Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 12-20-2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

This seems to me to show that GJohn had knowledge of the destroyed Temple. Note that the evangelist does not have Jesus himself giving an explanation of what he meant by "destroy this temple". That means that it was probably inserted by the Evangelist to counter claims by some Jews that Jesus falsely predicted that he would miracously restore the destroyed temple.

An interesting response to this is found on page 89 at this link Steven just posted: http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com...nfeature71.pdf

take care,

ted

Ben C Smith · 12-20-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

In fact Robinson is one of those scholars who said no to that idea. He wrote a book "The Priority of John" (published posthumously) that takes that point, and he assigns a date I believe in the 40's for John.

IIRC, he dated it developmentally to the two or three decades spanning the forties to the sixties, calling it a colossus standing astride the tradition (or some such; I am paraphrasing from memory). He also insisted that by priority he did not mean strict chronological predating.

I agree with you; Johannine priority in whatever form is a fascinating question.

Ben.

yummyfur · 12-20-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Good points I hadn't considered.

Maybe the whole section was added later. My impression is that a number of scholars think large sections of diaologue were added to earlier works. You may find Bernard Muller's reconstruction interesting: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html He concludes that that whole section was added after Luke was known but before Acts.

ted

first i should point out a typo on my part, sorry. I meant John 4:19-26, not John 24:19-26.

Bernard doesn't actually show any reason why the huge section from Jn2:12 to Jn6:1 have to be an insertion other than his reading of Jn 6:1 as requiring the author to have had originally a starting point on the Sea of Galillee. He believes this is Capernaum, so decides to go back to Jn 2:12, but he doesn't seem to realize that Jesus is near to Capernaum at the end of Jn 4, and Jn 2:12 won't work for Jn 6:1, because the people are following Jesus because of his healing. No such healing has taken place yet by 2:12. So at best you might be able to argue chapter 5, where suddenly Jesus is in Jerusalem is an insertion, but Muller's argument(and he states he hasn't really worked this part out yet) doesn't really hold up for Jn 2:12-Jn4:54.

One could speculate that most of Chapter 5 is an insertion, or maybe a confusion of some sort. It's possible, originally chapter 5 took place in Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, but was moved to the pool of Bethseda for some reason. The problem with Chapter 5 is that it states the Jesus goes to Jerusalem for a Jewish feastday, but when he gets to Galillee again in Jn 6 it is almost Passover. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense time wise, besides the huge geographical shift.

His argument also seems to be , that since Luke mentions Samaritans, then this must have come after Luke. But John's Samaritan stories seem to be pointing out that Jesus is the Samaritan Messiah, whereas Luke seems to be using Samaritans as a negative type in a parable, that even people you consider born as low lifes are your neighbors, if their actions are just. In fact John 8:48-8:49 seems to strongly imply that Jesus is in fact a Samaritan himself.

This would make more sense out of Jn4:43-45 "Now after the two days He departed from there and went to Galilee. For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country."(which Bernard has a problem with), he is not talking about Galilee, but Samaria(which he is leaving), and his point is he doesn't want to stay too long in his home country(thus the two days, even though they were asking him to stay longer), or he might ruin a good thing.

pharoah · 12-20-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

An interesting response to this is found on page 89 at this link Steven just posted: http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com...nfeature71.pdf

take care,

ted

Thanks Ted, but the link that you provided doesn't work.

Steven Avery · 12-20-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

IIRC, he dated it developmentally to the two or three decades spanning the forties to the sixties, calling it a colossus standing astride the tradition (or some such; I am paraphrasing from memory). He also insisted that by priority he did not mean strict chronological predating. I agree with you; Johannine priority in whatever form is a fascinating question.

Appreciate the clarifications. His book is now bumped up in my "to buy" list

Steven Avery · 12-20-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Thanks Ted, but the link that you provided doesn't work.

It's a trick of the infidels. They abbreviate the hot link in the text. So if it is a link with "..." you gotta open up the page and then cut-and-paste the link from your browser.

Try this.
http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com...nfeature71.pdf

yalla · 12-20-2005, 08:13 AM

For my money the relative chronology of the writing of the 4 canonical gospels is best and simplest illustrated by their backward retrojection of the divinity of JC.
First comes g"Mark" who in essence dates the divinity to the time of JC's baptism.
Then, more or less as a pair, come g"Matthew" and g"Luke" who date JC's divinity at or before conception.
Finally g"John" pushes it back to the ultimate, the beginning of time.

If "John'' were written prior to any of the others they would hardly have denied JC's eternal divinity and placed it later than "John''.
Similarly for the relative positions of the synoptics.

Julian · 12-20-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

John 9:22 (KJV) "These [words] spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue."

12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue"

16:2 "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

Koester believes that the christians, i.e. the hellenized christian Jews, were expelled from the synagogue quite early, before Paul, which is what is recorded in Acts 8:1. If that really happened and that is what GJohn is referring to then GJohn can be moved earlier again, not that I think it should.

Julian

TedM · 12-20-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

If "John'' were written prior to any of the others they would hardly have denied JC's eternal divinity and placed it later than "John''.

But doesn't that assume the others knew of John's work? Maybe that was the case. Also, couldn't John have been influenced by Philo and the Logos concept--prior to 40AD, and the others simply had a different take on the idea if they knew of it?

Thanks for your comments on Muller's reconstruction. I haven't looked at it in detail, but he claims all the pieces fit together in the end. It seems complicated so I keep putting it off..

take care,

ted

yalla · 12-20-2005, 08:45 AM

Sorry Ted I overlooked your response to my post.

I have a couple of problems with your response apart from the obvious presumption of an HJ and an acceptance of gospel ''facts" as such.

For example- an ambiguity, Paul never mentions the synagogues AFAIK, so we can't draw anything from that. But he does mention "circumcisers" and the like as rivals without, IMO, implying that a fatal split has occurred. They are still communicating and ''within the fold" of Judaism, perhaps just.

According to him he was the apostle to the gentiles and Pete or Cephas, I forget which, had that role with respect to the Jews. So there was still, in Paul's day, interaction between the 2.
Which for me points to "John"s healing of the blind man leading to excommunication as reflecting a much later date a la Marsh as above.
In other words it's a fiction based on later times.
So whilst we have, can I call it ''rivalry"?, perhaps persecution, we do not have formal excommunication from the synagogues.
That has been placed in the very last years of the first century, how accurately I am not sure.
And Paul states that whatever form his persecution took, it did not occur in Judea because he was unknown there except by reputation. At least that's how I interpret his comments in Galatians 1.22.

Couple all that with the chronology from my post above and I see "John" as the last of the 4 canonical gospels with "Mark" being written post-70 ce at the earliest.

I'll leave interesting stuff such as his relation to the synoptics and the debate about the existence of synagogues in Palestine for later.
cheers
yalla

Edit...gee you were quick, you posted whilst I was doing the above.
It wasn't me who mentioned Muller.
I think "John" was in the same mileu [sp?] as Philo but not the same time frame.
I can't see the synoptics being aware of "John"'s dating of JC as divine from all time and then post dating it, but I can see a trajectory backwards with "John" adopting logos concepts and allying that to the concept of an HJ. So no I actually envisage the synoptics did not know of "John" because he was later.
As an aside, if I had to bet money, which I wouldn't cos it's an idle speculation, I would place "John" as an Alexandrian rather than from Antioch or Ephesus wherever.
catch you later,
yalla

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

12-20-2005, 08:13 AM	#27
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	For my money the relative chronology of the writing of the 4 canonical gospels is best and simplest illustrated by their backward retrojection of the divinity of JC. First comes g"Mark" who in essence dates the divinity to the time of JC's baptism. Then, more or less as a pair, come g"Matthew" and g"Luke" who date JC's divinity at or before conception. Finally g"John" pushes it back to the ultimate, the beginning of time. If "John'' were written prior to any of the others they would hardly have denied JC's eternal divinity and placed it later than "John''. Similarly for the relative positions of the synoptics.

12-20-2005, 08:45 AM	#30
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Sorry Ted I overlooked your response to my post. I have a couple of problems with your response apart from the obvious presumption of an HJ and an acceptance of gospel ''facts" as such. For example- an ambiguity, Paul never mentions the synagogues AFAIK, so we can't draw anything from that. But he does mention "circumcisers" and the like as rivals without, IMO, implying that a fatal split has occurred. They are still communicating and ''within the fold" of Judaism, perhaps just. According to him he was the apostle to the gentiles and Pete or Cephas, I forget which, had that role with respect to the Jews. So there was still, in Paul's day, interaction between the 2. Which for me points to "John"s healing of the blind man leading to excommunication as reflecting a much later date a la Marsh as above. In other words it's a fiction based on later times. So whilst we have, can I call it ''rivalry"?, perhaps persecution, we do not have formal excommunication from the synagogues. That has been placed in the very last years of the first century, how accurately I am not sure. And Paul states that whatever form his persecution took, it did not occur in Judea because he was unknown there except by reputation. At least that's how I interpret his comments in Galatians 1.22. Couple all that with the chronology from my post above and I see "John" as the last of the 4 canonical gospels with "Mark" being written post-70 ce at the earliest. I'll leave interesting stuff such as his relation to the synoptics and the debate about the existence of synagogues in Palestine for later. cheers yalla Edit...gee you were quick, you posted whilst I was doing the above. It wasn't me who mentioned Muller. I think "John" was in the same mileu [sp?] as Philo but not the same time frame. I can't see the synoptics being aware of "John"'s dating of JC as divine from all time and then post dating it, but I can see a trajectory backwards with "John" adopting logos concepts and allying that to the concept of an HJ. So no I actually envisage the synoptics did not know of "John" because he was later. As an aside, if I had to bet money, which I wouldn't cos it's an idle speculation, I would place "John" as an Alexandrian rather than from Antioch or Ephesus wherever. catch you later, yalla

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.