The word and title שילה in John I: 11

John I: 11 reads ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ ΗΛΘΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΙΔΙΟΙ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΟΥ ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ. Disregard the prevalent commentaries, which waffle on about the Jews not accepting Jesus, and then Paul trying for the second prize by preaching to everyone except Jews. The translation in the King James Version or Authorised Version renders “ta idia” as “his own ”. This could equally well be rendered as “what was his”. Notice that the noun this time is neuter plural. A neuter plural can refer to what in English would be a singular. Some translations render it as “his own home”, which is certainly a possible use of the term, but I would much prefer the rendering of the Authorised Version because it allows for the whole range of meanings. The same translation has “his own” for “hoi idioi”. This time the Greek word is masculine plural, and is clearly connected with the word “hosoi” meaning “whoever (plural)” at the start of the next verse. In the Peshitta the rendering in both places in v. 11 is simply ܕܝܠܞ . In itself this is neither personal nor impersonal, neither singular nor plural. In the second instance the Peshitta uses a plural verb. The avoidance of a distinction between neuter and personal in the first instance of DYLH in the Peshitta is useful. I think the Greek translators made the right choice, but at the cost of the intended ambiguity AND AT THE COST OF THE REFERENCE TO THE TORAH. Genesis XLIX: 10 says “till he whose it is comes”. The phrase in John is “He came to what was his”. If you put these phrases into Aramaic the phrases “whose it is” and “to what was his” will be DYLH (= Peshitta in Genesis) and LDYLH A reference to Genesis XLIX: 10 would be absolutely unmistakable. (This assumes of course that you accept the etymology of the word Shiloh accepted by all the ancient witnesses except the Vulgate; though even the translation in the Vulgate is compatible). But look what happens if you translate into Hebrew. You could render “to what is his” as לשלו but in poetic style you could leave the lamed out. בא שלו ושלו לא קבלוהו This is not, however, very natural usage, even in poetic style, because the prepositional prefix would normally only be left out before a noun. Suppose the original had been this: בא שילה ושלו לא קבלוהו This means “Shilo came and those that were his didn’t accept him”. Alternatively, with deliberately archaic spelling: בא שילה ושלה לא קבלוהו This could be read in two ways, either as above, or as “Shiloh came, and [shin-lamed-he, numerical value ten less, because no yod] did not receive him”. I have suggested before that the spelling of Shiloh without a yod in Jewish and Samaritan mss. of the Torah originated in the claim that the Prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy XVIII was Joshua, no more than that, thus denying the concept of a future Moses or someone greater than Moses. This is now getting very speculative, but what is certain is that this Hebrew sentence could be read as “Shiloh came, but those that denied the authority of the Torah for the coming of a second and greater Moses didn’t receive him”. The next verse would then fit perfectly. Now we see a possible reason for the Samaritan-sounding term “Power” here. This is a Samaritan Christian Dosithean manifesto. (I have already shown unmistakeable Dosithean Christian passages in the epistles attributed to Paul, but in the epistles that modern scholars have guessed might not be by Paul himself).

This would of course make the logical subject of vv. 11-13 different to the logical subject of vv. 9-10. The second personage would be the bearer of the light, not the light itself. (He would not be the Herald of the light either, but then again, notice how easy it would now be to link John and Jesus as servants of the light. I still don’t think you could use this line of argument to identify John with Jesus). This makes Jesus the bearer of the light, not the light itself. I personally am now much happier with the argument, because the light is supernal (not of the created earth), and Jesus if considered only in himself is human. Nestorius was right. Now re-read what is said about the Power of God just afterwards. The Light and the Power are two names for two functions of the same thing. Now think about what is said about Simon. Simon claims to be the Power called Great. Jesus says “I and the Father are one”. In both cases, Simon and Jesus, a human person is fully in tune with God. But would anyone ever say this? I think not, as a bald statement. It sounds like the title of a modern American Instant Guide to the Secrets of the Ancients in Ten Easy Lessons for the Busy Executive. Someone might well say it in the right context, the context of claiming to be entirely in tune with the Torah, which at the heavenly level is the Divine Wisdom. We know that both Simon and Jesus brought a new earthly manifestation of the heavenly Torah. I think most commentators and theologians read far too much into Jesus’s claim of close identity with the Father. I think they don’t realise that God as the Father is only God as the God of Israel, the vision on the throne seen by the Elders or by Ezekiel. This is God as named in the numerous blessings recited by Ultra-Orthodox Jews and to a lesser extent by normal Jews, the King of the World, named as Adonai even by the Ultra-Orthodox. (Not Ha-Shem, which is a substitute for YHWH).This is the level of manifestation addressed in the Day of Atonement piyyut Avinu Malkenu, Our Father our King. Obviously there is a manifestation of God far beyond that, the glimpse seen by Moses as he was protected by God, what is called “the back” of God, the Creator as seen from the direction of what is created. This is what is represented by the letter bet at the start of the Torah. Beyond that is the totally unknowable, represented by the absence of the first letter of the alphabet in that place. And beyond that is the unthinkable.

I think I have shown that what is said about Jesus, and what Jesus himself said, are the same as what Simon said about himself. Now we can have another look at the name Simon. I have said before that Simon (samech-yod-mem-vav-nun) had become a Hebrew and Aramaic name. I think the person called Simon bore it as a reference to his function as the siman, the indicator. We are now back to the basic statement of Christian theology, that Jesus points to God. I still think Simon and Jesus could have been the same person, but hesitate about being definite, because that would mean everything in the Church Fathers about Simon’s history and activity would be fictitious, leaving only the statements of his theology as true. I would be more inclined to say that what is attributed to Simon is the content of the systematic writings of Philip the Apostle to the Samaritans and perhaps of Foti, the Apostle to the Samaritans appointed even before Philip, the record being in John IV. The name Simon would then be a theological term or a name of Jesus turned into a fictitious person. The biographical details of the parentage and place of origin of the fictitious Simon would be those of Philip. The memory of his conflicts with Peter would then very plausibly be a reminiscence of the insistence of the Christians of Samaria on the Apostolic status of their Church going back to Philip, NOT PETER. This would be exactly the equivalent of the battle of the Coptic Church against attempts to wipe out the chain of authority from Mark and replace it with the authority of Peter.

All this needs tightening up. But look what we have. First, an explanation of why the Church Fathers are so unbelievably ignorant of Samaritan Christianity. It was deliberately re-described so as to ascribe all authority to Peter. Second, we have (indirectly) an explanation of the need to misrepresent Markion. His preaching was uncomfortable, because it was authentic. It was incompatible with the attempts at turning Christianity into something different. Third, we have an explanation of why our Gospel of John declares itself to based on an Apostolic book by John, without explaining why a new edition was needed. The original Gospel of John must have closely resembled the original Gospel in its theology. We can suppose that the revised version made certain points clearer, that is, harder to misrepresent. Right at the start is a coded condemnation of those that had tried to re-cast Christianity.