Agnostic.com

1 2

This was something to think about. Really changes the nature of the character and might be fun to watch some more "Jesus was all peace and love" folks try to square.

PadraicM 7 Apr 10
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It’s not real! It’s allegory. This is John, the mystical fellow. He is building on Matthew (who is the great apocalyptic drama queen anyway, the Cecil B. DeMille of gospel writing) and inserting the whip into the narrative.

The question to ask is why is the mystic adding allegory to the story. It doesn’t move the plot along as John is not a story teller but a message giver.

What is he adding to the narrative?

He changes his character's motivations from one of sudden anger that lashes out (literally) to one who has premeditated an attack. The character has carried the anger, allowing it to guide him long after it should have subsided from a random thought or flight of fancy. If he had just upended the tables and beat them with ready weapons (e.g. fists, chairs, tables, random stuff), it would have all stayed in the realm of an attack borne out of passion. It speaks to what a dick this Jesus character is. Actually, sounds a lot like his dad, irrational temper tantrums and holding grudges far longer than is reasonable.

@PadraicM It’s a very good interpretation but bear in mind this is John’s character, not Matthew’s. We can take this adaptation of Matthew and transpose this unexpected turn of violence onto the John Gospel, because it is revealed as an unspoken, calculated act.

Matthew is a pussycst compared to the tacit violence inherent in John.

@Geoffrey51 It could be that it was a metaphor for attonement, in other words Jesus is going to be whipped, so first he must whip someone else. It could be that it is meant to prove that Jesus has godly foresight, and that he really does nothing out of passion. Or it could be that there is a lost theological debate about where did the whip come from, which is no longer remembered, but was important at the time and John needed to answer it.

The fact that I alone can come up with three different reasons, without even trying shows just how impossible it is to guess anything at this degree of remove.

@Fernapple Exactly. That is the brilliant thing about literature when one engages with it. It enables our thinking to go beyond the surface texture and into its deeper fabric.

@Geoffrey51 Mind you I just thought of a truly banal reason why John would mention the making of the whip. Which may be the true one, because the banal reasons usually are. Which is that. Someone or some people may have asked, where the whip came from, and John may have been trying to go one up on Matthew, by seeming to provide answers he could not.

@Fernapple Haha I like that one !

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:482707
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.