
Fig. 4. A possible configuration of Antonia, the Watch Gate and the temple prison
72
Fig. 5. A sketch of the sanctuary of the temple, accessible through nine gates
(according to Edersheim’s description in “The Temple: Its Ministries and Services” chapter 2)
73
Table 1. Some charachteristics of the beloved disciple, John Mark, and John of Zebedee
Characteristics
of beloved
disciple
Linking arguments
1.
2.
3.
House of
beloved
disciple
I
The beloved
disciple lay at
Jesus’ breast at
the Last Supper,
as if he was the
host and at home.
From Good
Friday Mary was
at the beloved
disciple’s and at
least until
Pentecost she was
in the Cenacle.
Tradition says the
north side of the
house of the
Cenacle was in
the house of John.
Cenacle
4.
Characteristics of
John Mark
5.
The householder of the
Cenacle is anonymous in all
gospels.
(Probably the house of Nicodemus:
he was a rich ruler and secret
disciple “for fear of the Jews”: the
Cenacle had closed doors “for fear
of the Jews”; Jesus came to the
upper room of the anonymous
master of the house by night and
unnoticed, just as Nicodemus
secretly had come to Jesus by night
and unnoticed; Nicodemus was
responsible for the provision of
water for the pilgrims coming to
the feast in the temple, and the
Cenacle was found by Jesus’
disciples by following a man
carrying a jar of water, when only
women carried water for their
homes; Jesus spoke to Nicodemus
about being born anew from water
and the Spirit; in the Cenacle Jesus
washed his disciple’s feet with
water (symbol of the forgiveness of
their sins), and breathed the Holy
Spirit on them.)
6.
7.
8.
9.
The householder of
John Mark’s house is
anonymous (Acts
12,12).
Tradition calls the
Cenacle the house of
John Mark.
Restricted access to the
Cenacle (closed doors)
and to John Mark’s
(doorkeeper doesn’t let
Simon Peter enter)
Simon Peter’s departure
from the Cenacle
(Jerusalem) is followed
by John Mark’s
departure from and
return to Jerusalem.
Mark’s gospel states
that Jesus “came” to the
House of John Mark
Cenacle with the
Twelve, so Mark’s
view-point lay inside
the Cenacle.
10. Simon Peter is at the beloved disciple’s on Easter morning,
in the Cenacle on Easter evening as a witness of Jesus’apparition,
in the Cenacle during the nine days of prayer before Pentecost,
and at John Mark’s before his flight out of Jerusalem.
Beloved
disciple
1.
2.
3.
II
4.
5.
Beloved
disciple
1.
III
2.
Jesus, beholding the rich young ruler, “loved him”.
The rich young ruler was invited to follow Jesus and to take up the cross;
the beloved disciple stood by the cross of Jesus, and wanted to follow the
risen Jesus.
The rich young ruler came running to Jesus; the beloved disciple ran to
Jesus’ grave.
The rich young ruler asked Jesus about eternal life; the beloved disciple
wrote the gospel about eternal life.
The rich young ruler is anonymous in the Gospel of Mark; the beloved
disciple is anonymous in the Gospel of John.
The young man, who fled the temple officers, had been following Simon
Peter, who was following the captured Jesus; the beloved disciple
followed Simon Peter at least five times when Simon was following
Jesus: 1) he ran with Simon Peter to Jesus’ grave and 2) entered it only
after Simon had entered, 3) he followed Simon Peter when Simon went
fishing on the Lake of Tiberias (to be able to meet the risen Jesus), and
4) he followed Simon Peter by boat, after Simon had jumped into the
water to meet Jesus at the shore, and 5) he started to follow Simon Peter
when Simon was following the risen Jesus. (And as the evangelist John
he seems to have followed Jesus to Gethsemane and later into Annas’
court room.)
The fleeing young man is anonymous in the Gospel of Mark; the beloved
disciple is anonymous in the Gospel of John.
Rich young ruler
is a “young man”
(‘neaniskos’) and a
“ruler” (‘archōn’) and
rich
(just as Nicodemus was
a rich ruler)
Fleeing young man
He was a ‘neaniskos’
just as the temple
officers (‘hypēretai’)
were young men
(‘neaniskoi’).
74
1.
Beloved
disciple
known unto
and not
suspected by
the high
priests,
scribes,
elders and
officers at the
cross of Jesus
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IV
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
John’s gospel cites the high priest Caiphas’ words, both in the meeting with the Pharisees
and in the trial of Jesus at night in the high priest’s palace.
When Jesus was interrogated by the high priest Annas, a certain ‘hypēretēs’ slapped Jesus’
face, telling Him “Is that how you answer the high priest”? This incident, although it took
place in the presence of only Annas, Jesus and the ‘hypēretai’, is reported in John’s gospel.
Eusebius states that the beloved disciple was a priest, carrying/wearing the ‘petalon’ (high
priestly crown plate).
A secretary of a judge was a ‘hypēretēs’, and the judge Caiphas’ deadly plan was secretly
brought from the high priests’ meeting place with the Pharisees to Jesus (cf. Mt 5,25 Lu
4,20 Jn 18,22). This is pre-imaged by the spy work of the counsellor Hushai for king David
at the court of king Absalom.
John Mark, just like the secretary of the judges of Athens, was called both ‘hypēretēs’ and
‘archōn’. Similarly the temple’s prison officers were called ‘hypēretai’, just like Athens’
prison officers were called ‘hypēretai’.
John Mark, as the beloved disciple and as Mark, was one of the “ministers (‘hypēretai’) of
the Word”, who “delivered” Jesus’ gospel to the people. Likewise 1) a Pharisaic scribe, as a
minister of the Word of God, “delivered” decrees to the people, 2) Paul, one of the
“‘hypēretai’ of Christ”, “delivered” the apostles’ “decrees” to the people (and Mark was
profitable to Paul in the ministry), and 3) also Caiphas’ secretary will have delivered the
decrees of Caiphas and the Council of the Temple to the priests and people. (A ‘hypēretēs’
of the synagogue “delivered” Bible books, and an ordinary ‘hypēretēs’ of the prison
“delivered” prisoners.)
The author of the Fourth Gospel and the author of the Book of Revelations, traditionally
regarded as the same person John, refer and allude to minutiae (=very small details) of the
service in the temple, which were regulated by the Council of the Temple.
Of John Mark’s two names John is a Hebrew name, befitting the Jewish secretary of the
Jewish high priest Caiphas, and Mark is a Roman name, befitting the secretary who had
frequent contact with his Roman colleagues, the secretaries of the Roman procurator Pilate.
John Mark’s house (the Cenacle) is very near to the “House of Caiphas”.
The Council of the Temple, presided over by Caiphas, judged Jesus at night, as Jesus had
offended the temple order and obstructed the sacrificial service when He violently removed
the merchants and moneychangers from the temple court.
Only the Gospel of John reveals that the ‘hypēretai’ of the high priests were present at
Jesus’ capture and also that they called out to Pilate for his crucifixion (18,3 19,6).
Only the Gospel of John mentions the family relationship between two ‘hypēretai’ in the
courtyard of the high priest, and knows the name, Malchus, of one of them, and knows that
the ear that had been cut off and healed in Gethsemane was his right ear.
John Mark can be a Levite or priest because his uncle Barnabas is of the tribe of Levi.
The rich John Mark, who had obeyed all the commandments of the law from his youth, and
who asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, may have been an heir of, and have lived in the
house of the rich priest and law teacher Nicodemus “the teacher of Israel”, to whom Jesus
had spoken about eternal life. Nicodemus used to cover himself with a ‘sindōn’ and Mark
lost his ‘sindōn’.
The beloved disciple didn’t enter Jesus’ grave until Simon had seen and had said it was
empty except for the grave cloths, probably because he wanted to stay ritually clean, to be
able to enter the temple and go to work.
Jesus was buried in a ‘sindōn’: a fine linen cloth or garment. All the temple clothes of the
priests and Levites (e.g. Samuel) had to be made of white linen and be ritually clean. The
linen cloak, worn by Jewish men and boys at prayer, and which could cover a boy almost
completely, was called a ‘sindōn’. John Mark fled naked after he left his ‘sindōn’ in the
hands of the ‘hypēretai’ who took Jesus to the temple fortress Antonia. (That Jesus turned
and looked at Peter in the porch, proves that Jesus’ cell, the ‘hypēretai’ and Peter were in
Antonia). The ‘hypēretai’ covered up Jesus with a cloth and beat Him. Joseph of Arimatea
bought a (ritually) “clean” ‘sindōn’ after he had received Pilate’s permission in Antonia to
bury Jesus. (Paul’s movements from the temple’s sanctuary to the top of the stairs prove
that the Roman tribunal was in Antonia). The beloved disciple was present at the burial.
Only he says that Jesus Christ was buried “as is the burial custom of the Jews” (John
19,40), so Jesus was buried in a garment, probably the priest John Mark’s own garment. At
Easter morning the beloved disciple entered the empty grave, not to verify it was empty but
to see the grave cloth. Seeing it neatly rolled up and placed at the head as a priest’s garment
made only the beloved disciple (and not Simon Peter) believe that Jesus had risen, because
Jesus had to have done this for him. The grave cloth was given to the servant of the (high)
priest by the risen Jesus, according to the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the beloved disciple
John and Mary went to Ephesus in Asia Minor according to tradition, and took the grave
cloth there, according to some scholars. And according to tradition John wrote the Fourth
Gospel in Ephesus. John Mark lost his temple ‘sindōn’ (and slapped Jesus’ face) – Jesus
(imprinted his face on the ‘sindōn’ and) returned it to John Mark.
(The Shroud of Turin probably was the Mandylion (=mantle) of Constantinople, and is often seen as the Image
of Edessa, called a ‘himation’ = mantle. The Shroud’s seam, its starch impurities, and its having been
(doubled and) rolled up(in one place),and its missing corners where the tassels were fastened, prove it was a
Jewish (priest’s) temple garment, of which the corners were cut off to hide the fact that it was John Mark’s
unique temple garment. The’petalon’seen beneath the chin of the image may have been John Mark’s
breastplate of a ruler, and the cylinder seal on the hand the high priest’s seal.)
17.
18.
19.
The risen Jesus wanted the beloved disciple to “remain until I come” and not to follow
Him, and probably meant that John Mark had to remain Caiphas’ secretary and Jesus’
secret disciple; John Mark remained anonymous in his gospel by calling himself the
beloved disciple, which complies with his remaining a secret disciple and Caiphas’
secretary, and remained anonymous in his Gospel of Mark, as the rich young ruler and
fleeing young man. He probably remained anonymous because he didn’t want to be
identified as the ‘hypēretēs’ who slapped Jesus’ face before Annas, or as the secretary who
wrote that in the Sanhedrin “they all condemned him as deserving death”.
In the Acts there is a priest called John at Caiphas’ side in the council gathered in the
temple, and its secret discourse, on the undeniable miracle worked in the temple by Peter
and John of Zebedee in Jesus’ name, found its way into the New Testament.
The beloved disciple followed Simon Peter and Jesus many times, and John Mark followed
Simon Peter and Jesus from Gethsemane (to his place of solitary prayer and) to Antonia,
and later followed Simon Peter to Antioch, and was called “a follower of Peter” and wrote
down Simon Peter’s narratives in the Gospel of Mark.
John Mark is a
‘hypēretēs’
Acts 13,5
‘hypēretēs’ was the
word used by the Jews
for
1) a lower officer of
the high priests in the
temple, e.g. a lower
officer of the temple
prison
2) a ‘hazzan’ = a
Levitical sacristan of a
synagogue and
3) a Levitical secretary
of a judge
75
Author of the 1.
Gospel of
2.
John,
together with
Mary, Jesus’
mother
3.
V
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
John Mark was a man of letters, for he was the author of the Gospel of
Mark.
The Gospel of John was written by the beloved disciple, called John, at
Ephesus (Irenaeus), and John and Mary (took Jesus’ grave cloth to
Ephesus and) arrived and lived there together (according to Irenaeus,
Polycrates and Eusebius).
The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus’ being God, born in the flesh (“The
Word was God”, “the Word was made flesh”, “the only begotten God”).
The Gospel of John knows the thoughts, emotions and motives of Jesus.
There were three phases in the development of the Gospel of John, and
therefore there may have been three authors: Mary, John Mark, and the
author of John 21.
The beloved disciple is a man according to the grammar of John 19,25
and John 21,24 (“he”, “his”).
The male authorship was known from the start of the gospel’s
publication and transmission, and therefore no one thought of Mary.
Mark is able to cite Jesus’ solitary prayer in Gethsemane, but John of
Zebedee was asleep there, so John Mark, as the secret beloved disciple,
followed Simon Peter and Jesus from the Cenacle to the Mount of
Olives, and from there to Gethsemane, and from there he even left
Simon Peter and John of Zebedee and secretly followed Jesus to the
place where Jesus went to pray alone.
Westcott’s concentric circles of proof can all be applied to John Mark
and Mary. Westcott’s fifth circle of proof, claiming that John’s Gospel
says its author was an apostle, is invalid, for it says it was a disciple.
Both the author of the Gospel of John and the author of the Gospel of
Mark allude to very small details of the service in the temple (John 13,10
Mark 13,35)
The Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as “the Word” (‘tou Logou’), Mark is
a ‘hypēretēs’, and the author of the Gospels of John and Mark was one of
the “ministers of the Word” (‘hypēretai tou Logou’) (Luke’s denotation
of an evangelist in Luke 1,2).
The Gospel of John ends anonymously and has an anonymous ‘added’
chapter, and the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly and has a non-connecting
added chapter.
The end of the Gospel of Mark abrubtly skips the scene at Jesus’ empty
tomb, in which John sees his temple garment, rolled up as a priest’s, and
believes Jesus has risen, but doesn’t tell anyone.
John the Elder in Ephesus (probably the author ánd publisher of John 120 ánd 21) said that the Gospel of Mark was written down accurately,
though not in order, and was complete.
Author of the Gospel
of Mark
76
The author of
the Gospel of
John is
anonymous,
literate and a
secret
disciple of
Jesus, and is
ambiguous
1.
2.
3.
4.
and cites
Jesus’ solitary
prayer
probably lived 5.
in the Cenacle
with the
Virgin Mary
and Peter
published the
Gospel of
John about 96
CE
6.
7.
VI
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The author of the Fourth Gospel had a home in Jerusalem and alludes to
very small details of the temple service, but John of Zebedee was
fisherman in Galilee.
Simon Peter (Mt 16,16 26,33-35 John 13,6-9) and the apostle John of
Zebedee (Luke 9,52-54) have an impetuousness which complies with the
nickname “Boanerges” (= Sons of Thunder) of the brothers John and
James of Zebedee, denoting their fiery and destructive zeal.
Simon Peter and the apostle John of Zebedee are “unlearned and
ignorant men”, but the beloved disciple wrote the Fourth Gospel.
Simon Peter and James and John of Zebedee were asleep when Jesus
prayed in agony, but the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark (and
those of Matthew and Luke) cite this prayer of Jesus, of which John of
Zebedee cannot have been the source (nor probably the publican
Matthew or the physician Luke).
Simon Peter and John of Zebedee both were apostles of Jesus publicly
and also both present at the capture of Jesus in Gethsemane, but still,
only Simon Peter got interrogated and recognized as a disciple by the
‘hypēretai’ in the high priest’s courtyard, and the beloved disciple didn’t
get interrogated or recognized at the cross (just like the secret disciples
Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus, who buried Jesus, weren’t
recognized). John of Zebedee, on the other hand, got recognized as a
disciple of Jesus in the temple.
The beloved disciple is anonymous in his own gospel, and thus was not
out-spoken.
The beloved disciple didn’t reveal the identity of “the disciple known to
the high priest” at the gate, and thus was not out-spoken.
The beloved disciple ran and reached Jesus’ grave first, but didn’t enter
it first, and thus was not impetuous.
The beloved disciple didn’t tell Peter or Mary Magdalene that his
‘sindōn’ had been bought and buried, and thus was not out-spoken.
The beloved disciple didn’t tell Simon Peter or Mary Magdalena about
his belief that Jesus had risen, and thus was not out-spoken.
The beloved disciple gave an ambiguous description of what he saw in
the grave and what and why he believed, and thus was not out-spoken.
The beloved disciple recognized the risen Jesus first, but didn’t go to
Him first, and thus was not impetuous.
The beloved disciple was a secret disciple, fled the ‘hypēretai’, slapped
Jesus’ face, kept silent at Jesus’ conviction, and thus was not zealous.
(The beloved disciple, for fear of the Jews, denied Jesus by slapping Him
in the face before Annas, but reported this incident in his gospel, and
thus was ambiguous in stead of impetuous. Also John Mark was
ambiguous for he ran to Jesus, was invited to follow Him, but sadly left
Jesus as he was rich, and later he secretly followed the arrested Jesus, but
fled the ‘hypēretai’ who held Him.)
The beloved disciple probably lived in the Cenacle with the Virgin Mary
and Peter, but the apostle John of Zebedee had to find the Cenacle by
following a man carrying water and by asking the master of the house.
The beloved disciple published the Fourth Gospel in Ephesus about 96
CE, and peacefully stepped in his grave and was buried there, but the
apostle John of Zebedee was/had been killed by the Jews.
The Muratorian Canon says John the Evangelist was a disciple whose
gospel had to be reviewed by the apostle Andrew and the bishops and
other disciples John was with.
John the Apostle was not the Presbyter John of Ephesus (Papias), who
probably had a definitive role in shaping the Fourth Gospel, but the John
who published the Gospel in Ephesus was the same as the beloved
disciple (Irenaeus).
IS NOT
John of Zebedee,
who is
bold (out-spoken),
illiterate and
zealous/impetuous
and a plain and
downright man
who was asleep when
Jesus prayed in agony
and solitude
Peter and John had to
follow a man carrying
water and to ask the
master of the house, to
find the Cenacle.
John the Apostle,
brother of James, was
killed by the Jews.
John of Zebedee is
distinguished from
John Mark in Acts
12,2.12