Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-20-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I have started looking at John, myself. Removing the (interpolated :angel: ) layers, one could argue for a fairly gnostic reading of this rather anti-Jewish gospel. Could a proto-John have actually been at odds with Mark, later answered by Mat (and of course the new and improved Luke), yet later given the once (or thrice) over by the Judaizers?

Anything is possible, and speculations are cheap and common. What is usually in short supply is evidence.

Ben.

Do you think that John has been left untouched and is in a pristine state?

Ray Moscow · 09-20-2007, 08:51 AM

Well, GJohn is definitely not pristine. The last chapter is a later add-on, for one thing.

dog-on · 09-20-2007, 09:09 AM

and what about 7:53 through 8:11?

Where will it end...

Ray Moscow · 09-20-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

and what about 7:53 through 8:11?

Where will it end...

Well, that's a later interpolation, too -- which is sort of sad, since it's a beautiful story.

This a good reminder why beautiful or profound does not equal historical accuracy.

Ben C Smith · 09-20-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you think that John has been left untouched and is in a pristine state?

No.

Ben.

dog-on · 09-20-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you think that John has been left untouched and is in a pristine state?

No.

Ben.

Do you have any specific ideas or opinions on where changes occurred in the extant texts?

Ray Moscow · 09-21-2007, 02:02 AM

I suppose you could start with a few of the many scholarly books on the gospel of John, especially those who review the textual criticism.

Ben C Smith · 09-21-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you have any specific ideas or opinions on where changes occurred in the extant texts?

Yes.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 09-21-2007, 07:27 AM

Textual changes in the gospel of John.

Virtually certain: The addition of the pericope de adultera.

Quite probable: The addition of chapter 21 (although it is an open question who added it; it could conceivably be the author himself); an addition to John 5.3-4; many smaller textual variations.

I am as yet undecided on: John 19.35; 20.30-31; the editing quirks pointed out by scholars such as Bultmann, including:

John 5.1-47 takes place in Jerusalem, but then John 6.1 has Jesus going to the other side of the sea of Galilee, or Tiberias; should chapters 5 and 6 be switched? In John 14.31 Jesus says: Arise, let us go, but then the speech continues for three more chapters. John 3.5 (unless one is born of water and spirit) versus 7.39 (the spirit was not yet given). John 7.15-24 seems to go with John 5.1-47; the transition from 7.14 to 7.25 is smooth. John 10.19-21 seems to go with 9.1-41. John 10.1-18 seems to go with 10.27-29. John 12.44-50 seems to go with John 9.1-41.

I note with great interest that the final verses of John seem to imply (at least) two different stages of editing. There is an original author (the disciple testifying to these things and writing them), and there is an editor or group of editors (we know that his testimony is true). This assures me to my present satisfaction that there are (at least) two layers in John, but I cannot rightly tell you at this time which parts belong to the beloved disciple and which parts belong to the editor(s).

Ben.

dog-on · 09-21-2007, 08:29 AM

Thanks Ben!

I'll pursue my inquiry following your leads.

09-21-2007, 07:27 AM	#29
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Textual changes in the gospel of John. Virtually certain: The addition of the pericope de adultera. Quite probable: The addition of chapter 21 (although it is an open question who added it; it could conceivably be the author himself); an addition to John 5.3-4; many smaller textual variations. I am as yet undecided on: John 19.35; 20.30-31; the editing quirks pointed out by scholars such as Bultmann, including: John 5.1-47 takes place in Jerusalem, but then John 6.1 has Jesus going to the other side of the sea of Galilee, or Tiberias; should chapters 5 and 6 be switched? In John 14.31 Jesus says: Arise, let us go, but then the speech continues for three more chapters. John 3.5 (unless one is born of water and spirit) versus 7.39 (the spirit was not yet given). John 7.15-24 seems to go with John 5.1-47; the transition from 7.14 to 7.25 is smooth. John 10.19-21 seems to go with 9.1-41. John 10.1-18 seems to go with 10.27-29. John 12.44-50 seems to go with John 9.1-41. I note with great interest that the final verses of John seem to imply (at least) two different stages of editing. There is an original author (the disciple testifying to these things and writing them), and there is an editor or group of editors (we know that his testimony is true). This assures me to my present satisfaction that there are (at least) two layers in John, but I cannot rightly tell you at this time which parts belong to the beloved disciple and which parts belong to the editor(s). Ben.

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

09-20-2007, 08:51 AM	#22
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Well, GJohn is definitely not pristine. The last chapter is a later add-on, for one thing.

09-20-2007, 09:09 AM	#23
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	and what about 7:53 through 8:11? Where will it end...

09-21-2007, 02:02 AM	#27
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	I suppose you could start with a few of the many scholarly books on the gospel of John, especially those who review the textual criticism.

09-21-2007, 08:29 AM	#30
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Thanks Ben! I'll pursue my inquiry following your leads.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.