avi

a. only the gospel of John?

b. why should one presume, based on the existence of acknowledged interpolations, that John's gospel had been composed, originally, BEFORE, or AFTER xyz, or abc? Is there a correlation between interpolations, and dates of authorship?

I think we have no idea who wrote WHAT, when, why, or how.

Were the authors compensated for their endeavors?

Were the gospels written sequentially, or, did they all use a common, but no longer extant, primer?

Were the Gospels derived from Gnostic sources, primarily, or from Judaism, itself, primarily?

What method can we use, to attempt to answer questions about the badly interpolated Gospels? Can we invoke the letters of Paul to contrast with the Gospels, to emphasize some point or other? But, haven't those letters, too, been altered?

I believe, that we still are unsure about even the very simplest question regarding one or more of the Gospels:

Were they (was it) initially written in Greek, or Aramaic?

I envision no way to answer many of these questions. I wonder, though, if it could be possible to become more confident about sequentiality, by means of a computer program...

First, one would create a synthetic, non-religious text, in Koine Greek, using the same vocabulary as is found in the Gospel(s). Then, one would insert extra text, and/or delete original text, in appropriate, and known loci. One would then give the manipulated version to the same computer which contains the original, template text, and solicit an answer to the question of the quantity and location of changes, which have been made to the original text. Armed with such a tool, one can then compare the various extant Greek texts, seeking identification of the loci most likely to contain contamination, or represent a location, within which, text, may have been deleted.

avi

aa5874

It is an EXTREMELY significant observation that gJohn appears to match the theology of the Pauline writings.

It must be understood that gJohn and the Pauline writings are about UNIVERSAL Salvation by the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day.

The Synoptics is NOT about SALVATION of the Jews but the destruction of the Jews and the Temple of the Jewish God.

Universal Salvation through Sacrifice and Resurrection is AFTER the Synoptics.

The Pauline writings and gJohn are LOGICALLY late writings and AFTER the Synoptic type Jesus story.

The most fundamental signs that a document is earlier than another is when we find word-for-word copying and that the earlier author is acknowledged.

It may be argued that gMatthew, gMark and gLuke used similar sources or copied one or the other but they did NOT use gJohn.

There is very little in gJohn that is found in the Synoptics.

If we suppose that gJohn was written FIRST and then gMark was written some time LATER then it becomes EXTREMELY difficult to understand why the author of gMatthew would have copied WORD-FOR-WORD virtually the ENTIRE content of gMark and completely IGNORE gJohn.

And likewise, the author of gLuke. If it supposed that the author of gLuke was AWARE of gJohn, gMark and gMatthew then it is NOTICED that again this author, although using parts of gMatthew and gMark sometimes WORD-FOR-WORD, has also IGNORED gJohn.

Amazingly, the author of gLuke claimed he did some kind of investigation using "witnesses" and writings and still hardly used anything found in gJohn. See Luke 1.

It is clear that the author of gJohn found many many problems with the Synoptic type Jesus story and appears to have INVENTED a Jesus as the LAMB of God.

In the Synoptics Jesus was NO LAMB. Jesus came to FULFILL prophecy that he will be REJECTED by the Jews and that God will destroy even the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

TedM

avi, you ask a lot of difficult questions. A lot of people think they have answers to some of them, and Bernard seems quite confident in his analysis of the Gospel of John as having several evolutions, but an early original that preceded GLuke and GMatthew, and that reveals knowledge of GMark. He claims the original is very coherent and there are many taletell signs that support his views. Whether Bernard or some other reconstructionist is correct, I haven't a clue, but one possibility is that one of them is very very close to being correct. Perhaps Bernard's approach is the one and would pass your computer test with flying colors. Or perhaps it would fail miserably. I haven't read enough to have an opinion but I have been impressed with some things I read on his site in the past. He claims to focus on the primary texts and (to me) it appears he is a very observant person.

TedM

I guess it depends on one's perspective. According to my earlier quote of Muller, there are actually a number of similarities in his original GJohn and GMark both in content and in chronology of that content:

If GJohn was familiar with GMark, what was the author trying to do? If he was trying to create his own Jesus story why did use so much of the same content that GMark used? (Note that according to Muller it isn't just the broad categories that suggests a knowledge on GMark. He provides many specific items that he believes support this idea).

If GJohn was earlier than all of the synoptics and grew from a theology similar to Paul's, why are there so many similarities between Gjohn and the synoptics as far as basic 'history' of Jesus is concerned?

If GJohn was after the synoptics why doesn't he include MORE of the synoptic accounts and put his theological twist on them, than what he did?

aa5874

You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between "evidence" and "truth".

If you were a juror in a court trial you would soon realise that not all "evidence" may be the "truth" even when the so-called witnesses have SWORN, even by the Bible, to tell the truth.

A defendant who pleads NOT guilty of a charge, if found guilty, may have lied if he did make a sworn statement.

It is NOT necessary to abandon a trial because the defendant LIED.

In effect, one does NOT need ALL TRUTHFUL "evidence" to come to a REASONABLE conclusion about a matter.

A conclusion is SIMPLY based on the evidence that was PRESENTED at a particular time.

Now, there are hundreds upon hundreds of evidence or written statements about the Gospels with respect to authorship, dating, chronology and contents by Church writers and apologetic sources for hundred of years and the written statements SHOW a pattern.

This pattern REVEALS that the Gospel designated as according to John was NOT well-known even in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr knew of a Synoptic type Jesus story which appears to be similar to Synoptic gMatthew called "Memoirs of the Apostles" and quoted many passages that are WORD-FOR-WORD of the Synoptic type Jesus stories.

In gJohn , the author claims Jesus said he would send the Comforter AFTER he went away.

Joh 16:7 - Justin Martyr did NOT mention that the "Comforter" came or the day of Pentecost.

Based on the EXTANT evidence PRESENTED, gJohn appears to be LATE writing and AFTER the Synoptic type Jesus stories.

If the Church writers falsified their own evidence then that's their problem. When the Church presents other evidence then my conclusion may be reviewed.

aa5874

Your claim that the Sequence of events are the same in gMark and gJohn is COMPLETELY erroneous.

And We are NOT dealing with just sequence we are also dealing with CONTENT.

1. gJohn has NO baptism story of Jesus . See John 1

2. In gJohn after Jesus fed the 5000 it is claimed that the people wanted to make Jesus the King by force but no such thing can be found in gMark. See John 6. 15 and Mark 6.44-46

3. In the welcome of Jesus at Jerusalem in gJohn the people called Jesus the KING of Israel but again NO such thing can be found in gMark.

See John 12.13 and Mark 11.9

4. The disturbance at The Temple has a totally different sequence in gJohn and gMark.

The disturbance occurred very EARLY in gJohn chapter 2, at the START of the ministry of Jesus, and VERY LATE in gMark 11 at the END of his ministry.

5. The betrayal of Jesus with a kiss from Judas is MISSING in gJohn. In fact, Jesus IDENTIFIED himself in gJohn without the intervention of Juidas when in gMark Judas did KISS Jesus.

The evidence is CLEAR that the author of gJohn is SIMPLY changing the Jesus story and changing the sequence of events.

yalla

-Oops!-

yalla

Gidday Philosopher Jay,

At post #7 you quoted g"John" thus:

"And at Caper'na-um there was an official whose son was ill. 4.47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 4.48 Jesus therefore said to him, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." 4.49 The official said to him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 4.50 Jesus said to him, "Go; your son will live." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. 4.51 As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was living. 4.52 So he asked them the hour when he began to mend, and they said to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." 4.53 The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live"; and he himself believed, and all his household. "

Check this out:
[from here: http://virtualreligion.net/iho/prayer.html]

"Our rabbis taught:
Once it happened that the son of Rabban Gamaliel (I) fell sick.
They sent two disciples of the sages to cHanina ben Dosa to pray for mercy on him. When he saw the, he went up to the upper room and prayed for mercy on him. When he came down, he told them:
-- "Go, the fever has left him!"
They said:
--"Are you a prophet?"
He told them:
--"I'm not a prophet or a prophet's son" (Amos 7:14)
but my tradition is thus:
-- 'If my prayer flows from my mouth, I know it's accepted; if not, I know its rejected.'
They sat down and wrote, noting the exact hour.
And when they came to Rabban Gamaliel he told them:
--"(My) Worship! It happened neither sooner nor later, but just then.
That was precisely the hour that the fever left him and he asked us for water to drink."

This 'trick' of being able to heal from afar and have it verified by the hour of such occurring is common to the stories of both JC in g"John" and Hanina ben Dosa who is dated latish first century.

Who borrowed from whom?
What light does this parallelism throw on the dating of g"John"?

I would suggest that whatever is going on in these 2 examples does not refute my suggestion [and its just a suggestion] that both g"John" and g"Luke" are later than the other 2 canonical gospels and that the latter two have some sort of literary relationship, what exactly I don't know.
It throws a spanner into the idea of a smooth trajectory of time for all gospels coming, as it were, out of left field and owing its provenance,possibly to something altogether different eg Hanina.

Possibilities fot the "Luke/John" relationship include - one read the other [but which one?], the redactors and editors of one included bits from the other, both drew from someone else [besides the synoptics I mean] or maybe ....something else.

John Marsh in his commentary on "John" cites C.K. Barrett [I think] that there are 10 scenarios common to both "John" and "Mark" that follow the sequence of events according to "Mark' suggesting that one ["John"?] borrowed from the other ["Mark"?].

There are certainly many stories in "John" that are common to all 4 gospels.

I will, slowly, very slowly, work through those stories that are common to all 4 canonical gospels and see if I can maintain my suggestion that "John" accretes the most detail along the lines of the Malthus and palm branches examples.
But give me time, lots of time, I work slowly and in less than 2 weeks I'm taking a holiday in your fair country which will slow me down even further.
cheers
yalla

TedM

The sequences aren't from the current GJohn. They are from an original GJohn which Muller says is extremely coherent. And the content differences are fairly minor as compared with the stark fact that they refer to the same events. Obviously the information is highly correlated and therefore is subject to various interpretations and possibly accurate conclusions. To treat GJohn and GMark as though they are completely different works is ridiculous. They clearly are accounts of the ministry and execution of the exact same individual. The question is whether that means a golden opportunity exists for determining how much can be considered authentic history of the most influential individual of all time or not. Only a very detailed and insightful study of the various works can answer the question if it is answerable.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yalla,

Great catch.

This really helps to show the complex nature of the gospel puzzle. Unfortunately, the Hebrew Talmud has as many dating problems as the gospels. It does seem to show that John was much using more Jewish material. Still, it is another indication that John may be earlier than the gospels.

The problem is that there are indicators going in all directions: X borrowed from Y, Y borrowed from X, X and Y borrowed from X', Y borrowed from Y' which borrowed from X, X and Y borrowed from a Z source.

One might compare it to watching four episodes of a Western television show from the 1950's on a retro television channel. Usually the number of plots in western show were limited and they would frequently be repeated with changes and variations.

In the four shows, the opening and ending credits are identical or nearly identical. The commercials that have been inserted by the retro channel may be identical or different, but very different from the material within the show. Certain motifs will be repeated within the show (bad guys making threats, chases on horseback, cowboys riding into town, ranches, saloon scenes, poker games, ending gunfight, sometimes these elements are repeated nearly identically, sometimes quite differently. Watching four similar episodes of a show that was on for several years, it is difficult to tell which came first.

Good luck working on it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin