Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 11-11-2003, 09:27 PM

I thought John was universally acknowledged to be the latest. Shows what little I know...

I used to think that also. But when I got to study GJohn, with all its editing "problems", I realized that an original GJohn was produced before GLuke & GMatthew came about (but after GMark). This first GJohn (about 2/3 of the canonical one) was actually well composed and had few conflicts with GMark.

The following sequence of events is the same for GMark and the original GJohn:
John_the_Baptist => Galilee => Feeding_of_the_5000 => Walking_on_water => Galilee => Judea => Across_the_Jordan => Royal_welcome_into_Jerusalem => Disturbance_in_the_temple => Last_supper => Judas'_betrayal & Jesus'_arrest => Interrogation_by_the_high_priest and Peter's_three_denials => Trial_by_Pilate_&_crowd and Barabbas => Crucifixion_as_"King_of_the_Jews" => Burial => Post_Sabbath_empty_tomb

The original GJohn was updated/added on after GLuke was known, then after 'Acts' was known, and finally after presbyter John died.

I got 4 pages to document these claims, starting at:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie · 11-11-2003, 10:24 PM

""""""I thought John was universally acknowledged to be the latest. Shows what little I know...""""""

Like Bernard and yourself, I used to think that also at one time as well.

Bernard, where do you place the pre-redacted Gospel? About 80-95ish?

Do you view the first layer as dependent on Mark given the similar sequence? I wpuld be hesitant here on that basis alone. Placing the baptism at the beginning can be explained and all the stuff at the end is part of the passion. John and Mark probably shared a miracle source as well and there must be a statistical allowance for some overlap in order.

But yeah, at one point I thought this myself. Now I challenge assumptions based upon John being last when presented.

The time of composition was so close between the canonicals (especially Mt, Lk and Jn) that building trends is a very difficult process! Not to mention the pitfalls of assuming staight-line development!

Quote:

The original GJohn was updated/added on after GLuke was known, then after 'Acts' was known, and finally after presbyter John died.

Thats a complicated history

Its kind of similar to the conclusion I reached based upon some things I noted in the Gospell of John. From a small article I wrote:

Quote:

There also exists in GJohn, two instances of major disorder. Chapter 4 ends in Galilee, the beginning of chapter 5 has Jesus go to Jerusalem, the beginning of chapter 6 has Jesus go to the other side of the Sea of Galilee and chapter 7 reports that Jesus left Jerusalem and went about in Galilee.

On this basis some scholars would change the order of the chapters to 4, 6, 5, 7. This would solve some of the difficulties but more recent commentators are hesitant to engage in such reordering. As Brown argued, "John gives us a very schematic account of Jesus' ministry, and does not worry about transitions unless they have theological purposes (e.g. the careful sequence of days in chaps. 1-2). In the series of feasts in chaps. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 that serves as the framework for Jesus' ministry, little attention is paid to the long intervals that separate the feasts. Someone was responsible for the gospel in its final form; and unless one is willing to suppose incompetence, he could scarcely have missed the obviously imperfect sequence, if he regarded that as important."3

Scholars disagree on whether the transition from chapter 5 to 7 is natural or awkward as well. At any rate, even if the original order was 4, 6, 5, 7 it would be hard to demonstrate this as an intentional change and that is our primary concern here. More likely to fit that category is the second major example to which I turn as argued by Helmut Koester:

"In spite of the clear "Rise, let us go hence" in John 14:31, chapters 15-17 continue the farewell discourses. It has been suggested that chapters 15-17 are a later interpolation. But in language, style, and content these three chapter belong with 13-14. It is clear, therefore, that they are not in the right place. Chapters 15-16 may have followed John 13:34-35, because 15:1-7 is a commentary on the commandment to love each other, and 13:36-38 seems a good continuation of 16:31. This leaves John 17, the fare-well prayer of Jesus. No satisfactory solution has been found for the placement of this chapter. That John 17 was added after the displacement of chapters 15-16 had already occurred, is also possible because chapter 17 is characterized by a theological interpretation of Jesus' departure that differs markedly from the farewell discourses in chapters 13-16; its orientation is more explicitly Gnostic." 4

Yet at the same time one must be cautious of this view as well. As Kummel wrote, "If it were simply a matter of displacement of sheets, then the contents of the must always have about the same extent . . . there are to be sure, isolated examples from antiquity showing that such displacement of sheets took place . . . but none of these examples involves a series of sections in the same work. The advocates of this view not only are forced to suppose that sections of varying length were dislocated, but they must also face the fact that there is no proof that drafts were generally written on separate sheets. But if we suppose that the sheets of the original manuscripts were promiscuously arranged, then it is strange that the sheets which allegedly have gotten into the wrong place still should always begin and end with complete sentences. It also strikes us as peculiar that the pupils, who themselves had these sheets in hand, were not able to restore these sheets to their proper order, whereas we are supposed to succeed in doing that, even though we do not possess the sheets."5

Further, Bultman has argued for the relocation of smaller sets of passages but it is impossible to conceive of a way for such small units of material to have become displaced. Such a hypothesis forces one to ask (with a hint of sarcasm) if John was written on tiny sheets of papyrus? The relocation of larger blocks of material as in the citation from Koester above can, with the difficulties outlined by Kummel, be justified by assuming that pages in a papyrus codex somehow became displaced.

I think it is certainly possible that chapter 17 was inserted at a later stage and that the order of the material was displaced in this instance but this cannot be argued in many instances for the reasons outlined above. We cannot seriously envision the gospel being accidentally shuffled as if it were a deck of cards. These serious textual difficulties seem to indicate a very complicated tradition history of the gospel of John which brings us to our final point.

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 11-12-2003, 07:14 AM

I think it is always safe to assert that GJohn as we have it was the latest Gospel to be completed.

I agree that there is good reason to suspect that this Gospel, quite possibly the most rewritten/edited of the four, may have originally started out as a document at least as old as Mark.

Identifying, with any reasonable degree of confidence, the specific portions of that "original" with only the modern version seems a nearly impossible task. It becomes more of a projection of the individual scholar's views rather than a credible conclusion based on evidence. Much like the broad variety of depictions of the "real" Jesus.<g>

Bernard Muller · 11-12-2003, 09:20 AM

Vinnie wrote:
Bernard, where do you place the pre-redacted Gospel? About 80-95ish?

Around 80

Vinnie wrote:
Do you view the first layer as dependent on Mark given the similar sequence? I would be hesitant here on that basis alone. Placing the baptism at the beginning can be explained and all the stuff at the end is part of the passion. John and Mark probably shared a miracle source as well and there must be a statistical allowance for some overlap in order.

I concluded the author of GJohn knew about GMark from the start. Obviously, he decided to write a different gospel, but still taking in account GMark. I do not agree about any sharing of a common source.

Vinnie wrote:
But yeah, at one point I thought this myself. Now I challenge assumptions based upon John being last when presented.

I still think GJohn was the last to be published, but not the last to be initially redacted.

Vinnie wrote:
The time of composition was so close between the canonicals (especially Mt, Lk and Jn) that building trends is a very difficult process! Not to mention the pitfalls of assuming staight-line development!

A trend is still here between GMark and the others. But there is no straight line development, just tayloring of new gospels according to the local Christian community and the author's theology/Christology.

Vinnie wrote:
That's a complicated history

It took me many years to unravel it, after many frustating attempts leading to dead ends.

For the rest of your comments, and your quotes from scholars, they are incorporated in my own study and taken in account. However, I do not think there was a displacement of sheets involved. The additions and reediting were done purposely by rewriting the whole (and transferring notes from the margin to within the text).

Of course, all the details are in my website, starting by the page I already presented.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 11-12-2003, 09:32 AM

Amaleq13 wrote:
Identifying, with any reasonable degree of confidence, the specific portions of that "original" with only the modern version seems a nearly impossible task. It becomes more of a projection of the individual scholar's views rather than a credible conclusion based on evidence.

Well, why don't you read my 4 pages and tell me why you think. I got the reconstructions word by word, with explanations for all additions/insertions/relocations.

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13 · 11-12-2003, 09:35 AM

Mr. Muller,

I had earlier written:

Quote:

Identifying, with any reasonable degree of confidence, the specific portions of that "original" with only the modern version seems a nearly impossible task. It becomes more of a projection of the individual scholar's views rather than a credible conclusion based on evidence.

After reading the results of your incredibly complex and extensive autopsy of GJohn, I think I have to identify your efforts as a possible exception to my statement.

boneyard bill · 11-13-2003, 12:25 AM

Cretinist writes:

Quote:

According to Doherty, Mark's Jesus is a combination of the two traditions, with all his biographical details composed from material in the Galilean Tradition (Q stuff, basically) and from Mark's own midrashic inventions.

I don't get your point here. There isn't, by definition, any "Q stuff" in Mark.

boneyard bill · 11-13-2003, 12:56 AM

Dominus Paradoxum writes:

Quote:

This is what we should expect if there was a historical Jesus who was gradually elevated that Godhead. But with Doherty, we have a divine Jesus, who was gradually lowered and historicized. So we should expect to start out with the theology like John's, gradually descending to the human Jesus of Mark. So what do you think a Mythicist could come up with to explain this anomaly?

I think it's just another good reason not to accept Doherty's thesis. I think there are a number of problems. The first one is Galilee. If there is a Galilean tradition, why should we assume there was not also a Galilean? If there was no Galilean tradition, why would Mark introduce Galilee at all? It certainly wouldn't serve any midrashic purpose, and it creates all kinds of problems for a Gospel written "according to scripture." The Bethlehem birth was clearly the first of these problems encountered by Matthew and Luke.

Doherty provides no precedent for interpreting "the brother of Jesus" as a title. It could easily refer to a half-brother or step-brother or even to a cousin. But these interpretations do not solve Doherty's problem.

"born of woman, born under the law" is also a problem for Doherty and his answer is unconvincing. Especially "born under the law." It is the law of Moses. How would the law of Moses apply to an archetypal heavenly realm? The law was given to Moses on earth for the instruction of human beings.

Llyricist · 11-13-2003, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill
Doherty provides no precedent for interpreting "the brother of Jesus" as a title.

He doesn't have to, since Paul never writes this. It's "brother of the lord" that Doherty interprets as a title.

Quote:

It could easily refer to a half-brother or step-brother or even to a cousin. But these interpretations do not solve Doherty's problem.

And these speculations are less supportable than Doherty's.

Quote:

"born of woman, born under the law" is also a problem for Doherty and his answer is unconvincing. Especially "born under the law." It is the law of Moses. How would the law of Moses apply to an archetypal heavenly realm? The law was given to Moses on earth for the instruction of human beings.

From an HJ agnostic perspective (which I am), these things seem more like straws for historicists to grasp than major problems for Doherty's hypothesis.

Vinnie · 11-13-2003, 03:01 AM

Hey boneyard bill, speaking fo the Galielean tradition, come on over here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1

Its worth the read as Its just starting to get good!

This is my argument--again as I summarized it--now slightly edited again:

All four Gospels and Paul agree that Jesus conducted his minsitry to Jews, not Gentiles. This is very important. This is evidence. Thee-fold independent attestation -- even if John knew directly or indirectly--the Gospel of Mark.

No one here has attempted to touch this claiim. Paul himself shows that he coheres with this by his "first for the Jew" lines in Romans. I will be adding to the mix the Gospel of Q as well. It has a tradition where the authors of Q gave a non-Gentile pericope a Gentile setting--or rather, it was possibly modified in a stage right before it hit Q. At any rate, John preserves its more original form and I will demonstrate this using Kloppenborg--Formation Q, Crossan--Historical Jesus and Meier- CV. II Marginal. I'm getting around to this. Just put a paper up on the problem of evil *EoG forum here). When I post the update I'll be sure to let you all know.

But as seen virtually the entire record is consistent on this fact. Then I looked at the synopic portraits we see that this was somewhat troubling to them. By their amplifications of material---and by the use of non-Gentile material being put in a Gentile context it shows they had no Jesus-Gentile material to work with! The tidbits they had was "created"--primarily through modification of extant traditions. This confirms the early and widespread attestion of the fact that Jesus did not conduct a ministry to Gentiles. The mythicist position does not explain the positive three or possibly fourfold attestation of this fact counting Oaul, Q, Mark, John). It can't really explain why no one in the early church didn't feel free to totally invent sustained contact between Jesus and Gentiles yet somehow we are expected to swallow that they invented an entire Galilean ministry--all the while the Gentile mission was underway!!!

This is why the later canonical authors had little to work with in regards to Jesus contat with Gentiles! This in turn is why they had a lot of Jesus sustaining a mission to Jews material which is what they did work with.

The historical reality behind this is the fact that there was an HJ who conducted a ministry to the Jews.

I won't defend that in here though. Am doing so in the other thread. This is just for anyone interested in jumping in

Vinnie

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

11-11-2003, 09:27 PM	#11
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	I thought John was universally acknowledged to be the latest. Shows what little I know... I used to think that also. But when I got to study GJohn, with all its editing "problems", I realized that an original GJohn was produced before GLuke & GMatthew came about (but after GMark). This first GJohn (about 2/3 of the canonical one) was actually well composed and had few conflicts with GMark. The following sequence of events is the same for GMark and the original GJohn: John_the_Baptist => Galilee => Feeding_of_the_5000 => Walking_on_water => Galilee => Judea => Across_the_Jordan => Royal_welcome_into_Jerusalem => Disturbance_in_the_temple => Last_supper => Judas'_betrayal & Jesus'_arrest => Interrogation_by_the_high_priest and Peter's_three_denials => Trial_by_Pilate_&_crowd and Barabbas => Crucifixion_as_"King_of_the_Jews" => Burial => Post_Sabbath_empty_tomb The original GJohn was updated/added on after GLuke was known, then after 'Acts' was known, and finally after presbyter John died. I got 4 pages to document these claims, starting at: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml Best regards, Bernard

11-12-2003, 07:14 AM	#13
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I think it is always safe to assert that GJohn as we have it was the latest Gospel to be completed. I agree that there is good reason to suspect that this Gospel, quite possibly the most rewritten/edited of the four, may have originally started out as a document at least as old as Mark. Identifying, with any reasonable degree of confidence, the specific portions of that "original" with only the modern version seems a nearly impossible task. It becomes more of a projection of the individual scholar's views rather than a credible conclusion based on evidence. Much like the broad variety of depictions of the "real" Jesus.<g>

11-12-2003, 09:20 AM	#14
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Vinnie wrote: Bernard, where do you place the pre-redacted Gospel? About 80-95ish? Around 80 Vinnie wrote: Do you view the first layer as dependent on Mark given the similar sequence? I would be hesitant here on that basis alone. Placing the baptism at the beginning can be explained and all the stuff at the end is part of the passion. John and Mark probably shared a miracle source as well and there must be a statistical allowance for some overlap in order. I concluded the author of GJohn knew about GMark from the start. Obviously, he decided to write a different gospel, but still taking in account GMark. I do not agree about any sharing of a common source. Vinnie wrote: But yeah, at one point I thought this myself. Now I challenge assumptions based upon John being last when presented. I still think GJohn was the last to be published, but not the last to be initially redacted. Vinnie wrote: The time of composition was so close between the canonicals (especially Mt, Lk and Jn) that building trends is a very difficult process! Not to mention the pitfalls of assuming staight-line development! A trend is still here between GMark and the others. But there is no straight line development, just tayloring of new gospels according to the local Christian community and the author's theology/Christology. Vinnie wrote: That's a complicated history It took me many years to unravel it, after many frustating attempts leading to dead ends. For the rest of your comments, and your quotes from scholars, they are incorporated in my own study and taken in account. However, I do not think there was a displacement of sheets involved. The additions and reediting were done purposely by rewriting the whole (and transferring notes from the margin to within the text). Of course, all the details are in my website, starting by the page I already presented. Best regards, Bernard

11-12-2003, 09:32 AM	#15
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Amaleq13 wrote: Identifying, with any reasonable degree of confidence, the specific portions of that "original" with only the modern version seems a nearly impossible task. It becomes more of a projection of the individual scholar's views rather than a credible conclusion based on evidence. Well, why don't you read my 4 pages and tell me why you think. I got the reconstructions word by word, with explanations for all additions/insertions/relocations. http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml Best regards, Bernard

11-13-2003, 03:01 AM	#20
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Hey boneyard bill, speaking fo the Galielean tradition, come on over here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1 Its worth the read as Its just starting to get good! This is my argument--again as I summarized it--now slightly edited again: All four Gospels and Paul agree that Jesus conducted his minsitry to Jews, not Gentiles. This is very important. This is evidence. Thee-fold independent attestation -- even if John knew directly or indirectly--the Gospel of Mark. No one here has attempted to touch this claiim. Paul himself shows that he coheres with this by his "first for the Jew" lines in Romans. I will be adding to the mix the Gospel of Q as well. It has a tradition where the authors of Q gave a non-Gentile pericope a Gentile setting--or rather, it was possibly modified in a stage right before it hit Q. At any rate, John preserves its more original form and I will demonstrate this using Kloppenborg--Formation Q, Crossan--Historical Jesus and Meier- CV. II Marginal. I'm getting around to this. Just put a paper up on the problem of evil *EoG forum here). When I post the update I'll be sure to let you all know. But as seen virtually the entire record is consistent on this fact. Then I looked at the synopic portraits we see that this was somewhat troubling to them. By their amplifications of material---and by the use of non-Gentile material being put in a Gentile context it shows they had no Jesus-Gentile material to work with! The tidbits they had was "created"--primarily through modification of extant traditions. This confirms the early and widespread attestion of the fact that Jesus did not conduct a ministry to Gentiles. The mythicist position does not explain the positive three or possibly fourfold attestation of this fact counting Oaul, Q, Mark, John). It can't really explain why no one in the early church didn't feel free to totally invent sustained contact between Jesus and Gentiles yet somehow we are expected to swallow that they invented an entire Galilean ministry--all the while the Gentile mission was underway!!! This is why the later canonical authors had little to work with in regards to Jesus contat with Gentiles! This in turn is why they had a lot of Jesus sustaining a mission to Jews material which is what they did work with. The historical reality behind this is the fact that there was an HJ who conducted a ministry to the Jews. I won't defend that in here though. Am doing so in the other thread. This is just for anyone interested in jumping in Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.