Adam

Join me in a scholarly project? For 30 years I have contended that the word “Pharisee” characterizes an editorial strand that I extracted from Howard Teeple’s “S” Source in The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. I’ve now identified other key words (underlined in the text of gJohn below). This gives not just “S” (Source) verses from Teeple, but “E” (Editor), “R” (Redactor), and a P-2 source, as identified below. Notice the theological importance of the words it almost monopolizes: Prophet, Christ, and Lamb of God. It also contains the only time outside of the infancy narratives that the word “Bethlehem” appears (7:42). Conversely, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" never appear. Did I improve on Teeple by identifying a strand on his margins? And do I have it better now, or should I stay closer to Teeple’s delineation, keeping within his “S”? (And that did not monopolize these key words?)
So is there in gJohn an editor who is identified by his frequent use of the term “Pharisee”? If so is the best extraction of it the following list or a listing more like I came up with 30 years ago? John (1:20-21), 1:24-26, (27), 28-31, (35-37), 42-43, (44); 3:1a; 4:1a; 7:25-27, 31-32, 40-49, (50-51); 9:13-17, (24-28), 40; 11:46-50, (55), 57; 12:18-22, 42-43; 18:3 and (going beyond Urban von Wahlde’s advice to not go beyond John 18:15) John 20:11b-14, 16-17. (Parentheses of course denote passages less certain to belong with this group.)
In the text below {ellipses} denote doubtful material, (Parentheses) are around transliterations from Greek or words from Teeple such as “an.” =anarthrous, “arth.” = arthrous (with the article), and “S” = Sinaiticus.
To avoid confusion in cross-referencing I’ll give I’ll give my old list at the end of this post. It basically accords with my Significance of John thread. It more closely follows Teeple’s “S”, but even that list has some “Pharisee” occurrences in the P-Strand, but in E at John 7:32 and 9:40.


John 1:20 E
(And he confessed and did not deny S
And he confessed that “I am not the Christ.” 1:21
And they asked him, What, then? Are you Elijah (an. O. T. name)? And he says, “I am not. “ “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “NO.”) 1:24 S
And they were sent (apostello) from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him and said (eipan) to him, “Then why do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elijah (an.) nor the Prophet?” 26 Answered them John (arth.) saying ” I baptize in water; in your midst stands one whom you do not know,
27 E {the one coming after me, of whom I am not worthy that I should untie the thong of his sandal.”}
28 R {These things happened in Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John (arth.) was baptizing.} 29 On the morrow he sees he sees (blepo) Jesus (arth.) coming to (pros) him, and he says, “Behold (ide) the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world30 This one is (he) about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who was ahead of me because he was first of me.’ 31 S
And I did not know him, but in order that he might be manifested to Israel, on account of this I came Baptizing in water. 35 S
{On the morrow John stood and two of his disciples, 36 and looking at (emblepo) Jesus (arth.) walking, he says, “Behold (ide) the Lamb of God.” 37
The two disciples heard him speak and followed Jesus (arth.)} S 42 {(Looking at (emblepo) him Jesus (arth.) said, “You are Simon, E son of John S
You shall be called Cephas”—which is interpreted “Rock”} 43 E
On the morrow he wanted to go out into Galilee, and he finds [the other disciple} (Philip (an.)) S
(And Jesus (arth.) says to him, “Follow me.” 44 And Philip (arth.) was from (apo) Bethsaida,)

3:1 S
A man of the Pharisees … 4:1 S
The Pharisees heard that….

7:25 E
Then some of the Jerusalemites were saying, “Is not this one he whom they were seeking to kill? 26 And behold (ide), he speaks publicly, and they say nothing to him. Have not the authorities truly known that this one is the Christ? 27 But we have known whence (from Galilee) this one is; but when the Christ comes, no one will know whence he is.” 31
But many of the crowd believed on him, and they were saying, “When the Christ has come, will he not do more signs than this one has done?” 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring (s.) these things about him and S
The chief priests and the Pharisees sent (apostello) servants in order that they might seize him.
S 40
(Then some of the crowd having heard these words (logos, pl.) were saying, “This one is truly the Prophet.” 41 Others were saying, “This one is the Christ.” And they were saying, “For the Christ does not come from Galilee. 42 Did not the Scripture say that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from (apo) Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 And then there was a schism in the crowd on account of him. 44 Then some of them wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.) 45 Then the servants came to (pros) the chief priests and Pharisees, and those say to them, “Why did you not bring him?” 46 The officers answered, “Never a man spoke thus!” 47 Answered them the Pharisees, “Have you also been led astray? 48 Have any from the authorities or from the Pharisees believed on him? 49 But this crowd, the ones not knowing the law, are accursed.”
E 50
{Says to them Nicodemus (an.), the one coming to (pros) him first, being one of them, 51
“Does our law not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he does?” 52 They answered and said (eipan) to him, “Are you also from Galilee? Search (the Scriptures) and see that a Prophet is not to rise from Galilee.”}
G 8:13 {Then the Pharisees said (eipan)}

9:13 S
They lead him to the Pharisees, the one once blind. 14 And it was the Sabbath (an.) on the day Jesus (arth.) made the clay and opened his eyes. 15 then the Pharisees asked him how he regained sight. And he said to them, “he put clay on my eyes, and I bathed, and I see (blepo).” 18 Then some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from (para) God. R
Because he does not keep the Sabbath (arth.).” S Others were saying, “How is a man a sinner, able to do such signs?” And there was a schism among them. 17 Then they say…..to the blind (man), “What do you say about him, since he opened your eyes?” And the (man) said that “He is a Prophet.”

{Possibly R 9:24-28}
9:40 E
(Some ) of the Pharisees, the ones being with him, heard and said (eipan) to him, “Are we also blind?”

11:46 S
And certain of them went away to the Pharisees and told (eipan) them what Jesus (arth. in S) had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin, and were saying, “What shall we do, because this man does many signs? 48 If we permit him thus, everyone will believe on him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our place and our nation.” 49 But a certain one of them E
{Caiaphas (an.), being high priest that year } S
said to them, “You know nothing. 50 You do not understand that it is advantageous for you that one man should die in behalf of the people and not that the whole nation perish.”
55 …And many went up from Jerusalem (an., s.) from the region before the Passover, in order that they might purify themselves.
57 And the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he is, he should reveal (it), so that they might seize him.

12:18 S
…the crowd heard (pl.) that he himself had done this sign. 20 Then the Pharisees said (eipan) to themselves, “You see (theoreo) that you accomplish nothing. Behold (ide), the world has gone off after him.” 20 And there were certain Greeks among the ones going up in order that they might worship at the feast. 21 Then these came E
(To Philip R
The one from Bethsaida of Galilee), S
And were asking (erotao)…saying “Lord, we want to see Jesus (arth.).” 22 Philip (arth.) comes and tells Andrew (arth.)…. And they tell Jesus (arth.).
12:42 E
Nevertheless, though, many even of the Pharisees they did not confess (it), in order that they might not be banned from the synagogue. 43 For they loved (agapeo) the glory of men rather than the glory of God.

18:3 S
….chief priests and Pharisees….

(Possibly P-1: 20:3-5, 8)

20:11 P-2
Then when she was weeping, she peered into the tomb, 12 and she sees (theoreo) two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus (arth.) had lain. 13 And those say to her, “Woman, why do you weep?” She says to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him.” 14 Having said these things, she turned back and sees (theoreo) Jesus (arth.) standing.
16 Jesus (arth. in S) says to her, “Mary (an. Voc.)” Having turned, that one says to him …”Rabbouni,” which says “Teacher.” 17 Jesus (arth. in S) says to her, “Touch me not, for not yet have I ascended to (pros) the Father; but go (poreuomai) to (pros) my brethren and tell them, “I am ascending to (pros) my Father and your Father…

Old list (1988)
John 1:18-31, 42-43;, (7:25-27), 7:31-32, 43-49; 8:13; 9:13-16, 24-28, 40a; 11:46-50, 56-57; 12:18-19, 42-43; 20:2b-8, 11b-14, 26-27, 30.

Adam

Commentary on source-criticism of John is welcome here, you don't need to collaborate on my project. Seeking verification on my own, I researched the last couple of years on the various journals, and the best prospect seemed to be the chapter in Fortna's 2001 Jesus in Johannine Tradition that's by Sara C. Winter, "Little Flags". It was supposed to determine an intermediate stage in the compilation of John related to use of the perfect tense in Greek.
http://books.google.com/books?id=M4R...page&q&f=false
Granted that John 21 is usually supposed to be the last chapter added in John and that it has zero instances of the perfect tense, that supplies some plausibility. That John 17 has the most instances, however, may merely show that the perfect tense is more frequent in stilted discourses than in simple narrative. Other than that, I found the verses specified in Winter's long table to variegated to help much in source analysis. However, the article itself should definitely be read (in the "preview" form linked above, at least, which fortunately includes most of the pages from this chapter). She relates several grammatical characteristics of various strata. Verbs precede nouns, for example, in Source Gospel passages, whereas the final editor's additions employ the standard Greek nouns before verbs. But both these rarely employ the perfect tense, which she relates to sayings early-on incorporated with Signs Gospel narrative. This seemed likely to coordinate with my P-Strand of this thread. See her italicicized sentence (here only in the article (Pg. 220):
Consideration of FG as a whole shows that phrases and clauses in which the perfect tense occurs belong to a stage of composition between the Signs Gospel and the current text of John.
I can't say that I verify that, unfortunately.
She characterizes perfect tense as glosses on the underlying Signs material (meaning Fortna's rendering, possibly also Urban von Wahlde's).

Adam

Thanks to any of you who have given consideration to my project, and go ahead and post regarding your results if you like, but I’m giving up on my expected result. I took Urban von Wahlde’s insight about Pharisees identifying a source and tried to work it into Howard Teeple’s source-study of gJohn as yet another identifiable strand. But I used the suggestion in Post #2 above from Sara C. Winter and turned back to Teeple’s resolution between the early edition “S” material and the later “E” Editor’s additions.
According to Winter, source material (whether by Robert Fortna’s criteria or von Wahlde’s) puts verbs before subjects (and there’s also the exaggerated use of present tense). I applied this to all the narrative in gJohn and found S to be verb-first and E (and others) to be subject first. My key words of Pharisee, prophet, and Christ are found on both sides of the divide. Thus I can find no linguistic reason to continue to identify a P-Strand layer. P-Strand may well identify an author or person consulted, but his input was to get the scribe of the Source Gospel to include these words. There was no separate P-Strand or Second Edition, unless you want to count the Source Gospel with these few additions, still in verb-first style:
John 1: 20-21, 24-28, 35-37, 42-44; 7:40-49; 9:13-17; 11:46-50, 55, 57; 12:18-22; 20:11b-14, 16-17.
Apparently this same person remained involved when the text was turned over for E additions. The key words Pharisee, prophet, and Christ were used and help identify these passages:
John 7:25-27, 31-32, 50-52; 9:27-28, 40; and 12:42, 43
Either one of the above two stages could be called the Second Edition to keep in parallel with my 1988 article as published, and again with the next stage with the great number of editorial additions as E, the Third Edition.
So I will not make the changes I had planned to my Significance of John thread. Maybe I'll make the change shown above.

Chili

Creation of Heaven on Earth.

Nice work Adam and a great ambition in a nice Gospel. The distinction between Son of man and Lamb of God is to make known that Messiah (Christ?) is the fruit of religion via the woman in that 'Lamb' is related to sheep and so pertains to religion while Elizabeth was the retainer as 'womb of man' prior to religion and was followed by the Virgin of 'this age' and so was after to make manifest the 'word of God' making this the infancy narrative of John that gives birth to heaven on earth now as religion specific and so a flag is placed to show that we were here first but is open to all . . . and so mud in the eyes gives substance to knowledge whereas before it was water as knowledge for those who are thirsty and which so is the material cause for heaven on earth in the end.

It amounts to or is the exposition of the efficient casue of the Word made Flesh through the incense hour (tithing) by Zechariah in being moved by the material charge (the difference between water and mud) that caused the Meditation at the Incense hour by faith, and hence Zachariah's canticle placed beside Mary's while it really it is Elizabeth who remains in the child that is to become the father of man and so father God in Christen domain having come to a full stop in Judaism of old. It so justifies 'nay sayers' and 'yeah sayers' as children of God to make sure that religion is not welcome in heaven where no temple is found and gold is still cold and diamonds still raw until warmed by the heart and polished by the mind to shine as a token of engagement in the promise of heaven on earth as seen from below, ie love is said to be blind but will often put us to shame here on earth.


So then also note that Bethany is across the Jordan where John was active in the silence of Zechariah and seclusion of Elizabeth so that the fig tree may drop its fruit as Lamb of God identifying the color of heaven on earth when 'greater things follow" in John 1:51, here now to the Son of Man with a home of his own that is said to be Rome.

The upshot here is that harmony should be sought instead of strife and so Rome should be open to all as the royal display of heaven on earth.



Sorry if this post in not appropriate in this tread and can be moved to wherever moderation thinks it belongs as I just write for fun and am happy to be here.

Horatio Parker

Nice.