The Gospel of John: Sukkot<\/em>, Part III (John 8:12-29)<\/h3>\nThe unofficial cross<\/em>1<\/sup>-examination of Christ in Yrushalem continues, and the tension continues to simmer. Next week, in my fourth and final installment on this pericope, it will boil over.<\/em><\/p>\nJohn 8:12-29, RSV-CE<\/h4>\n
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, \u201cI am the light of the world;a<\/sup><\/strong> he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.\u201d The Pharisees then said to him, \u201cYou are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.\u201db<\/sup><\/strong> Jesus answered, \u201cEven if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.c<\/sup><\/strong> Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.d<\/sup><\/strong> In your lawe<\/sup><\/strong> it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.\u201d They said to him therefore, \u201cWhere is your Father?\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cYou know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.\u201df<\/sup><\/strong> These words he spoke in the treasury,g<\/sup><\/strong> as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.<\/p>\nAgain he said to them, \u201cI go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.\u201d Then said the Jews, \u201cWill he kill himself, since he says, \u2018Where I am going, you cannot come\u2019?\u201d He said to them, \u201cYou are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.h<\/sup><\/strong> I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.\u201di<\/sup><\/strong> They said to him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d Jesus said to them, \u201cEven what I have told you from the beginning.j<\/sup><\/strong> I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.\u201d They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father. So Jesus said, \u201cWhen you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone,k<\/sup><\/strong> for I always do what is pleasing to him.\u201d<\/p>\nJohn 8:12-29, my translation<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2026\/04\/Screen-Shot-2026-04-13-at-1.36.53-PM-273x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
A sun pillar, (an atmospheric phenomenon<\/small>
\nrelated to haloes and rainbows), seen from<\/small>
\nSan Francisco, CA. Photo by Brocken Inaglory,<\/small>
\nused via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license (source<\/a>).<\/small><\/p>\nThen Yeshua spoke further to them, saying, \u201cI am the light of the world;a<\/sup><\/strong>\u00a0he who follows me will not walk around in the dark, but will have the light of life.\u201d<\/p>\nSo the Pryshaya<\/em> said to him, \u201cYou are bearing witness about yourself; your witness is not true.\u201db<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\nAnd Yeshua told them in response: \u201cEven if I bear witness about myself, it\u2019s true, this witness of mine, because I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I came from, nor where I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I do not judge no one.c<\/sup><\/strong> And even if I do judge, this judgment of mine is truthful, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who dispatched me.d<\/sup><\/strong> In your law,e<\/sup><\/strong> it is also written that the witness of two people is true. [Here] I am bearing witness about myself, and he bears witness about me who dispatched me\u2014the Father.\u201d<\/p>\nSo they began asking him, \u201cWhere is your father?\u201d<\/p>\n
Yeshua responded, \u201cYou neither know me nor my Father; if you perceived me, you would perceive my Father too.\u201df<\/sup><\/strong> He said these things while teaching in the treasuryg<\/sup><\/strong> in the Temple. Then he told them further, \u201cI am going, and you will search for me, and you will die in your sin; where I am going, you are not able to come.\u201d<\/p>\nSo they Jews began saying, \u201c[Surely] he will not kill himself? because he says \u2018Where I am going you are not able to come\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
And he told them: \u201cYou are of those below, I am of those above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.h<\/sup><\/strong> So I told you that you will die in your sins; for if you will not have faith that I am, you will die in your sins.\u201di<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\nThen they asked him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d<\/p>\n
Yeshua said to them, \u201cWhat did I tell you at the beginning?j<\/sup><\/strong> I have many things to say about you, and to judge; but he who dispatched me is true, and the things I heard from him, I talk about these things in the world.\u201d They did not recognize that he spoke to them about the Father. So Yeshua said, \u201cWhenever you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and [that] I do nothing of myself, but just as the Father taught me I say these things. And he who dispatched me is with me; he has not sent me off alone,k<\/sup><\/strong> because I always do what is pleasing to him.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2025\/12\/Screen-Shot-2025-12-11-at-2.11.44-PM-300x243.png\")
<\/p>\n
Textual Notes<\/h4>\n
a. I am the light of the world | \u1f18\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 [eg\u014d eimi to f\u014ds tou kosmou<\/em>]:<\/strong> This is the second of the Gospel of John\u2019s \u201cI am the ___\u201d sayings (not to be confused with his uses of \u201cI am,\u201d suggesting the Tetragrammaton). There are seven all told, and they are occasionally repeated, mainly within their own near context:<\/p>\n\n- the bread of life (first appears in 6:35)<\/li>\n
- the light of the world (8:12)<\/li>\n
- the door of the sheep (10:7)<\/li>\n
- the good shepherd (10:11)<\/li>\n
- the resurrection and the life (11:25)<\/li>\n
- the way, the truth, and the life (14:6)<\/li>\n
- the true vine (15:1)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As the references show, the first five are introduced in the \u201cBook of Signs,\u201d while the opening chapters of the \u201cBook of Glory\u201d add the last two. The motif of light, introduced in the prologue, has seen relatively little use for the bulk of the Fourth Gospel, which has been much more given to water-based imagery (though we have observed two nightfalls, one in ch. 3 and one in ch. 6, both of which seemed to be loosely connected with some kind of sifting of true faith from false). Here, during Sukkot<\/em> in Yrushalem, the two images cross one another, and light will remain an especially prominent symbol through chapter 10, during which Chanukkah, which according to Josephus was already a \u201cfestival of lights\u201d in the first century, will be celebrated.<\/p>\nb. your testimony is not true\/your witness is not true | \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 [h\u0113 mart\u00fcria sou ouk estin al\u0113th\u0113s<\/em>]:<\/strong> The assertion that the Lord\u2019s statement about himself \u201cis not true\u201d is likely a stock expression from the legal sphere, meaning something to the effect of This is inadmissible as evidence<\/em>. The Pryshaya<\/em> were adults, and obviously knew perfectly well that the literal meaning here would not necessarily be true; people make correct statements about themselves all the time.<\/p>\nc. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one\/you judge according to the flesh, I do not judge no one | \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. [h\u00fcmeis kata t\u0113n sarka krinete, eg\u014d ou krin\u014d oudena<\/em>]:<\/strong> The double negative is used here because Koin\u00e9<\/em> Greek, like most languages, deployed multiple negatives for emphasis and not to change the valence of the sentence with each one. English itself used to do the same thing, in its Middle and Early Modern stages; only the modern form of the language has adopted the curiously pedantic analysis by which each negative word or affix<\/a> in a sentence changes the quality of the whole sentence.2<\/sup><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2026\/04\/Screen-Shot-2026-04-15-at-6.58.06-PM-235x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
Folio from the Book of Samuel in the Biblia de<\/em><\/small>
\nCervera (1300), by soferim<\/em> Samuel ben Abra-<\/small>
\nham ibn Nathan and Josu\u00e9 ben Abraham ibn<\/small>
\nGaon, with illuminator Josef Asarfati.<\/small><\/p>\nBut to turn to our text! The phrasing seems to me to be faintly suggestive of I Samuel 16:<\/p>\n
And the Lord said unto Samuel, \u201cHow long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.\u201d<\/span><\/small><\/p>\nAnd Samuel did that which the Lord spake, and came to Bethlehem \u2026 and he said, \u2026 \u201cI am come to sacrifice unto the Lord: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.\u201d And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice. And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, \u201cSurely the Lord\u2019s anointed is before him.\u201d<\/span><\/small><\/p>\nBut the Lord said unto Samuel, \u201cLook not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.\u201d<\/span><\/small>
\n\u2014I Sam. 16:1, 4a, 5-7<\/span><\/small><\/p>\nd. it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me\/I am not alone, but I and the Father who dispatched me | \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [monos ouk eimi, all\u2019 eg\u014d kai ho pempsas me Pat\u0113r<\/em>]:<\/strong> The RSV-CE\u2019s use of judge<\/em> here extends it from v. 15. This strikes me as an odd treatment of the text. See, the Lord changes verbs here, from \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 (cf. note c), \u201cto judge,\u201d to \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, the Greek verb for \u201cto be.\u201d My use of I am<\/em> in the phrase I am not alone<\/em> here represents a literal appearance of the being-verb\u2014not (as it might be in English) an implied second use of \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 that\u2019s been clipped down to its helping verb, because Ancient Greek doesn\u2019t really use helping verbs. As with double negatives, English is exceptional here. Other languages sometimes have what we call helping verbs\u2014Basque, Kazakh, Polish, Portuguese, Thai\u2014but few rely on them as much as English does, or have so many. This slightly weakens our sense of the shift from a more specific verb to a form of \u201cto be.\u201d We\u2019re used to apparently<\/em> making that kind of shift, when what we\u2019re actually relying on our audience to do is mentally \u201csupply\u201d a verb we don\u2019t feel like repeating out loud.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2026\/04\/Blake-Gethsemane-300x223.png\")
<\/p>\n
The Agony in the Garden<\/em>\u00a0(1800), by William<\/small>
\nBlake. Very unusually, this is painted on a piece<\/small>
\nof iron; however, it uses tempera, a traditional<\/small>
\nelement in creating ikons.<\/small><\/p>\nBut that isn\u2019t<\/em> what\u2019s going on here\u2014we\u2019re changing from one action (judging) to another action (existing). This same sentiment, in almost the same words, recurs in at least two other places in John: once at the end of this very passage in v. 29, and once in the more sobering context of the Upper Room Discourse, almost at the very end of it (16:32), before the Lord concludes the discourse with the high-priestly prayer of ch. 17 and comes to Gethsemane to ready himself for the Passion.<\/p>\nThe RSV\u2019s lack of a reference to \u201cthe Father\u201d seems to reflect a different choice of reading of the Greek text: a few important, early manuscripts don\u2019t have \u201cthe Father.\u201d However, in this case, the number is so small that even I favor the idea that the majority reading is correct, and a small number of early copyists accidentally deleted it and passed this error on to their successors.<\/p>\n
e. your law\/your law, | \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 [t\u014d nom\u014d de t\u014d h\u00fcmeter\u014d<\/em>]:<\/strong> This odd choice of words is subtly accented in a way that\u2019s hard to describe concisely. The repetition of the article (here the dative singular form, \u03c4\u1ff7) draws attention to the adjective \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3, \u201cyour\/s,\u201d but without forcing it to be the topic of the sentence. The word \u03b4\u1f72 thrown in between is an example of what\u2019s called a discourse marker<\/em>, one of those little words that can bear a meaning if asked, but which often do no more than establish tone or help the flow of a text (English discourse markers include hey<\/em>, I mean<\/em>, just<\/em>, look<\/em>,\u00a0now<\/em>, oh<\/em>, okay<\/em>, right<\/em>, so<\/em>, sorry<\/em>, uh\/um<\/em>, well<\/em>, wow<\/em>, and you know<\/em>). Koin\u00e9<\/em> often uses \u03b4\u1f72 to mean practically nothing, but sometimes it has a contrastive force; paired with \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd [men<\/em>] in the pattern \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u2026 \u03b4\u1f72, the two particles mean something like \u201cwhile on the one hand \u2026, on the other hand\u201d or \u201cwhereas \u2026, nevertheless\u201d. Here, the RSV translates it as \u201c[the white space in between two of the words on the page. Which space? It can be whichever white space you want it to be, baby],\u201d because this is not one of those \u201cstrong \u03b4\u1f72\u201d syntactic contexts! I\u2019ve chosen to give it just a breath more of a presence by introducing a comma after the phrase it occurs in.3<\/sup><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2024\/02\/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-1.06.27-AM-291x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
The oddness, for anyone who isn\u2019t clear what I mean, is describing the Torah as \u201cyour law\u201d. As a practicing Jew, indeed a rabbi, wouldn\u2019t the Lord have said \u201cour<\/em> law\u201d? or perhaps \u201cthe law\u201d? Why \u201cyour\u201d? I was able to think of three answers (which I\u2019ve put in small font in a desperate attempt to save some space!):<\/p>\ni. Antisemitism.<\/strong><\/em> One explanation is very simple: it\u2019s an example of New Testament, and specially Johannine, antisemitism. (And, since there are technically at least two schools of thought that might interpret this text this way, I\u2019d just like to remind everybody that<\/span> antisemitism is Bad Actually<\/a>.) This theory has the strength of being obvious, but also has a few less-intuitive weaknesses. The Torah has come up several times already in John; why would this be the moment for the evangelist to suddenly reveal his antisemitic streak? And why would he do so by the incredibly anticlimactic means of a single adjective, and then go nowhere with it? Especially considering that he\u2019s also gone out of his way a few chapters ago to affirm that \u201csalvation is from the Jews\u201d (see especially notes g and h in<\/span> this post<\/a>). As I\u2019ve said elsewhere, I don\u2019t want to absolve any part of the New Testament of accusations like this too easily, but, as applied to this specific text, I don\u2019t see that it really explains anything.<\/span><\/small><\/p>\nii. Interfaith Conflict.<\/strong><\/em> Another theory is that this reflects the particular tension that existed between the late-first-century synagogue and what is called the Johannine community<\/em>. This refers to a theoretical picture of the primitive Church, which I believe Raymond E. Brown (the same guy from<\/span> the bibliography<\/a>) was the first to formulate, though he drew on older scholarship, such as Bultmann\u2019s. The striking difference in style and even content between the Johannine books and the rest of the New Testament,4<\/sup> as well as their historical references and recurring themes, led some scholars to propose this Johannine community as something approaching a distinctive sect of Christianity. According to a typical formulation of the theory, the Johannine community:<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n\n- \n
\n- had a uniquely high Logos<\/em>-centric Christology, a doctrine not yet shared by the rest of the Church.<\/small><\/span><\/li>\n
- tended to retroject their present ideas and concerns into their sacred texts.<\/small><\/span><\/li>\n
- were involved in an especially bitter conflict with those who rejected the infant Beyt Yeshua<\/em> and ultimately expelled it from mainstream Judaism.<\/small><\/span><\/li>\n
- were especially concerned with in-group loyalty and policing the boundaries of their community.<\/small><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
According to this view, the \u201cyour\u201d here reflects the tension that existed between church and synagogue at this point. That tension has been projected backwards into the life of Christ\u2014not (as they would hasten to add) dishonestly or inaccurately, but with the aim of establishing a narrative by which they could make sense of their community\u2019s suffering, aaand if I try imitating their style of talking for even one more clause of this condescending drivel, I\u2019m going to explode.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2024\/05\/Screen-Shot-2024-05-17-at-2.31.17-PM-257x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
I find some elements of New Testament scholarship extremely helpful\u2014obviously. But almost every time they begin talking about ancient Christians \u201cresponding to suffering\u201d or whatever, I see red, because it always seems to carry an undertone of Well, you know, the first generations of Christians were under a lot of stress; they\u2019d never have believed in anything as stupid as the Second Coming or miracles or the deity of Christ if they\u2019d been thinking properly, but we moderns can forgive them that.<\/em> Being an impenitent supernaturalist myself, I\u2019m already inclined to take that personally, but that is, at the end of the day, my problem. There is a more pertinent issue here, same as with the previous proposal: the explanation does not explain.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\nThat is, it does a little better. The fact that tensions are narratively ramping up between Yeshua on the one hand and the priests and Pryshaya<\/em> on the other really does make this a roughly natural sort of place to retroject some of the contemporary conflict between the church and the synagogue. But interpreting \u201cyour\u201d in light of this theory would seem to concede the Torah to Jewish claims at the expense of the claims of the Johannine community itself. That doesn\u2019t track very well with the rest of the Fourth Gospel, which fairly clearly lays claim, like the rest of the New Testament, to the inheritance of the Old. Only a couple of chapters ago, the Lord was saying:<\/small><\/span><\/p>\nYou investigate the Writs, because you suppose them to have age-long life\u2014and it is these which witness about me; yet you will not come to me, in order that you may have life. \u2026 Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father; it is Mosheh who is your accuser, on whom you have hoped. For if you had faith in Mosheh, you would have had faith in me, for he wrote about me.<\/small><\/span>
\n\u2014John 5:39-40, 45-46<\/small><\/span><\/p>\nThere is also a certain amount of controversy around the whole notion of the Johannine community. The problem is that it is entirely a scholarly construct based on reading between the lines of ancient sources; there are no documents claiming directly that it exists, no arch\u00e6ological evidence for it, nothing that describes or alludes to such a thing (i.e., none that do so as some kind of distinct sect within Christianity\u2014the four bullet points above do appear throughout the New Testament as professed marks of the Church in general). So there\u2019s a real risk of question-begging in using it to explain anything.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2024\/03\/Screen-Shot-2024-03-29-at-10.00.56-AM-300x184.png\")
<\/p>\n
Les Pharisiens et les Saduc\u00e9ens Viennent Pour<\/em><\/small>
\nTenter J\u00e9sus<\/em> [The Pharisees and Sadducees<\/small>
\nCome to Test Jesus] (ca. 1890), by James Tissot.<\/small><\/p>\niii. Banter.<\/em><\/strong> It took me a little time to think of it, but I have a third possibility to suggest: that referring to the Law as \u201cyour Law\u201d is, more or less, snark. There\u2019s a reason for this, one specific to this Sukkot<\/em> pericope of chs. 7-8; it\u2019ll take just a little bit of setup.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\nWe got into various shades of meaning that the word \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 [Ioudaios<\/em>], meaning \u201cJew\u201d or \u201cJudean\u201d in Greek, might have born in the first century back in<\/span> my post on 3:22-4:3<\/a>, in note e. The idea there was that, as a word like man<\/em> can have a variety of antonyms\u2014woman<\/em>, God<\/em>, machine<\/em>, animal<\/em>, child<\/em>\u2014so did \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. The one we tend to think of is Gentile (which is the opposite of \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in the fourth sense from that post\u2019s list of five; however, we got a pointer to a different antonym<\/span> back in 7:15<\/a>: Galilean, as an antonym not to \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2-qua<\/em>-Jew, but to \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2-qua<\/em>-Judean. It may be that the Lord is sarcastically calling the Torah \u201cyour Law\u201d as a rebuke to Judean<\/em> possessiveness or snobbery against fellow<\/em> Jews from poorer and less educated regions or circles, regions like the Galilee.<\/span><\/small><\/p>\nf. if you knew me, you would know my Father also\/if you perceived me, you would perceive my Father too | \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 [ei eme \u0113deite, kai ton Patera mou an \u0113deite<\/em>]:<\/strong> Like the courtroom motif, this is a theme that echoes back and forth through the Gospel of John; it particularly recalls the homily given in the back half of ch. 5<\/a>\u2014which makes sense, since the miracle he alluded to in 7:21-23 was the one from the beginning of ch. 5<\/a>.<\/p>\ng. the treasury | \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u1ff3 [t\u014d gazof\u00fclaki\u014d<\/em>]:<\/strong> The treasury stood between the Court of the Women and the inner courts of the Temple; it was therefore well-placed for someone to be heard by both men and women while teaching as close to the inner sanctum of the Temple as possible.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1245\/2026\/04\/Screen-Shot-2026-04-15-at-7.16.13-PM-217x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
Ordinamento del Paradiso<\/em> [Arrangement of Para-<\/small>
\ndise] (1855), a diagram designed to accompany<\/small>
\nDante\u2019s Paradiso<\/em>, by Michelangelo Caetani.<\/small><\/p>\nh. You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world\/You are of those below, I am of those above; you are of this world, I am not of this world | \u1f59\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af\u00b7 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 [h\u00fcmeis ek t\u014dn kat\u014d este, eg\u014d ek t\u014dn an\u014d eimi: h\u00fcmeis ek toutou tou kosmou este, eg\u014d ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou<\/em>]:<\/strong> Though different in sense, this text (especially juxtaposed with 1:51<\/a>) sounds reminiscent of a surviving epigram from Heraclitus, the sixth-century Ephesian philosopher. (Even if you think you haven\u2019t heard of him, you\u2019ve heard of him\u2014he\u2019s the \u201cCan\u2019t step in the same river twice\u201d guy.) The quote and a hyper-literal translation appear below:<\/p>\n\u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2.<\/span>\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u2026<\/span>\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9..<\/span>\u03bc\u03af\u03b1.<\/span>\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76.<\/span>\u1f61\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae5<\/small><\/sup><\/big><\/span><\/strong>
\n[hodos..<\/span>an\u014d\u2026\u2026.<\/span>kat\u014d\u2026\u2026<\/span>mia\u2026<\/span>kai\u2026.<\/span>\u014d\u00fct\u0113<\/em>]<\/span>
\n..<\/span>road
John 8:12-29, RSV-CE<\/h4>\n
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, \u201cI am the light of the world;a<\/sup><\/strong> he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.\u201d The Pharisees then said to him, \u201cYou are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.\u201db<\/sup><\/strong> Jesus answered, \u201cEven if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.c<\/sup><\/strong> Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.d<\/sup><\/strong> In your lawe<\/sup><\/strong> it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.\u201d They said to him therefore, \u201cWhere is your Father?\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cYou know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.\u201df<\/sup><\/strong> These words he spoke in the treasury,g<\/sup><\/strong> as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.<\/p>\n Again he said to them, \u201cI go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.\u201d Then said the Jews, \u201cWill he kill himself, since he says, \u2018Where I am going, you cannot come\u2019?\u201d He said to them, \u201cYou are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.h<\/sup><\/strong> I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.\u201di<\/sup><\/strong> They said to him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d Jesus said to them, \u201cEven what I have told you from the beginning.j<\/sup><\/strong> I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.\u201d They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father. So Jesus said, \u201cWhen you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone,k<\/sup><\/strong> for I always do what is pleasing to him.\u201d<\/p>\n A sun pillar, (an atmospheric phenomenon<\/small> Then Yeshua spoke further to them, saying, \u201cI am the light of the world;a<\/sup><\/strong>\u00a0he who follows me will not walk around in the dark, but will have the light of life.\u201d<\/p>\n So the Pryshaya<\/em> said to him, \u201cYou are bearing witness about yourself; your witness is not true.\u201db<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n And Yeshua told them in response: \u201cEven if I bear witness about myself, it\u2019s true, this witness of mine, because I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I came from, nor where I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I do not judge no one.c<\/sup><\/strong> And even if I do judge, this judgment of mine is truthful, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who dispatched me.d<\/sup><\/strong> In your law,e<\/sup><\/strong> it is also written that the witness of two people is true. [Here] I am bearing witness about myself, and he bears witness about me who dispatched me\u2014the Father.\u201d<\/p>\n So they began asking him, \u201cWhere is your father?\u201d<\/p>\n Yeshua responded, \u201cYou neither know me nor my Father; if you perceived me, you would perceive my Father too.\u201df<\/sup><\/strong> He said these things while teaching in the treasuryg<\/sup><\/strong> in the Temple. Then he told them further, \u201cI am going, and you will search for me, and you will die in your sin; where I am going, you are not able to come.\u201d<\/p>\n So they Jews began saying, \u201c[Surely] he will not kill himself? because he says \u2018Where I am going you are not able to come\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n And he told them: \u201cYou are of those below, I am of those above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.h<\/sup><\/strong> So I told you that you will die in your sins; for if you will not have faith that I am, you will die in your sins.\u201di<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n Then they asked him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d<\/p>\n Yeshua said to them, \u201cWhat did I tell you at the beginning?j<\/sup><\/strong> I have many things to say about you, and to judge; but he who dispatched me is true, and the things I heard from him, I talk about these things in the world.\u201d They did not recognize that he spoke to them about the Father. So Yeshua said, \u201cWhenever you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and [that] I do nothing of myself, but just as the Father taught me I say these things. And he who dispatched me is with me; he has not sent me off alone,k<\/sup><\/strong> because I always do what is pleasing to him.\u201d<\/p>\n a. I am the light of the world | \u1f18\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 [eg\u014d eimi to f\u014ds tou kosmou<\/em>]:<\/strong> This is the second of the Gospel of John\u2019s \u201cI am the ___\u201d sayings (not to be confused with his uses of \u201cI am,\u201d suggesting the Tetragrammaton). There are seven all told, and they are occasionally repeated, mainly within their own near context:<\/p>\n As the references show, the first five are introduced in the \u201cBook of Signs,\u201d while the opening chapters of the \u201cBook of Glory\u201d add the last two. The motif of light, introduced in the prologue, has seen relatively little use for the bulk of the Fourth Gospel, which has been much more given to water-based imagery (though we have observed two nightfalls, one in ch. 3 and one in ch. 6, both of which seemed to be loosely connected with some kind of sifting of true faith from false). Here, during Sukkot<\/em> in Yrushalem, the two images cross one another, and light will remain an especially prominent symbol through chapter 10, during which Chanukkah, which according to Josephus was already a \u201cfestival of lights\u201d in the first century, will be celebrated.<\/p>\n b. your testimony is not true\/your witness is not true | \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 [h\u0113 mart\u00fcria sou ouk estin al\u0113th\u0113s<\/em>]:<\/strong> The assertion that the Lord\u2019s statement about himself \u201cis not true\u201d is likely a stock expression from the legal sphere, meaning something to the effect of This is inadmissible as evidence<\/em>. The Pryshaya<\/em> were adults, and obviously knew perfectly well that the literal meaning here would not necessarily be true; people make correct statements about themselves all the time.<\/p>\n c. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one\/you judge according to the flesh, I do not judge no one | \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. [h\u00fcmeis kata t\u0113n sarka krinete, eg\u014d ou krin\u014d oudena<\/em>]:<\/strong> The double negative is used here because Koin\u00e9<\/em> Greek, like most languages, deployed multiple negatives for emphasis and not to change the valence of the sentence with each one. English itself used to do the same thing, in its Middle and Early Modern stages; only the modern form of the language has adopted the curiously pedantic analysis by which each negative word or affix<\/a> in a sentence changes the quality of the whole sentence.2<\/sup><\/p>\n Folio from the Book of Samuel in the Biblia de<\/em><\/small> But to turn to our text! The phrasing seems to me to be faintly suggestive of I Samuel 16:<\/p>\n And the Lord said unto Samuel, \u201cHow long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.\u201d<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n And Samuel did that which the Lord spake, and came to Bethlehem \u2026 and he said, \u2026 \u201cI am come to sacrifice unto the Lord: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.\u201d And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice. And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, \u201cSurely the Lord\u2019s anointed is before him.\u201d<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n But the Lord said unto Samuel, \u201cLook not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.\u201d<\/span><\/small> d. it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me\/I am not alone, but I and the Father who dispatched me | \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [monos ouk eimi, all\u2019 eg\u014d kai ho pempsas me Pat\u0113r<\/em>]:<\/strong> The RSV-CE\u2019s use of judge<\/em> here extends it from v. 15. This strikes me as an odd treatment of the text. See, the Lord changes verbs here, from \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 (cf. note c), \u201cto judge,\u201d to \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, the Greek verb for \u201cto be.\u201d My use of I am<\/em> in the phrase I am not alone<\/em> here represents a literal appearance of the being-verb\u2014not (as it might be in English) an implied second use of \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 that\u2019s been clipped down to its helping verb, because Ancient Greek doesn\u2019t really use helping verbs. As with double negatives, English is exceptional here. Other languages sometimes have what we call helping verbs\u2014Basque, Kazakh, Polish, Portuguese, Thai\u2014but few rely on them as much as English does, or have so many. This slightly weakens our sense of the shift from a more specific verb to a form of \u201cto be.\u201d We\u2019re used to apparently<\/em> making that kind of shift, when what we\u2019re actually relying on our audience to do is mentally \u201csupply\u201d a verb we don\u2019t feel like repeating out loud.<\/p>\n The Agony in the Garden<\/em>\u00a0(1800), by William<\/small> But that isn\u2019t<\/em> what\u2019s going on here\u2014we\u2019re changing from one action (judging) to another action (existing). This same sentiment, in almost the same words, recurs in at least two other places in John: once at the end of this very passage in v. 29, and once in the more sobering context of the Upper Room Discourse, almost at the very end of it (16:32), before the Lord concludes the discourse with the high-priestly prayer of ch. 17 and comes to Gethsemane to ready himself for the Passion.<\/p>\n The RSV\u2019s lack of a reference to \u201cthe Father\u201d seems to reflect a different choice of reading of the Greek text: a few important, early manuscripts don\u2019t have \u201cthe Father.\u201d However, in this case, the number is so small that even I favor the idea that the majority reading is correct, and a small number of early copyists accidentally deleted it and passed this error on to their successors.<\/p>\n e. your law\/your law, | \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 [t\u014d nom\u014d de t\u014d h\u00fcmeter\u014d<\/em>]:<\/strong> This odd choice of words is subtly accented in a way that\u2019s hard to describe concisely. The repetition of the article (here the dative singular form, \u03c4\u1ff7) draws attention to the adjective \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3, \u201cyour\/s,\u201d but without forcing it to be the topic of the sentence. The word \u03b4\u1f72 thrown in between is an example of what\u2019s called a discourse marker<\/em>, one of those little words that can bear a meaning if asked, but which often do no more than establish tone or help the flow of a text (English discourse markers include hey<\/em>, I mean<\/em>, just<\/em>, look<\/em>,\u00a0now<\/em>, oh<\/em>, okay<\/em>, right<\/em>, so<\/em>, sorry<\/em>, uh\/um<\/em>, well<\/em>, wow<\/em>, and you know<\/em>). Koin\u00e9<\/em> often uses \u03b4\u1f72 to mean practically nothing, but sometimes it has a contrastive force; paired with \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd [men<\/em>] in the pattern \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u2026 \u03b4\u1f72, the two particles mean something like \u201cwhile on the one hand \u2026, on the other hand\u201d or \u201cwhereas \u2026, nevertheless\u201d. Here, the RSV translates it as \u201c[the white space in between two of the words on the page. Which space? It can be whichever white space you want it to be, baby],\u201d because this is not one of those \u201cstrong \u03b4\u1f72\u201d syntactic contexts! I\u2019ve chosen to give it just a breath more of a presence by introducing a comma after the phrase it occurs in.3<\/sup><\/p>\n The oddness, for anyone who isn\u2019t clear what I mean, is describing the Torah as \u201cyour law\u201d. As a practicing Jew, indeed a rabbi, wouldn\u2019t the Lord have said \u201cour<\/em> law\u201d? or perhaps \u201cthe law\u201d? Why \u201cyour\u201d? I was able to think of three answers (which I\u2019ve put in small font in a desperate attempt to save some space!):<\/p>\n i. Antisemitism.<\/strong><\/em> One explanation is very simple: it\u2019s an example of New Testament, and specially Johannine, antisemitism. (And, since there are technically at least two schools of thought that might interpret this text this way, I\u2019d just like to remind everybody that<\/span> antisemitism is Bad Actually<\/a>.) This theory has the strength of being obvious, but also has a few less-intuitive weaknesses. The Torah has come up several times already in John; why would this be the moment for the evangelist to suddenly reveal his antisemitic streak? And why would he do so by the incredibly anticlimactic means of a single adjective, and then go nowhere with it? Especially considering that he\u2019s also gone out of his way a few chapters ago to affirm that \u201csalvation is from the Jews\u201d (see especially notes g and h in<\/span> this post<\/a>). As I\u2019ve said elsewhere, I don\u2019t want to absolve any part of the New Testament of accusations like this too easily, but, as applied to this specific text, I don\u2019t see that it really explains anything.<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n ii. Interfaith Conflict.<\/strong><\/em> Another theory is that this reflects the particular tension that existed between the late-first-century synagogue and what is called the Johannine community<\/em>. This refers to a theoretical picture of the primitive Church, which I believe Raymond E. Brown (the same guy from<\/span> the bibliography<\/a>) was the first to formulate, though he drew on older scholarship, such as Bultmann\u2019s. The striking difference in style and even content between the Johannine books and the rest of the New Testament,4<\/sup> as well as their historical references and recurring themes, led some scholars to propose this Johannine community as something approaching a distinctive sect of Christianity. According to a typical formulation of the theory, the Johannine community:<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n According to this view, the \u201cyour\u201d here reflects the tension that existed between church and synagogue at this point. That tension has been projected backwards into the life of Christ\u2014not (as they would hasten to add) dishonestly or inaccurately, but with the aim of establishing a narrative by which they could make sense of their community\u2019s suffering, aaand if I try imitating their style of talking for even one more clause of this condescending drivel, I\u2019m going to explode.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n I find some elements of New Testament scholarship extremely helpful\u2014obviously. But almost every time they begin talking about ancient Christians \u201cresponding to suffering\u201d or whatever, I see red, because it always seems to carry an undertone of Well, you know, the first generations of Christians were under a lot of stress; they\u2019d never have believed in anything as stupid as the Second Coming or miracles or the deity of Christ if they\u2019d been thinking properly, but we moderns can forgive them that.<\/em> Being an impenitent supernaturalist myself, I\u2019m already inclined to take that personally, but that is, at the end of the day, my problem. There is a more pertinent issue here, same as with the previous proposal: the explanation does not explain.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n That is, it does a little better. The fact that tensions are narratively ramping up between Yeshua on the one hand and the priests and Pryshaya<\/em> on the other really does make this a roughly natural sort of place to retroject some of the contemporary conflict between the church and the synagogue. But interpreting \u201cyour\u201d in light of this theory would seem to concede the Torah to Jewish claims at the expense of the claims of the Johannine community itself. That doesn\u2019t track very well with the rest of the Fourth Gospel, which fairly clearly lays claim, like the rest of the New Testament, to the inheritance of the Old. Only a couple of chapters ago, the Lord was saying:<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n You investigate the Writs, because you suppose them to have age-long life\u2014and it is these which witness about me; yet you will not come to me, in order that you may have life. \u2026 Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father; it is Mosheh who is your accuser, on whom you have hoped. For if you had faith in Mosheh, you would have had faith in me, for he wrote about me.<\/small><\/span> There is also a certain amount of controversy around the whole notion of the Johannine community. The problem is that it is entirely a scholarly construct based on reading between the lines of ancient sources; there are no documents claiming directly that it exists, no arch\u00e6ological evidence for it, nothing that describes or alludes to such a thing (i.e., none that do so as some kind of distinct sect within Christianity\u2014the four bullet points above do appear throughout the New Testament as professed marks of the Church in general). So there\u2019s a real risk of question-begging in using it to explain anything.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n Les Pharisiens et les Saduc\u00e9ens Viennent Pour<\/em><\/small> iii. Banter.<\/em><\/strong> It took me a little time to think of it, but I have a third possibility to suggest: that referring to the Law as \u201cyour Law\u201d is, more or less, snark. There\u2019s a reason for this, one specific to this Sukkot<\/em> pericope of chs. 7-8; it\u2019ll take just a little bit of setup.<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n We got into various shades of meaning that the word \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 [Ioudaios<\/em>], meaning \u201cJew\u201d or \u201cJudean\u201d in Greek, might have born in the first century back in<\/span> my post on 3:22-4:3<\/a>, in note e. The idea there was that, as a word like man<\/em> can have a variety of antonyms\u2014woman<\/em>, God<\/em>, machine<\/em>, animal<\/em>, child<\/em>\u2014so did \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. The one we tend to think of is Gentile (which is the opposite of \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in the fourth sense from that post\u2019s list of five; however, we got a pointer to a different antonym<\/span> back in 7:15<\/a>: Galilean, as an antonym not to \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2-qua<\/em>-Jew, but to \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2-qua<\/em>-Judean. It may be that the Lord is sarcastically calling the Torah \u201cyour Law\u201d as a rebuke to Judean<\/em> possessiveness or snobbery against fellow<\/em> Jews from poorer and less educated regions or circles, regions like the Galilee.<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n f. if you knew me, you would know my Father also\/if you perceived me, you would perceive my Father too | \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 [ei eme \u0113deite, kai ton Patera mou an \u0113deite<\/em>]:<\/strong> Like the courtroom motif, this is a theme that echoes back and forth through the Gospel of John; it particularly recalls the homily given in the back half of ch. 5<\/a>\u2014which makes sense, since the miracle he alluded to in 7:21-23 was the one from the beginning of ch. 5<\/a>.<\/p>\n g. the treasury | \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u1ff3 [t\u014d gazof\u00fclaki\u014d<\/em>]:<\/strong> The treasury stood between the Court of the Women and the inner courts of the Temple; it was therefore well-placed for someone to be heard by both men and women while teaching as close to the inner sanctum of the Temple as possible.<\/p>\n Ordinamento del Paradiso<\/em> [Arrangement of Para-<\/small> h. You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world\/You are of those below, I am of those above; you are of this world, I am not of this world | \u1f59\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af\u00b7 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 [h\u00fcmeis ek t\u014dn kat\u014d este, eg\u014d ek t\u014dn an\u014d eimi: h\u00fcmeis ek toutou tou kosmou este, eg\u014d ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou<\/em>]:<\/strong> Though different in sense, this text (especially juxtaposed with 1:51<\/a>) sounds reminiscent of a surviving epigram from Heraclitus, the sixth-century Ephesian philosopher. (Even if you think you haven\u2019t heard of him, you\u2019ve heard of him\u2014he\u2019s the \u201cCan\u2019t step in the same river twice\u201d guy.) The quote and a hyper-literal translation appear below:<\/p>\n \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2.<\/span>\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u2026<\/span>\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9..<\/span>\u03bc\u03af\u03b1.<\/span>\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76.<\/span>\u1f61\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae5<\/small><\/sup><\/big><\/span><\/strong>John 8:12-29, my translation<\/h4>\n
<\/p>\n
\nrelated to haloes and rainbows), seen from<\/small>
\nSan Francisco, CA. Photo by Brocken Inaglory,<\/small>
\nused via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license (source<\/a>).<\/small><\/p>\n<\/p>\nTextual Notes<\/h4>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nCervera (1300), by soferim<\/em> Samuel ben Abra-<\/small>
\nham ibn Nathan and Josu\u00e9 ben Abraham ibn<\/small>
\nGaon, with illuminator Josef Asarfati.<\/small><\/p>\n
\n\u2014I Sam. 16:1, 4a, 5-7<\/span><\/small><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nBlake. Very unusually, this is painted on a piece<\/small>
\nof iron; however, it uses tempera, a traditional<\/small>
\nelement in creating ikons.<\/small><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n\u2014John 5:39-40, 45-46<\/small><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nTenter J\u00e9sus<\/em> [The Pharisees and Sadducees<\/small>
\nCome to Test Jesus] (ca. 1890), by James Tissot.<\/small><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\ndise] (1855), a diagram designed to accompany<\/small>
\nDante\u2019s Paradiso<\/em>, by Michelangelo Caetani.<\/small><\/p>\n
\n[hodos..<\/span>an\u014d\u2026\u2026.<\/span>kat\u014d\u2026\u2026<\/span>mia\u2026<\/span>kai\u2026.<\/span>\u014d\u00fct\u0113<\/em>]<\/span>
\n..<\/span>road