John 19:39
“AFTER these things”
[the Jews and Romans did, verses 31-33]
“… JOSEPH besought Pilate … if he could take the body of Jesus away” John 19:38c
“… then Pilate
“ … asked the centurion if he were already dead.
“… After the centurion had assured him that Jesus was in fact already dead,
“… Pilate allowed it” John 19:38d “… and gave the body to Joseph” Mark 15:45b:
“… THEN THEREFORE (Joseph) came” John 19:38e
[to the crosses just in time before the soldiers could “take the body away” John 19:31d,34.]
“… Then Pilate had the body delivered” Matthew 27:58b
“… Then Joseph received / took away the body of Jesus” John 19:38e
“… Then he bought fine linen” Mark 15:46a
“… Then prostrating / letting the body lie down” Mark 15:46b Luke 23:53a
“… having handled / treated the body Matthew 27:59a
“… and wrapped it in a sheet of linen cloth Matthew 27:59b Mark 15:46c Luke 23:53b
“… THEN came also Nicodemus” John 19:39a
[Because Joseph somehow must have let Nicodemus know that he wanted to bury Jesus.]
“… and having come” John 19:39b
“… to him” John 19:39b
[“him”— Joseph; to help him; Nicodemus did NOT ‘come to Jesus’!]
“… THIS THAT VERY NIGHT THE FIRST” [night of passover’s Feast of Unleavened Bread Exodus 12:17,42].
“THEY, therefore, handled / treated / embalmed the body of Jesus and bound it in (several more) sheets together with the spices … Nicodemus had brought.” John 19:40,(39c).
John originally wrote in 19:39, Greek from Nestle Interlinear:
‘ehlthen de kai Nikodehmos ho elthohn pros auton [Iohsehph] nuktos prohton pherohn migma smurnehs kai aloehs’,
“Indeed came there also Nicodemus he having-come-bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes to him [Joseph] by NIGHT THAT [NIGHT] THE FIRST …” - English, literal; word order, logical and chronological.
Now synchronize and harmonize THIS, with John 3:2 or 7:50, Nicodemus bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes coming to Jesus?!
J317:
The question is not whether some manuscripts have "Jesus" and others have "him." Nor is it a question of whether the verse contains variants. Of course that is true. The question is, what is the manuscript evidence for the inclusion of "Jesus"? And what difference does its inclusion make for the meaning of the verse?
GE:
You know very well inclusion of ‘Jesus’ makes all difference:
“for the meaning of the verse”;
for “THIS THAT NIGHT”;
for the preparations made to the body for interment;
for Jesus’ fulfilment of the passover;
for the “ethics [Law] of the Jews” -
for everything the difference between Truth and error and worse than error.
J317:
But if you believe the words "by night" were not in the original, that is an entirely different matter. If that is what you think, let's talk about it.
The relevancy of the phrase "Nicodemus, he that came to Jesus by night at the first," is that it clearly identifies this Nicodemus as the man who had talked with Jesus in John 3. So it is saying that this same person helped in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial. This adds meaning to the conversation Jesus had with him.
GE:
The immediate relevancy being John chapter 3 where it describes Nicodemus' talk with Christ has no relevancy in the least. The relevancy here being Nicodemus also came there to where Joseph was busy preparing the body for to bury (it) according to the Jews ethics ...
No; if there were more than one Nicodemus, then perhaps it might have been necessary for John to distinguish the Nicodemus that that night came to Joseph to help him. Like all the Gospel writers do when they speak of “Mary the Magdalene” and Matthew speaks of “the other, Mary”.
But while John is the only Gospel writer who writes about Nicodemus, and there was only this Nicodemus who from the beginning of John’s Gospel played such a prominent role, it wasn’t necessary for John to identify him the far fetched way you suppose.
But take account of the Greek, and it becomes evident how Nicodemus fitted in, in the sequence of event “THIS THE FIRST NIGHT” of Unleavened Bread Feast of the Jews. For it is written – in the Greek –,
“Pilate allowed the body to be taken away.
Therefore CAME JOSEPH, AND HE, took Jesus’ body.
And indeed ALSO ARRIVED NICODEMUS, HE, having come to him [Joseph!] in THIS the first NIGHT [of Unleavened Bread Feast] BEARING a mixture of myrrh and aloes … SO THEY THEN prepared the body of Jesus and bound it in sheets.”
Context satisfies context fully, smoothly, without interruption, without hitch: “CAME JOSEPH, AND HE … ALSO ARRIVED NICODEMUS, HE …”. And note “Nicodemus ARRIVED … HAVING COME … BEARING a mixture …” consecutive acts ONE LEADING TO THE NEXT through using PARTICIPLES one after the other.
It’s simply impossible this story and these events could be put on hold so that an irrelevant reminiscence of three and a halve years ago could first be recounted.
‘Novum Testamentum Graece’ Wuerttumbergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart’, ‘ton Iehsoun’ inserted, see which manuscript under John 19:39. See also George V. Wigram’s ‘Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the NT’, ‘Various readings’, ‘Iehsous’ John 19:39.
If you still don’t want to believe me, you’ll have to go the museum where the manuscripts are kept. It may be the British Museum … I wouldn’t know. But if you have a dislike in facts and are of a certain persuasion, of course nothing will be good enough, not even IMMEDIATE RELEVANCY.
The immediate relevancy being “John chapter 3 where it describes Nicodemus' talk with Christ” has no relevancy in the least. The relevancy here being “Nicodemus also came there …” to where Joseph was busy “preparing” the body “for to bury (it) according to the Jews’ ethics” or the Jews’ RELEVANT, passover-Scriptures, the most important, Exodus 12 to 14 TO WHICH John makes UNDENIABLE reference with “THIS FIRST NIGHT” ---“THIS THAT NIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY OBSERVED” = “BONE-DAY-NIGHT”—seen above—the night-beginning of the fifteenth day of the First Month, “FIRST day unleavened bread” and “in between sabbath … great day sabbath”, second of the “three days thick darkness” of Jesus’ Passover-of-Yahweh-SUFFERING”.
The “difference” it makes is the difference between the PURE Written Word of God and a CORRUPTION of it.
For Sunday-worshippers the “difference” came in very handy to draw the attention away from which of the “three days” it actually was : because the “BONE-day” of the “three days” is the death-knell of a Sunday’s resurrection.
O what does it matter to someone or two persons who take preference to another ‘source’ than the dry and dead letter of the Law …
J317:
The reason we're discussing John 19: 39 is that you said the variants in this verse are important because they change doctrine.
My question to you is, how do these variants in this verse change anything of doctrinal significance? There are many differences among the thousands of NT manuscripts. Do you believe each of them corrupts the PURE Written Word? If not, why do you believe this particular variant is a corruption?
GE:
.... the BONE-day of the three days is the death-knell of a Sundays resurrection.
J317:
Gerhard, there are a number of "death-knells" for a Sabbath resurrection, but one of the most powerful "death-knell" is the truth of Ellen White's statement in Desire of Ages, page 785, 786:
“Christ arose from the dead as the first fruits of those that slept. He was the antitype of the wave sheaf, and His resurrection took place on the very day when the wave sheaf was to be presented before the Lord.”
QUESTION: On which day was the wave sheaf presented before the Lord?
Lev. 23: 9-15 contains the answer:
Leviticus 23:15
"You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering."
GE:
Sorry, nothing in your quote from Mrs White suggests - what states - a Sunday resurrection.
THEN came also Nicodemus John 19:39a
[Because Joseph somehow must have let Nicodemus know that he wanted to bury Jesus.]
and having come John 19:39b
to him John 19:39b
him & Joseph; to help him; NOT to Jesus
THIS THAT VERY NIGHT THE FIRST, 'elthohn pros auton NUKTOS TO PROHTON' [night of passover’s Feast of Unleavened Bread Exodus 12:17,42, “BONE-DAY-NIGHT” LXX verse 41].
J317:
I agree with you that Joseph had communicated with Nicodemus the fact that he wanted to bury Jesus. But there's no valid evidence that the words, "had come to him (or "to Jesus") by night at the first," is a reference to Exodus 12: 17, 42. (I've given a translation of those words that agrees with the literal translations of Robert Young and Rotherham, as well as just about every translation in the English language.)
GE:
It’s not, <"had come … at the first">.
“First” is not adverbial, <came first>; it is adjectival, “First Night”, with Article, “the First [Night-of-unleavened-bread]”.
Therefore,
“Nikodemus came [‘ehlthen’] … coming [‘elthohn’] in the night [‘nuktos’] … bearing / bringing [‘pherohn’] mixture of myrrh”.
Was Nicodemus “bearing myrrh when he came to Jesus”? No! “Nicodemus was bearing myrrh when he came to him”—JOSEPH, yes!
Therefore,
“Nicodemus in-the-night [‘nuktos’], THE FIRST (Neuter Accusative the Noun Object ‘To Prohton’ as such) came.”
“Nicodemus came (This That Selfsame) The First (Bone-Day-) Night (of unleavened bread) to him (Joseph).”
“Nicodemus came” or “arrived” at Joseph after Joseph had the evening of the early night, procured the body.
The Accusative therefore also means that “Nicodemus came against the (mid)Night-of-The First-Night (of unleavened bread).”
THEY, thereafter, handled / treated / embalmed the body of Jesus and bound it in (several more) sheets together with the spices Nicodemus had brought. John 19:40,(39c).
The relevancy here being Nicodemus also came there to where Joseph was busy preparing the body for to bury (it) according to the Jews’ ethics or the Jews’ RELEVANT, passover-Scriptures, the most important, Exodus 12 to 14 TO WHICH John makes UNDENIABLE reference with “THIS FIRST NIGHT”—“NIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY OBSERVED”—its night-beginning, the fifteenth day of the First Month.
J317:
While I agree with you that Christ fulfilled the typical Passover, I don't believe the manuscript evidence offers support for it in John 19: 39, 40. Christ's fulfillment of the Passover isn't based on a certain odd translation or construction of John 19: 39, 40, such as you've given it.
Evidence for Christ's being the antitype of the Passover is found just as well in the standard translations of that verse, such as given by the KJV or NIV or NASB or RSV or English Standard Version, etc. We don't depend on that particular verse but on the entire Scriptures, which teach that Christ was the fulfillment of all the feasts, including the Passover.
GE:
Sure! There are many more and much stronger reasons. Jesus’ Bone-Day does not depend on just John 19:39’s original without the word ‘Jesus’.
Many!
J317:
We don't need to twist the Scriptures or make errors in
translation in order to support the truth. That is what the Mormons have done in the "Inspired Translation" of Joseph Smith and it is what the Watchtower organization has done in the New World Translation.
Are you sure you mean John 19: 39? I fail to see any differences that could be described as false doctrine.
GE:
… not “described as false doctrine” but ascribed to, false – to very false – doctrine, the doctrine of a Friday Crucifixion AND Burial and a Sunday morning resurrection.
The whole idea – centuries ago already – with the insertion of ‘Jesus’, was, as I said, to eliminate the second of the “three days”, the Burial-day that began in Mark 15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Luke 23:50 and began ending in John 19:42 and Luke 23:54-56.
J317:
KJV (based on the TR) -John 19:39
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound* weight.
ESV (based on the Critical Text): John 19:39
Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds* in weight.
The only differences in the Greek between the TR and the CT at John 19: 39 is that the CT has auton (him) in place of ton iesoun (Jesus), and hosei (about) in place of hos (about).
Many of the translations of the CT supply the name Jesus so that they are identical to the translation of the TR except for the weight of the myrrh and aloes.
*The difference in the weight of the myrrh and aloes is not due to the Greek text but to the way they are calculated by the translator. Both the TR and the CT read litras hekaton.<<
GE:
John 19:39,
“AFTER these things”
[the Jews and Romans did, verses 31-33]
“… JOSEPH besought Pilate … if he could take the body of Jesus away” John 19:38c
“… then Pilate
“ … asked the centurion if he were already dead.
“… After the centurion had assured him that Jesus was in fact already dead,
“… Pilate allowed it” John 19:38d “… and gave the body to Joseph” Mark 15:45b:
“… THEN THEREFORE (Joseph) came” John 19:38e
[to the crosses just in time before the soldiers could “take the body away” John 19:31d,34.]
“… Then Pilate had the body delivered” Matthew 27:58b
“… Then Joseph received / took away the body of Jesus” John 19:38e
“… Then he bought fine linen” Mark 15:46a
“… Then prostrating / letting the body lie down” Mark 15:46b Luke 23:53a
“… having handled / treated the body Matthew 27:59a
“… and wrapped it in a sheet of linen cloth Matthew 27:59b Mark 15:46c Luke 23:53b
“… THEN came also Nicodemus” John 19:39a
[Because Joseph somehow must have let Nicodemus know that he wanted to bury Jesus.]
“… and having come” John 19:39b
“… to him” John 19:39b
[“him”— Joseph; to help him; NOT ‘to Jesus’!]
“… THIS THAT VERY NIGHT THE FIRST”, 'elthohn pros auton NUKTOS TO PROHTON'
[night of passover’s Feast of Unleavened Bread Exodus 12:17,42]
“… THEY, therefore, handled / treated / embalmed the body of Jesus and bound it in (several more) sheets together with the spices … Nicodemus had brought.” John 19:40,(39c).
Do you see, John317, “THIS THAT VERY SELFSAME BONE-DAY”, its NIGHT, in Exodus 12:17,42 ---which especially modern translations incinerate--- here in John 19:39 and where it began with ‘Joseph’ who undertook to bury “that which remained”, “the body of Jesus”, like Moses undertook to take the bones of Joseph in his ‘most holy place’, the ‘ark’ of his “COFFIN” out of Egypt?
Kommentaar
Aangaande my rendisie hierbo ...
"… Then he bought fine linen” Mark 15:46a
Neem asseblief kennis dat 'n beter weergawe die meer letterlike sou wees: Josef het "reeds gekoopte" of "geskikte gekoopte" linne gebruik. Hy het dus nie uitgegaan en linne gaan koop nie; hy het dit reeds gehad.
En die linne was heel waarskynlik gepas vir sy naam en status, Josef, die gerf voor wie die ander broers se gerwe gebuig het. Die stuk linne was dan ook heel waarskynlik egte weergawe van die gekleurde kleed wat Josef se vader spesiaal vir hom germaak het, en verre van die okkulte wit gewaad volgens Rooms Katolisisme.