Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-17-2010, 08:33 PM

The Jesus Project only gathered a handful of scholars willing to confront the issue of the historicity of Jesus.

But "The John, Jesus, and History Project" as described on Bibleinterp.com has published 3 volumes of essays and attracted hundreds of scholars to its SBL section to discuss the issue of whether the gospel of John is as worthy of being included in the Quest for the Historical Jesus as the synoptics.

Their complaint:

Quote:

Following Albert Schweitzer’s summation of the first century of historical-Jesus research and his low appraisal of John’s historicity, the “New Quest” for Jesus emerging in the 1950s, and the “Third Quest” more recently have likewise omitted the Fourth Gospel from the database of Jesus-research material.7 The Jesus Seminar even excluded nearly all of John’s material from their canons of historicity, while accepting forty times more sayings material from the second-century Gospel of Thomas, despite its Gnostic proclivities.

But it seems that the case the Johannine scholars make against the use of the synoptics is very close to the case that the mythicists make against the attempt to find the historical Jesus in the synoptics.

Joan of Bark · 02-17-2010, 09:24 PM

I thought the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be 1st century, maybe even predating the synoptics?

Steven Carr · 02-17-2010, 11:40 PM

I love the abject way the article lays bare that people claim things are historical if they make a good story.

'On the other hand, several features of the Johannine presentation of Jesus have long seemed to possess their own claims to historicity, even over and against the Synoptics. Jesus’ traveling to and from Jerusalem in John seems more realistic than the single visit to Jerusalem of the Synoptics. Likewise, Jesus’ ministry over a two- or three-year span seems more plausible than the Synoptic partial-year ministry, leading up to a singular Passover festival at which Jesus dies.'

'Seems more realistic'....

Gosh, there are bits of Harry Potter which 'seem more realistic' than other bits of Harry Potter.

Harry Potter goes to a real station in London. Surely that 'seems more realistic' than Harry meeting a unicorn.

So it must be historical.

But why do mainstream Biblical scholars need things in 'Johns' Gospel to be historical?

They already conclude that the baptism by John the Baptist is historical.

For the simple reason that there is no baptism in the Gospel of John.

If it is not in John, it must be historical, as John was too embarrassed to mention it.

So why are they claiming that if things are in John, they could also be historical.

Steven Carr · 02-17-2010, 11:41 PM

The article says 'And, more than a few features in John appear to be setting the record straight when compared to the Markan witness.'

So John knew Mark, and yet somehow the criterion of 'multiple attestation' is also used to say that if something is in John and Mark, they are in 'independent' 'witnesses'.

Jayrok · 02-18-2010, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

I thought the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be 1st century, maybe even predating the synoptics?

That's what I thought too. I thought John was written with the knowledge of the Thomas sayings and he purposely left out all those sayings (unlike the synoptics) because he was writing to refute Thomas' portrayal of Jesus. "Doubting Thomas" isn't found in the synoptics.

It seems if the GoT was written after the gospels he might include at least one of the sayings of Jesus in GJohn. Or maybe he wasn't aware of GJohn.

mountainman · 02-18-2010, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

I thought the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be 1st century, maybe even predating the synoptics?

That's what I thought too. I thought John was written with the knowledge of the Thomas sayings and he purposely left out all those sayings (unlike the synoptics) because he was writing to refute Thomas' portrayal of Jesus. "Doubting Thomas" isn't found in the synoptics.

It seems if the GoT was written after the gospels he might include at least one of the sayings of Jesus in GJohn. Or maybe he wasn't aware of GJohn.

Dale B. Martin on the 8. The Gospel of Thomas

"The gThomas is thought by most scholars to have been written c.200 CE.
But we dont really know. It's a complete guess."

C14 says 4th century but HJ'ers and many MJ'ers argue that people were burying high-tech time capsules containing material of centuries past. These gnostics were just sentimental old fools - nothing original was happening in the 4th century. Yeah! They did not prepare these high technology codices to state the issues of their own epoch.

But we dont really know. It's a complete guess.
Around 348 CE the highways were covered with galloping bishops
and the minions of Christian emperors searched out and burnt forbidden books.

If we were wise we would follow the C14 = 348 CE (+/- 60 years)

Roger Pearse · 02-18-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

I thought the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be 1st century, maybe even predating the synoptics?

That's what I thought too.

In its current form it contains material characteristic of gnosticism and therefore 2nd century (which is the golden age of such texts anyway). I believe there are links with the Diatessaron of Tatian also. All this militates against these very early dates sometimes suggested, although I am by no means an expert.

I believe the suggestion is that it contains inter alia genuine material which may derive from the oral tradition, possibly in an independent form than the canonical gospels. That might be so; there is no reason why an early enough apocryphon might not be able to use such material.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Zaphod · 02-18-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...I believe the suggestion is that it contains inter alia genuine material which may derive from the oral tradition, possibly in an independent form than the canonical gospels. That might be so; there is no reason why an early enough apocryphon might not be able to use such material.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Certainly hope no one had to memorize all that claptrap - it would never survive more than two or three recountings.

It also has an interesting couplet from a mythicist's standpoint:

Quote:

24. His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it."

He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."

maryhelena · 02-20-2010, 01:30 AM

I found the following article most interesting - especially the points re an early date for the gospel of John.

Quote:

Daniel B. Wallace

The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline

http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-j...gument-outline

2. An Early Date (60s)

There are a number of data which strongly suggest a date in the 60s, chief among them are the following.

(1) The destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This fits extremely well with a date before 66 CE.

(2) The topographical accuracy of pre-70 Palestine argues that at least some of the material embedded in the gospel comes from before the Jewish War.

(3) There is much primitive terminology used in this gospel. E.g., Jesus’ followers are called “disciples” in John, not apostles.

(4) The conceptual and verbal parallels with Qumran argue strongly for an overtly Jewish document which fits well within the first century milieu.

(5) The date of P55 at c. 100-150, coupled with the date of Papyrus Egerton 2 at about the same time—a document which employed both John and the synoptics—is almost inconceivable if John is to be dated in the 90s.34

(6) John’s literary independence from and apparent lack of awareness of the synoptic gospels argue quite strongly for an early date. Indeed, this independence/ignorance argues that all the gospels were written within a relatively short period of time, with Matthew and Luke having the good fortune of seeing and using Mark in their composition.

(7) Finally, there is a strong piece of internal evidence for an early date. In John 5:2 the author says that “there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool (the one called Bethesda in Hebrew) which has five porticoes.” Without discussing all the interpretations possible for this verse suffice it to say that (a) the verb “is” ( ejstin) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE.35 By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE.

In sum, we believe that a pre-70 date for the Fourth Gospel is the most probable one. Further, we believe that this gospel should be dated late in 65 or even in 66, for the following two reasons: (a) it is doubtful that it should be dated after 66, because otherwise the lack of an Olivet Discourse in which many of the prophecies were at that time coming true, is inexplicable; (b) the gospel should perhaps be dated after Peter’s death, as we shall see when we examine the purpose.

Here is an idea.

gJohn is focused on Jesus as the Word, the Logos - ie a Wisdom element that finds a resonance with the writing of Paul.

gMark is focused, with the adoption baptism, on Jesus as son of god

gMatthew is focused on Jesus as fulfilment of OT prophecies.

gLuke is focused on dating Jesus to a specific date stamp ie detailing a historical core underlying the gospel storyline.

It looks to me that this order makes more sense - particularly for the mythmakers who are developing a Jesus storyline ie the high Christology of gJohn would be at the beginning stages of the development of the myth not at the end ie not as a result of, as is the historicists position, a slow process of beginning to see Jesus through the lens of a high Christology.

If gJohn is dated early, around the 60 ce, then a high Christology would have been the original Jesus storyline - not a development as the historicists seem to see it. Which does, in essence, indicate that mythology was involved from the very start of the gospel Jesus storyline.

If gJohn is dated early, then Paul would have either known about this document, in whatever early stage of compilation, or knew the tradition related to it. Paul’s vision, after all, is related to a mission to the gentiles, not primarily to the theological/Christological position of the early Christians re the gospel Jesus storyline.

It looks to me that it would be the historicists that might well be in difficulties if an early date was established for the gospel of John - and the mythicists could well have a trump card in their hand...

Wikipedia Gospel of John

Quote:

Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the Temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eyewitness,[82][citation needed] sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70. In the 1970s, Leon Morris and John A.T. Robinson independently suggested earlier dates for the gospel's composition.[83][84]284,307

Some modern scholars question the mainstream view. The non-canonical Dead Sea Scrolls suggest an early Jewish origin, parallels and similarities to the Essenne Scroll, and Rule of the Community.[85] Many phrases are duplicated in the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are sufficiently numerous to challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the last to be written among the four Gospels[86] and that it shows marked non-Jewish influence.[87]

maryhelena · 02-20-2010, 03:21 AM

I found this interesting article online. (best to use the web address as the link to the pdf file only works on the site)

Quote:

Current Approaches to the Priority of John

Mark A. Matson
Milligan College

http://www2.milligan.edu/administrat...son/papers.htm

Current Papers and Projects

Current Approaches to Johannine Priority. (pdf. format) This is a paper I read at the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference in St. Louis in March, 2003. Published in Stone-Campbell Journal 7 (2004): 73-100.

........

It has, of course, been suggested that John’s theology is late, the result of a long period of reflection and development. What is at issue here is the “high christology” of John, which understands Jesus to be the preexistent Word who participated in creation and returns to God. But certainly this kind of theology is represented in other early Christian documents, most particularly Paul’s letter to the Philippians and the letter to the Colossians. Indeed, if the hymn in Philippians 2 is pre-Pauline, or Colossians 1:15–20 is also a hymn that predates the letter, then we have evidence that this high christology dates back to the very earliest period of Christian reflection about the person of Jesus.

----------------

In the first category we can place the work of Klaus Berger, who has recently argued that John is actually written very early, probably the earliest of the gospels. He actually dates the gospel to the period of between 64 and 70 C.E., since in his view the gospel assumes the death of Peter, but does not know of a physical destruction of Jerusalem or the temple. Berger’s work is closely argued and deserves a bit of attention here, especially since it is little known in modern English reviews of the literature......

In each specific case, Berger sees John as offering earlier forms of the theological issue at stake. Berger also sees very strong connections with Paul’s letters, such that he imagines Paul having early contact with Jewish Christians who might be called “pre-Johannine” in their perspective. Thus John and Paul share certain ways of conceiving of christological issues.

-------------

A far more daring approach to understanding John’s literary priority is that of Peter Hofrichter. Hofrichter understand the Fourth Gospel to be the first gospel written, arising out of an early Hellenistic-Jewish church which interpreted Jesus in light of certain proto-gnostic ideas of a descending ascending redeemer. This early idea was developed into the hymn which prefaces the gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel was then written with Jesus material in mind to focus on the earthly Jesus (versus the pre-existent Jesus). The various discussions on the mouth of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are attempts to interpret and reign in the gnostic interpretation. From this early gospel of John, Hofrichter then sees Mark developing his own gospel. But the Fourth Gospel serves as the initial model, and provides a kind of narrative structure, upon which Mark then develops his gospel.

Hofrichter’s approach seems to push against one of the major trends in current Johannine research, that is the increasing tendency to locate much if not all of Johannine thought well within the boundaries of Jewish thought. Hofrichter, in contrast, locates the genesis of John in a Hellenistic proto gnostic conception, one which John attempts to control and which Mark then rejects with his own more Jewish narrative. This approach is undoubtedly daring, and needs significantly more demonstration of both major theses: that the direction of influence was from John to Mark, and that John is primarily a Hellenistic-oriented document.

There is, then, a rethinking about literary relationships in the New Testament that is raising serious questions about the secondary nature of the Fourth Gospel. Both in terms of careful literary analysis, the stuff of old source-critical discussions (Shellard and Matson), and in terms of theological developments (Berger and Hofrichter, though from very different perspectives), John is being considered as an early, or the earliest, of the gospels.

------------

2. The argument for John’s possible influence on other gospels, thus asserting a literary priority for John in at least some special cases, is relatively recent in biblical scholarship and there has not been sufficient time for this idea to percolate through the scholarly community. If sustained in any degree this will provide a compelling argument for an early date of John....

Many of the scholarly approaches outlined in this paper support a greater plausibility for historical data in John. There is more room, then, for bringing John back into the discussion of the Jesus of history, which will surely open up the discussion in new and exciting ways.

Indeed....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2010, 09:24 PM	#2
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	I thought the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be 1st century, maybe even predating the synoptics?

02-17-2010, 11:40 PM	#3
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I love the abject way the article lays bare that people claim things are historical if they make a good story. 'On the other hand, several features of the Johannine presentation of Jesus have long seemed to possess their own claims to historicity, even over and against the Synoptics. Jesus’ traveling to and from Jerusalem in John seems more realistic than the single visit to Jerusalem of the Synoptics. Likewise, Jesus’ ministry over a two- or three-year span seems more plausible than the Synoptic partial-year ministry, leading up to a singular Passover festival at which Jesus dies.' 'Seems more realistic'.... Gosh, there are bits of Harry Potter which 'seem more realistic' than other bits of Harry Potter. Harry Potter goes to a real station in London. Surely that 'seems more realistic' than Harry meeting a unicorn. So it must be historical. But why do mainstream Biblical scholars need things in 'Johns' Gospel to be historical? They already conclude that the baptism by John the Baptist is historical. For the simple reason that there is no baptism in the Gospel of John. If it is not in John, it must be historical, as John was too embarrassed to mention it. So why are they claiming that if things are in John, they could also be historical.

02-17-2010, 11:41 PM	#4
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	The article says 'And, more than a few features in John appear to be setting the record straight when compared to the Markan witness.' So John knew Mark, and yet somehow the criterion of 'multiple attestation' is also used to say that if something is in John and Mark, they are in 'independent' 'witnesses'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.