aa5874

The Gospel of John is CLEARLY a non-historical account of a character called the Word that was GOD who CREATED heaven and earth and was BEFORE all things..

John 1:1-14 - There could have ONLY been FALSE witnesses to the Jesus of gJohn.

The Jesus of gJohn was the story of a PHANTOM that ONLY appeared to have Flesh.

gJohn's Jesus WALKED on the sea.

There could NO witnesses to a PHANTOM. Your "witnesses" are FALSE.

Sheshbazzar

Q.A. A manufactured house builder.

One engaged in constructing a straw house stuck together with nothing but horse shit.
Ever seeking for someone gullible enough to buy it.

Vorkosigan

ok, fine, I'm willing to be convinced if the methodology is sound. Why don't you focus on the contribution of John Mark to GMark? or Peter? Start a new thread, pick a couple of pericopes, and in detail, show which parts come from a source, which are Markan redaction, and so forth.

Vorkosigan

Adam

Replying to Vorkosigan's #183, I turn to my OP Post #1 and analyze the first building block from (as I say) John Mark, dropping the first five paragraphs that are introductory. Dropping down to the list of verses in the second paragraph, notice that the Roman numerals represent my subjective count of what seem like details that more likely characterize an eyewitness than someone who was not. Forget that for the moment. The listed verses are my modification of what the atheist scholar Howard M. Teeple found as “S” for Source in chapters 18 to 20 in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. My modifications include:
John 18:6 omitted; 18:15-19 instead of just 18:15a, 19; John 18:25b, 27-31, 33-35, (36-40); John 19:1-19 instead of just 19:1-5a, 12-13ab, 14-19, 25; and as for John 20, Teeple basically shows none as “S” because he is unsure about the nature of the source(s) here. I basically accept as the same source what he hesitates about: John 20:1, 3-5, 8 where Teeple waffles with “P1”, and 20:11b-14a where he shows “P2”, 19, 22-23, 26-27 where he shows “P1”, and 30 where he shows “S” (in this case meaning the Signs Gospel ending that should have been after Chapter 12). My modifications may seem too extensive for my claims to accept someone else’s scholarly objectivity, but I made my changes honoring Teeple’s stylistic criteria just at places where marks of style were ambiguous.
The first periscope is the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The eyewitness source simply says “he”, the later Editor names Jesus (without an article in front), then states he and his disciples went into a garden. Then we skip to 18:3 where Judas comes with both Romans and Jewish leaders. In 18:10b a disciple cuts off the right ear of the slave of the high priest. In verse 12 they seize Jesus. Now if as I say this was written very early, it makes sense that no disciple is named except Judas, to protect still-living people. And if, as I say, the Editor was also an early eyewitness, he could easily at a remove of time (say 15 years) supply more specifics of names, places and actions (Jesus, Peter, and Malchus, wady Kedron, and what Jesus said.
The second periscope is in the court of the high priest. Since I say John Mark was “the disciple known to the high priest”, I see all of John 18:15-19 as from him. He also had ready knowledge from his friend about Peter’s denials. The later Editor was not present there, but added in more general things about Jesus talking back to the high priest, but also the specific detail about the relative of Malchus.
The third periscope is Jesus before Pilate. All the text from John 18:33-40 could be from John Mark with his inside access. However, the high-flown statements from Jesus also sound like so much else that is quoted from Jesus elsewhere in John. Teeple sees all of this as from his “G” or Gnostic source, but the style for “G” is so neutral in Johannine style between “S” and the “E” Editor that objective evidence is lacking.
That concludes the pericopes in John 18. We can leave open proceeding through the remaining two chapters of the Passion Narrative. Reviewing Vorkosigan's post #183, I see he said this should be a new thread. Sorry. I'll let Toto decide, I guess.

Vorkosigan

This block style is really inaccessible and unclear.

• The first periscope is the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The eyewitness source simply says “he”, the later Editor names Jesus (without an article in front), then states he and his disciples went into a garden. Then we skip to 18:3 where Judas comes with both Romans and Jewish leaders. In 18:10b a disciple cuts off the right ear of the slave of the high priest. In verse 12 they seize Jesus. Now if as I say this was written very early, it makes sense that no disciple is named except Judas, to protect still-living people. And if, as I say, the Editor was also an early eyewitness, he could easily at a remove of time (say 15 years) supply more specifics of names, places and actions (Jesus, Peter, and Malchus, wady Kedron, and what Jesus said.

I'd like to see this broken out in a table so that your meaning is very clear, with the verse number, text, and origin. Is that possible? Also, "If I say this was written very early...." isn't an argument.

Also, it cannot be the agony in Gethsemane since John never mentions where the garden cross the Kidron was.

• ll the text from John 18:33-40 could be from John Mark with his inside access. However, the high-flown statements from Jesus also sound like so much else that is quoted from Jesus elsewhere in John. Teeple sees all of this as from his “G” or Gnostic source, but the style for “G” is so neutral in Johannine style between “S” and the “E” Editor that objective evidence is lacking.

I don't see anything that even has a ghost of a hint about methodology. I can see distinguishing between multiple editors but no argument is present about the source.

Vorkosigan

Adam

I'll assume you mean what you state below. Meanwhile, you're probably aware by now that two quotes from my #184 came through as your bullets. I'll try to correct that while I proceed.
No, my quote is "And if, as I say.... You'd rather I say "Since as I already proved" ?
Yes, I have the convenience of Teeple's book, which does break down each individual attribution, up to five for one verse! Of course that makes each chapter run four pages or more. Nor do my unnecessary Roman numerals make it easy for you. I suggest you pick a pericope or two for such close analysis.Yes, I'm guilty of harmonization here, Mark 14:32 just says "Gethsemane", Luke 22:39 says "Mount of Olives", and John 18:1 says "olive grove". Wait! That's from the NIV, but the New Jerusalem Bible says "garden", as does Teeple. So the word "garden" only appears in a textual variant in John? (I already knew that the phrase "Garden of Gethsemane" appears nowhere in the Bible, though it would seem easy to justify.) As for the phrase in John 18:1 "on the other side of the Wady Kedron", Teeple attributes it to a later Redactor, evidently not an eyewitness, so don't trust that geographical detail too strongly.
I hope you're lampooning only my third pericope here, because you are largely correct. I had hoped to supplement my post #184 by admitting that I was wobbling on the attribution of John 18:33-35, (36-40). In my original study I was being cautious about these verses that Teeple attributes to G, thinking that they might be words of Jesus from a different occasion modified to fit in during the trial before Pilate. But (here I go again!) if, as I claim, Nicodemus wrote the Discourses (analogous to Teeple's "G" or Gnostic source), he could have been present to hear Jesus at this occasion. John 18:28 says, however, that the Jews did not go in to Pilate, making John Mark a more likely witness than Nicodemus. Nevertheless, I'd prefer at this point to return to agreement with Teeple that this is all from "G" (from Nicodemus by my argument.

Vorkosigan

Ok, how do you deduce that Nicodemus = G? What's the method for that?

Adam

Teeple defined G. Robert Kysar's 1975 review quashing his book noted there was not a lot of stylistic difference between G and E, so I have mostly added in the E portions of the Discourses. In my new thread, The Significance of John,
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307897
I give my reasons that Nicodemus wrote this (G + E (much of it)), particularly in the latter half of my Post #2. I will soon enter another post there that also covers the Discourses portion of John and why Nicodemus is the most likely author--all this from my article published in 1988. For starters there,
"His name occurs at John 3:1; 7:50; and 19:39."

Sheshbazzar

That is the problem with all of this 'assuming' and 'might possibly- 'could have been' scenarios and speculations.
It tends to make an ass out of the assumer, and also out of anyone gullible enough to buy into all these strings of unproven assumptions.

Horatio Parker

I don't mind that as long as it's admitted speculation. I can't fault a person for desiring that the Gospels be historically true, but I can blame when that desire affects judgement.

The rubric "higher criticism" is an argument from authority AFAICT. Or perhaps from revelation.