Originally Posted by Adam

Scholars who find a larger source in John than just the (usually) seven signs usually include the editor who is identified by his frequent use of the term “Pharisee”.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

You mean he had Tourette's and couldn't stop saying 'Pharisee'.

How in the name of all that is holy can any editor be identified by his use of one word?

Is there no end to the sheer garbage that believers will spew out?

Originally Posted by Adam

may I request that our numerous well-informed scholars advise me whether anyone else has dared to present a broad-based case for either naming authors of gospel sources or claiming them as eyewitnesses. Google search (and even visits to my academic library) have not turned up much going on in recent decades, nor even what I regard as improvements in source-criticism. Better yet, can anyone point me to scholars who have pretty much proven that there are no eyewitness gospel accounts nor can (m)any authors be identified. And has anyone disproven Teeple's source theories?

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have searched the academic literature from time to time over the past few years. Articles directly addressing the question of who wrote the gospels are hard to find. If the issue is even mentioned, it is nearly always just to acknowledge an apparent consensus that the authors are simply unknown.

I do not recall ever seeing any article offering a proof against any eyewitness contribution to the gospels or a proof that none of the authors can be identified. Except for a few scholars committed to some version of evangelicalism, there seems to be a presupposition among academics that (a) the authors should be presumed unknown absent compelling evidence of their identities and (b) absent compelling evidence of eyewitness sources, it should be assumed that there were not any.

I do not remember reading anything addressing Teeple's work.

To the foregoing, I know of one exception. The historian Robin Lane Fox, whose work in general is not friendly to any orthodoxy, believes that the apostle John (the "beloved disciple") contributed significantly to the writing of the gospel bearing his name.

Originally Posted by Adam

That's Urban C. von Wahlde's idea. It doesn't work well as he intended, but seems to work in a more limited in-between stage between editions.

Originally Posted by Adam 1988

Urban von Wahlde provides the key for identifying “Source” narrative outside the Signs Source. He separates “earlier” “P-Material” from ”J-material,” based upon the use of the words “Pharisee” or “Jew”. Von Wahlde’s results do not coincide with Fortna’s. The term “Pharisee,” if recovering a source, distinguishes a source separate from the Signs Source. None of the Nicol Source passages contain the word “Pharisees.” Nevertheless, there is overlap with Fortna’s Signs Gospel. The P-Material extends, however, into the discourse sections. The parts of the discourse chapters where “Pharisee” occurs are not in the discourses proper. Whereas Jesus is quoted in these chapters saying “Jews” quite often, he never says “Pharisee.” This accompanying narrative to the discourses is identified by Howard Teeple as being in the Source to be recognized. (Teeple, Ch. 12) Von Wahlde and Teeple are basically compatible. [2011 Note: Except that Teeple sees the "Jew" (=Judean) sections as from an earlier source.] Putting their work together, we obtain a narrative “source” which is interwoven with discourses and with Nicol’s Signs Source narrative. But if the Signs Source is removed from Teeple’s and von Wahlde’s larger suggested Source, the remainder [exclusive of the Passion Narrative] looks like the work of an editor. Not to pre-judge the case, let us call it the “P-Strand.”

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I'm confused. Isn't it a staple of evangelical conservative "scholarship" that the gospel writers were travelers with Jesus/working from eyewitness testimony?

Scholars who find a larger source in John than just the (usually) seven signs usually include the editor who is identified by his frequent use of the term “Pharisee”.

Originally Posted by Adam

Wow, thank you, Doug!
Robin Lane Fox is well known. I probably read his Pagans and Christians from my local library. I'll have to get hold of his earlier The Unauthorized Version.

Originally Posted by Adam

Regarding the rest, I claim to work without presuppositions, so I go where exegetes fear to tread. After 50 years, I still say the emperor has no clothes, what we "see" is just the form criticism, redaction criticism, etc. that "covers" the orthodox undergarments that also need to be stripped away.

Originally Posted by Adam

...... may I request that our numerous well-informed scholars advise me whether anyone else has dared to present a broad-based case for either naming authors of gospel sources or claiming them as eyewitnesses.

Originally Posted by Adam

Wow, thank you, Doug!
Robin Lane Fox is well known. I probably read his Pagans and Christians from my local library.