RUmike

What exactly is the prevailing scholarly opinion regarding the timeline of the 4th gospel in regards to its foundation being the Signs Gospel...

Am I correct in saying: The original author took the Signs Gospel (which he did not write), edited it a little bit for the purposes of presenting to a non-Jewish audience, and finally added a little bit of his own material. Then, some time later, a second author added the 21st chapter.

Is that correct?

Also, in the 21st chapter, the author says that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" testified to these things. Does this mean that the author believed the original Signs Gospel was written by that disciple? Or does it mean chapters 1-20 were written by that disciple (which included the Signs Gospel)? Or something else entirely?

I'm a bit confused on all this. Thanks.

S.C.Carlson

The editing of the Signs source--as usually conceived--is considerably more extensive than "a little bit." For example, chapters 13-17 and much of chapter 1 of John are not assigned to the Signs source.

Stephen Carlson

RUmike

Ok, thanks. So chapter 21 is assigned to a later editor, and not the same?

S.C.Carlson

Usually, John 21 is assigned to the same editor that was responsible for the other additions to the Signs source (which originally ended at John 20:31).

Raymond Brown, for example, posits three authorities: (1) a Beloved Disciple, who didn't write anything, (2) an Evangelist, who wrote a Signs Gospel, and (3) a Redactor, who augmented the Signs Gospel into what we have today, including John 21:24-25. In looking at Fortna and von Walde, other Signs gospel scholars, I couldn't find anything much different.

Stephen

Zeichman

I believe that there is another stage in there: first there was the Signs gospel (7 miracles, maybe a passion story, maybe baptism material), which was a part of the orthodox Jewish-Christianity of its time. Given the nature of the miracle stories and possible inclusion of JtB, it is likely that this group was apocalyptic. A second stage contained a higher christology (but not yet equating the Son with the Father), in which the Samaritans made up a large part of the community (evident throughout the gospel and in the Moses-related sayings), and they were expelled from the synagogue (I'm not sure Brown commented on which of these led to which), about 75% of the canonical Gospel of John was written then. The final stage consisted of a christology in which the Son and Father were equal, gentiles made up a large part of the community, and Jews were no longer viewed as being part of the community (Ch 15-17, 21, and other "beloved disciple" scenes added then). Some scholars would argue that this last stage was after the division in the community which was spoken of in the Johannine epistles, presumably Docetics/proto-gnostics, at which the Gospel was revised to correct these heretics. Others believe the split was after the canonical John was composed.

As for the Beloved Disciple, scholars are a bit divided. Burton Mack sounded pretty agnostic as to whether or not such a person lived (given that he only appears in the final redaction of the gospel), while Raymond Brown believe that it was probably one of the twelve. Attempts to identify the beloved disciple have been relatively unconvincing, proposals included Lazarus (the most plausable, in my opinion), John of Zebedee, Barnabas, and more whom I am forgetting.

And correct me if I'm wrong about any of this stuff, please.

RUmike

Interesting. Why do you think Lazarus is most plausible?

Zeichman

I kind of doubt Lazarus ever existed, but in Lazarus' scene, there are several explicit references to the fact that Jesus loved him. Interestingly, these parallels can also be found in Secret Mark, should one accept it as authentic. There are no explicit references to the Beloved Disciple before Lazarus, and the character starts appearing shortly afterwards. However, it seems more than likely that Lazarus' ressurection was in Signs, while the disciple, as I had mentioned above, does not appear until the final redaction.

S.C.Carlson

According to Fortna, this is how the Lazarus account looked in the Signs source:

11:1 Now there was a certain [Mary] (and her sister Martha) of Bethany, 2c whose brother Lazarus was sick. 3 So she [or the sisters] sent to Jesus saying, "Master, your beloved friend is sick." 7 He said to the disciples, 11 Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep; 15c let us go to him."

17 So Jesus came, and found him already four days buried. (18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles away.) 32 When Mary saw [Jesus], she fell at his feet and said to him, "Master, if you had been here my brother would not have died." 33 So Jesus (when saw her weeping) was angered in spirit and deeply troubled. 34 And he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Master, come and see." 38 So Jesus came to the tomb. Not it was a cave, and had a stone lying against it. 39a Jesus said, "Take away the stone." 41 So they took the stone away. And Jesus (lifted up his eyes 43b and) called out with a great cry, "Lazarus, come forth!" 44 The dead man came forth, bound feet and hands with cloths, and his face wrapped in a handkerchief. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him and let him go."

45 Those who say what he did believed in him.

As best I can tell, Fortna assigns all of the references to the Beloved Disciple to a later redaction of the Signs source.

(As for Secret Mark, I'm already on record about its modernity.)

Stephen Carlson