Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 08-17-2011, 07:19 AM

Hi all,

It is fairly clear that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as a more Godlike and less human figure than other gospels. In this sense, it matches the theology of the Epistles of Paul, who also portrays Jesus in Godlike terms. The epistles of Paul are commonly considered to be written prior to the Synoptic Gospels. In the world of ordinary logic, this would make us believe that the Gospel of John too would also be earlier than the synoptics.

However, the believers in an historical Jesus generally put John as the Fourth Gospel. Usually, it is just taken as a fact in Biblical Studies literature. I would like to compile of a list of the best reasons for believing this. So far I have these reasons:

1. Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers say that John wrote it last.
2. John does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist.
3. John is more anti-Jewish than the other gospels.

I do not think any of these reasons hold up to any kind of critical examination.

What are other better ones?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Juststeve · 08-17-2011, 07:43 AM

John shows a higher degree of theological development than the synoptics which on the HJ hypothesis would have developed over time. I have however heard Bible believing Evangelicals argue just the opposite, that John was first and what I would call theological development is merely revelation.

Steve

dog-on · 08-17-2011, 08:26 AM

I think that our John has been reworked and, as such, any definitive position regarding it's origination must be tentative, at best.

stephan huller · 08-17-2011, 09:24 AM

The reason John is considered the fourth gospel is because forms the other 'bracket' with Matthew as the first gospel. Only these two gospels were supposedly written by witnesses to Jesus (even though Zahn and others see the Muratorian canon as disputing this claim with respect to Mark). So you have Irenaeus stating that Matthew (= Gospel of the Hebrews) is first, followed by two gospels written by hearers of those who saw Jesus, followed by John - a disputed gospel but one written supposedly by the beloved disciple of the Lord.

I think Secret Mark figures somewhere in this formulation insofar as a 'more spiritual' gospel (Clement attributes this term to both Secret Mark and John) comes at the end of the gospel making process. It is worth noting that the Marcionites denied that any of the Catholic gospels were written by witnesses of Jesus. Does this mean that they denied that witnesses wrote gospels which ultimately not included or represented in the Catholic canon? I think so. The reason for this is the Marcionite treatment of the little apocalypse can be inferred to imply that the Marcionite gospel came as a 'correction' of a belief that Jesus was the Christ.

Jesus says "Many will come saying I (Jesus) am the Christ, do not believe them/go after them" or something to that effect (it is cited differently in different sources). The Marcionite gospel is a correction of this opinion and puts forward instead that Jesus was heralding the coming of the Paraclete (= a figure like Marcion, Montanus, Mani, Muhammed etc). Peter is identified as the one who consistently 'misunderstands' that Jesus is the Christ in the Marcionite tradition hence Jesus condemning him.

The reason John, Secret Mark (cf. Irenaeus 3.11.7) and the Marcionite gospel were written later is that some time had to elapse before the Paraclete (= menachem = the messiah) revealed himself. See also Paul's statement (variously cited) that he is the 'last apostle' (especially in the Acts of Archelaus, originally a Marcionite text from Osroene)

Under such a system, John was last because John was the Paraclete announced in his gospel and Polycarp his witness (and Montanus presumably too if these are two separate figures) was the return of said Paraclete hence the gospel is last as the Paraclete came after the other witnesses. (see Irenaeus statement in Book Three about the opponents of John being enemies of the Paraclete)

The anti-Marcionite propaganda exposes the secondary nature of the Marcionite revelation pretending that the canonical gospels were written in the so-called 'apostolic period' (i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem). All evidence seems to suggest to me that the 'second gospel' written by the 'second Christ' (or 'second Jesus') was written around 70 CE the tradition dates for Mark.

TedM · 08-17-2011, 10:10 AM

Bernard Muller has concluded that the proper order is as follows:

GMark 71
GJohn orig 75-80
GLuke 87
GMatthew 90
GJohn final 102

He has quite an involved reconstruction of GJohn you may find interesting at http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html

It begins with the following:

Quote:

2.1 The first (original) gospel:
It was written around 75-80C.E. when Mark's gospel (GMark) was known in the community. This gospel was very COHERENT, with the material drawn from GMark considerably embellished. There are many clues pointing to the fact the author knew GMark then (and certainly not only GLuke or only GMatthew or only both of them).

I explained that later in my comments within the text of the original version. As a preview, here are some pieces of evidence:
- Jn6:7 "two hundred denarii worth of bread" => in GMark (6:37) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:3 "spikenard" => in GMark (14:3) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:5 "three hundred denarii and given to the poor" => in GMark (14:5) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:40 "hardened their hearts" => in GMark (6:52,8:17) but not in GLuke or GMatthew (and not in LXX Isaiah6:9-10!)
- Jn19:2,5 "purple robe" => in GMark (15:17) (the robe is "scarlet" in Mt27:28 and "gorgeous" in Lk23:11)
- Jn4:1-42 "Jesus and disciples entering (& staying in) a Samaritan city" => against GMatthew "do not enter ... any town of the Samaritans" (Mt10:5)
- Jn6:19 "Walking on water" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (6:48-49) & GMatthew)
- Jn12:13 "Hosanna" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (11:9-10) & GMatthew)
- Jn2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." => not in GLuke (but in GMark (14:58;15:29) & GMatthew)
- Jn18:28,33;19:9 "Praetorium" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:6) & GMatthew)
- Jn19:2,5 "crown of thorns" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:17) & GMatthew)
- Jn19:17 "place of the Skull" and "Golgotha" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:22) & GMatthew)

Here, most of Jesus' summer activities in Galilee are not narrated, but time is allocated for them:
Jn2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He ... and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days." (relating to Mk1:21-38)
Then from
Jn6:1 "After these things Jesus went away ... Then a great multitude followed Him,
[as explained from Mk1:37b "... "everyone is looking for you""]"
to
Jn7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee [from March/April (Passover) to October] ..." (relating to Mk1:39-9:50)
Afterwards, according to the original GJohn, Jesus goes to Judea & Jerusalem, (7:2-10, 5:2-45, 7:11-10:39, October to December, from the feast of Tabernacles to the one of Dedication) and then across the Jordan (10:40-42, December to March/April), paralleling what "Mark" claimed (in a few words):
Mk10:1 "Jesus then left that place [Capernaum, Galilee] and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan."
From there, as in GMark, Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Passover and his crucifixion.

Note: essentially, regarding Jesus' public life, the original John's gospel relates major miracles in Galilee, but most of its content is dedicated to the alleged sojourn in Jerusalem during the fall. All main discourses (except the one in Capernaum (Jn6:26-59)) occur in Jerusalem.

The following sequence of events is the same for GMark and the original GJohn:
John_the_Baptist => In Galilee => Feeding_of_the_5000 => Walking_on_water => In Galilee => In Judea/Jerusalem => 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

What is remarkable about the original version, made up of nine "blocks" of the final gospel (about 65% of it altogether), is that all the parts fit well with each other, requiring no additional wording to link them (but some, of the awkward kind, will be inserted for the later versions).
The gospel ended then at Jn20:10, after the 'empty tomb' segment (as in Mk16:8, the original ending of GMark), when "... the disciples went away again to their own homes", as "prophesied" in Mk14:27-28 (disciples dispersing in Galilee) & Jn16:32 "... you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave Me alone"
Let's call the original text of John's gospel Version M.
One main addition (15:1-17:26) was made thereafter within the body of the text. I do not consider it as part of the original version. Let's call this expanded gospel Version Mx.

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

It is fairly clear that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as a more Godlike and less human figure than other gospels. In this sense, it matches the theology of the Epistles of Paul, who also portrays Jesus in Godlike terms. The epistles of Paul are commonly considered to be written prior to the Synoptic Gospels. In the world of ordinary logic, this would make us believe that the Gospel of John too would also be earlier than the synoptics.

However, the believers in an historical Jesus generally put John as the Fourth Gospel. Usually, it is just taken as a fact in Biblical Studies literature. I would like to compile of a list of the best reasons for believing this. So far I have these reasons:

1. Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers say that John wrote it last.
2. John does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist.
3. John is more anti-Jewish than the other gospels.

I do not think any of these reasons hold up to any kind of critical examination.

What are other better ones?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle · 08-17-2011, 12:26 PM

Hi Jay

Are you suggesting that the traditional date of the 90s CE for John is too late or are you suggesting that the conventional dates for the synoptics are too early ?

The arguments for and against will differ in the two cases.

Andrew Criddle

yalla · 08-17-2011, 02:05 PM

Scene: In the garden, JC being arrested by the Jews/Romans after being kissed by Judas.
[RSV - from the BLB]

Version A
"But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear."

Version B
"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear."

This is a simple repetition of the first version. Near verbatim copy. Nothing is added.

Version C
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."

Note the addition of the descriptor "right", this version has built upon the previous. Detail has accreted with the telling.

Version D
"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus"

This version has 3 additions to the original [Version A is g"Mark", if one ascribes to "Markan" priority then this it the original], it utilises that from version C [right] and further adds the details of Simon Peter and Malthus.

Accretion growing with later re-telling?
Version D is g"John".

yalla · 08-17-2011, 02:46 PM

In the example above [post # 7 ]g"John" shares similarities to g"Luke' that differs from the general resemblance to the other two synoptics.
In addition g"John" has extra detail to all 3.
The same process can be seen in the scene of JC's entry into Jerusalem.

g"Mark" and g"Matthew" are essentially the same.
Here is one of them.

"And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way.
And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

"Luke" is essentially the same but differs in that it does not include the reference to branches and, interestingly, modifies the reference to the 'coming of the kingdom of David in the name of the Lord" from an idea or concept or metaphor to the arrival of a specific person:
" Saying, Blessed [be] the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest."

g"John" has both elements, that is he has "Luke's" direct reference to JC as "the King of Israel", and he includes the reference to branches from the other two synoptics but with the additional detail that they are now identified as palm branches -"Took branches of palm trees".

Accretion of detail with time?
Relationship to g"Luke'?

PhilosopherJay · 08-17-2011, 04:10 PM

Hi Yalla,

I get it. Accredition of details is the key to chronology.

What about this?

A.

Quote:

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. 4.54 This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.

B.

Quote:

8.5 As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him 8.6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." 8.7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8.8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8.9 For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 8.10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." 8.13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

C. .

Quote:

1 After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Caper'na-um. 7.2 Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. 7.3 When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7.4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." 7.6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7.7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 7.8 For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 7.9 When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 7.10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

In A., We just know that an official with a son has begged Jesus to heal his son. Jesus chastises the man for wanting to see a sign and not having faith.

In B., We find out that the man is a Roman, not just a Roman, but a Centurion. We learn that the Centurion is a man of great power who orders lots of people to do things. We learn that Jesus is impressed with the man's faith.

In C. We find out that the Centurion was a good friend of the Jews. The writer introduces the detail that the elders of the Jews intervened on behalf of the Centurion. It is no longer just an unidentified official seeking Jesus' help. Now the entire leadership of Capernaum is begging for Jesus to help. Another new piece of information is that the Centurion built a synagogue for the Jews. In this version, unlike the first two, Jesus actually goes with the Jews to help the man.

It is clear that C. is the most detailed gospel and therefore the latest.

A is John's Gospel, B is Matthew's and C is Luke.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Scene: In the garden, JC being arrested by the Jews/Romans after being kissed by Judas.
[RSV - from the BLB]

Version A
"But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear."

Version B
"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear."

This is a simple repetition of the first version. Near verbatim copy. Nothing is added.

Version C
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."

Note the addition of the descriptor "right", this version has built upon the previous. Detail has accreted with the telling.

Version D
"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus"

This version has 3 additions to the original [Version A is g"Mark", if one ascribes to "Markan" priority then this it the original], it utilises that from version C [right] and further adds the details of Simon Peter and Malthus.

Accretion growing with later re-telling?
Version D is g"John".

mountainman · 08-17-2011, 05:53 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

An interesting question. The stability of the Logos was legendary and steadies the tetrarchy of gospels. Heraclitus was honored for first mentioning the Logos by the early christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Legacy of Greece Oxford University Press 1921

RELIGION
by W. R. Inge, Dean of St.Pauls

p.29

It is quite unnecessary to look for Asiatic influences in a school
which clung close to the Attic tradition.

It should not be necessary to remind Hellenists that "Know Thyself"
passed for the supreme word of wisdom in the classical period,
or that Heraclitus revealed his method in the words "I searched myself".

"The teachings of Plato", says Justin, "are not alien to those of Christ;
and the same is true of the Stoics." "Heraclitus and Socrates lived in'
accordance to the divine Logos" and should be recognised as Christians.
Clement says that Plato wrote "by the inspiration of God".

Augustine, much later, finds that "only a few words and phrases" need
to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity.

IMO it was therefore logical to use the Logos of the John text last. Logos is always mentioned in the last place by Aristotle's Three Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric - Ethos, Pathos and Logos. - Source

Best wishes

Pete

08-17-2011, 07:19 AM	#1
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Best Arguments Why John is Considered the Fourth Gospel Hi all, It is fairly clear that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as a more Godlike and less human figure than other gospels. In this sense, it matches the theology of the Epistles of Paul, who also portrays Jesus in Godlike terms. The epistles of Paul are commonly considered to be written prior to the Synoptic Gospels. In the world of ordinary logic, this would make us believe that the Gospel of John too would also be earlier than the synoptics. However, the believers in an historical Jesus generally put John as the Fourth Gospel. Usually, it is just taken as a fact in Biblical Studies literature. I would like to compile of a list of the best reasons for believing this. So far I have these reasons: 1. Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers say that John wrote it last. 2. John does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist. 3. John is more anti-Jewish than the other gospels. I do not think any of these reasons hold up to any kind of critical examination. What are other better ones? Warmly, Jay Raskin

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

08-17-2011, 07:43 AM	#2
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	John shows a higher degree of theological development than the synoptics which on the HJ hypothesis would have developed over time. I have however heard Bible believing Evangelicals argue just the opposite, that John was first and what I would call theological development is merely revelation. Steve

08-17-2011, 08:26 AM	#3
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I think that our John has been reworked and, as such, any definitive position regarding it's origination must be tentative, at best.

08-17-2011, 09:24 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The reason John is considered the fourth gospel is because forms the other 'bracket' with Matthew as the first gospel. Only these two gospels were supposedly written by witnesses to Jesus (even though Zahn and others see the Muratorian canon as disputing this claim with respect to Mark). So you have Irenaeus stating that Matthew (= Gospel of the Hebrews) is first, followed by two gospels written by hearers of those who saw Jesus, followed by John - a disputed gospel but one written supposedly by the beloved disciple of the Lord. I think Secret Mark figures somewhere in this formulation insofar as a 'more spiritual' gospel (Clement attributes this term to both Secret Mark and John) comes at the end of the gospel making process. It is worth noting that the Marcionites denied that any of the Catholic gospels were written by witnesses of Jesus. Does this mean that they denied that witnesses wrote gospels which ultimately not included or represented in the Catholic canon? I think so. The reason for this is the Marcionite treatment of the little apocalypse can be inferred to imply that the Marcionite gospel came as a 'correction' of a belief that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus says "Many will come saying I (Jesus) am the Christ, do not believe them/go after them" or something to that effect (it is cited differently in different sources). The Marcionite gospel is a correction of this opinion and puts forward instead that Jesus was heralding the coming of the Paraclete (= a figure like Marcion, Montanus, Mani, Muhammed etc). Peter is identified as the one who consistently 'misunderstands' that Jesus is the Christ in the Marcionite tradition hence Jesus condemning him. The reason John, Secret Mark (cf. Irenaeus 3.11.7) and the Marcionite gospel were written later is that some time had to elapse before the Paraclete (= menachem = the messiah) revealed himself. See also Paul's statement (variously cited) that he is the 'last apostle' (especially in the Acts of Archelaus, originally a Marcionite text from Osroene) Under such a system, John was last because John was the Paraclete announced in his gospel and Polycarp his witness (and Montanus presumably too if these are two separate figures) was the return of said Paraclete hence the gospel is last as the Paraclete came after the other witnesses. (see Irenaeus statement in Book Three about the opponents of John being enemies of the Paraclete) The anti-Marcionite propaganda exposes the secondary nature of the Marcionite revelation pretending that the canonical gospels were written in the so-called 'apostolic period' (i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem). All evidence seems to suggest to me that the 'second gospel' written by the 'second Christ' (or 'second Jesus') was written around 70 CE the tradition dates for Mark.

08-17-2011, 12:26 PM	#6
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Jay Are you suggesting that the traditional date of the 90s CE for John is too late or are you suggesting that the conventional dates for the synoptics are too early ? The arguments for and against will differ in the two cases. Andrew Criddle

08-17-2011, 02:05 PM	#7
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Scene: In the garden, JC being arrested by the Jews/Romans after being kissed by Judas. [RSV - from the BLB] Version A "But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear." Version B "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear." This is a simple repetition of the first version. Near verbatim copy. Nothing is added. Version C "And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear." Note the addition of the descriptor "right", this version has built upon the previous. Detail has accreted with the telling. Version D "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus" This version has 3 additions to the original [Version A is g"Mark", if one ascribes to "Markan" priority then this it the original], it utilises that from version C [right] and further adds the details of Simon Peter and Malthus. Accretion growing with later re-telling? Version D is g"John".

08-17-2011, 02:46 PM	#8
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	In the example above [post # 7 ]g"John" shares similarities to g"Luke' that differs from the general resemblance to the other two synoptics. In addition g"John" has extra detail to all 3. The same process can be seen in the scene of JC's entry into Jerusalem. g"Mark" and g"Matthew" are essentially the same. Here is one of them. "And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way. And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." "Luke" is essentially the same but differs in that it does not include the reference to branches and, interestingly, modifies the reference to the 'coming of the kingdom of David in the name of the Lord" from an idea or concept or metaphor to the arrival of a specific person: " Saying, Blessed [be] the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." g"John" has both elements, that is he has "Luke's" direct reference to JC as "the King of Israel", and he includes the reference to branches from the other two synoptics but with the additional detail that they are now identified as palm branches -"Took branches of palm trees". Accretion of detail with time? Relationship to g"Luke'?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.