Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peterkirby:
[QB]Vorkosigan writes: There's no place, as perhaps in histories like those of Tacitus, where you can strike the facts from the non-facts.

How do you tell fact from non-fact in Tacitus?

Where Tacitus relates anything that violates natural law, he is reporting a non-fact. Where he relates things confirmed by other branches of the historical sciences, he is reporting facts. The stuff in between falls into the "no reason to think he is lying" slot, unless there is some reason to think he is lying or otherwise making things up. For example, where he could not have possible access, such as the thoughts of Vespasian or speeches made before he was born, he is reporting non-facts, but that was normal to the history of his time.

Is this "totality of support" dependent on external corroboration, or are there internal indicators which determine whether a document is history?

Both. I already stated this. What's your point? Internal indicators within the gospels clearly show that the writers did not conceive of themselves as writing history in the sense that Tacitus knew, let alone a real pro like Thucydides or Polybius.

Vorkosigan writes: Josephus dates JtB's execution to the period when Vitellius was active in Judea just before Tiberius died.

Is this explicit? Or is it just based on the "now about this time" cliche.

It is semi-explicit.

<a href="http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm</a>
"Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE:
He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.
Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.
Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)"

In other words, the death of Tiberius and the death of JtB occurred in close order.

Assuming that John was executed after 36 CE, we can choose not to believe the gospel statement that Jesus was executed after John, we can chose not to believe the gospel statement that John was executed under Pilate, or we can choose not to believe both. But I don't make the initial assumption that is required.

Why not?

I do not believe the hypothesis that states that the author of John appropriated the prologue from an earlier hymn. It just seems to set up the whole gospel so well and reflect the themes of the rest of the gospel so closely that it would have to be the invention of the main redactor of John.

That's a strong point. The only argument against would be the existence of earlier documents with parallel ideas...

I would suggest that the only written Christian source which the main redactor of John had before him was the so-called signs gospel as reconstructed by the likes of R. T. Fortna.

Let's hold this thought for further discussion.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Where Tacitus relates anything that violates natural law, he is reporting a non-fact. Where he relates things confirmed by other branches of the historical sciences, he is reporting facts. The stuff in between falls into the "no reason to think he is lying" slot, unless there is some reason to think he is lying or otherwise making things up. For example, where he could not have possible access, such as the thoughts of Vespasian or speeches made before he was born, he is reporting non-facts, but that was normal to the history of his time.

What do we do with the stuff in the "no reason to think he is lying" slot? Is it fact or non-fact?

Vorkosigan writes: Both. I already stated this. What's your point?

I want to know how to tell history from non-history.

Vorkosigan writes: Internal indicators within the gospels clearly show that the writers did not conceive of themselves as writing history in the sense that Tacitus knew, let alone a real pro like Thucydides or Polybius.

You are probably right, but I have never made a study myself of the internal indicators in the gospels that show that the writers did not conceive of themselves as writing history in any sense. Would you point those out to me?

Vorkosigan writes: In other words, the death of Tiberius and the death of JtB occurred in close order . . . Why not?

Why? All I see is evidence that the battle took place around 36 CE. So all we know from Josephus is that the execution took place sometime before 36 CE, not that it took place precisely in 36. Josephus is giving a flash back, and there is no clear sign of how far this flash back goes, except that it is during the reign of Herod Antipas.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Everytime I read these lines I think about incantations.

God Said "Let there be light" and there was.
The Word made light.

"Let there be ... and there was"
The Word made everything.

The Word is all powerfull.
The Word is God.

The Word became flesh.
Jesus spoke with the authority of God.

This is just a far-fetched idea of mine. But perhaps no more far-fetched than the idea of the trinity.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vorkosigan

What do we do with the stuff in the "no reason to think he is lying" slot? Is it fact or non-fact?

Fact, provisionally.

I want to know how to tell history from non-history.

See discussion below in section on how we can tell the Bible authors aren't writing history.

You are probably right, but I have never made a study myself of the internal indicators in the gospels that show that the writers did not conceive of themselves as writing history in any sense. Would you point those out to me?

Here are a few:

• the re-arrangement of events and people – John's moving the temple scourging, for example
• indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god
• depiction of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs
• few or no critical views of subject
• no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did
• not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work
• the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?
• few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.
• no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made
• the existence of multiple redactions – were Tacitus and Polybius redacted?
• the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death
• little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."
• overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing
• A sense that events have complex causes -- for example, Tacitus' examination of Civilis' motives for sparing Cologne from being sacked.
• discussions of disgreements between or with sources -- see, for example, Tacitus' remarks on what other writers have said about whether the two armies at the Battle of Cremona should surrender, or his remarks on causation at the end of Book Two.
• a commitment to dating events and putting them in their proper order.
• knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

Certainly the non-presence of any one or few of these is not very indicative, but the gospels satisfy none of the requirements of history or historical writing. They use events and stock characters, re-arrange them to suit theological purposes, cast them in supernatural and prophetic frameworks....

Why? All I see is evidence that the battle took place around 36 CE. So all we know from Josephus is that the execution took place sometime before 36 CE, not that it took place precisely in 36. Josephus is giving a flash back, and there is no clear sign of how far this flash back goes, except that it is during the reign of Herod Antipas.

Right, but it had to have taken place after Herod attempted to divorce Aretas' daughter and then married Herodias, in fact, after the marriage to Herodias, and some time after, so his protests have time to register on herod's ears. The time window is very narrow. Either late 35 or 36.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan, your list looks good to me on a first reading. It looks like we need a Christian apologist to set us straight. Nomad, Layman, Bede, Polycarp... any of you up to showing what is wrong with what Vorkosigan says?

Vorkosigan writes: Right, but it had to have taken place after Herod attempted to divorce Aretas' daughter and then married Herodias, in fact, after the marriage to Herodias, and some time after, so his protests have time to register on herod's ears. The time window is very narrow. Either late 35 or 36.

Doesn't the idea that John the Baptist was executed after the marriage to Herodias come from the Gospel of Mark? If so, then it is not the case that Josephus says or implies that John the Baptist was executed in 35-36 CE. Myself, I prefer the explanation that Josephus gives for the death of John: he was popular and for that reason alone worthy of lethal containment.

best,
Peter Kirby

King Arthur

Vorkosigan:
"Mark's geographical boners..."

Huh... Huh, huh...

You said, "boners"...

Huh... Huh, huh...

Peter Kirby

I am interested in reading a Christian perspective on (1) the (alleged) contradictions with other biblical books found in the first chapter of John and (2) the list of indications cited by Vorkosigan to show that the four evangelists did not conceive of themselves as writing history.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

And now, for an aside.

Peter,

I was looking at Steve Mason's site and he has a articles page for Josephus that you might want to include as link on your Jos page.

<a href="http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/links-articles.htm" target="_blank">http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/links-articles.htm</a>

The alice whealey article there, that reviews the early history of controversies about the Test. Flav., might well be worth a separate link on your TF page.

<a href="http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf</a>

Vorkosigan

Berean

As a newcomer around here, I felt this was a good place to step in, since your pleas to get your quesitons answered appear to have been largely ignored. As to the issue of history, I claim no particular expertise in the analysis of ancient historical techniques and so have little to say. However, I would say that the evangelists would have been very clear that they were not writing histories as such; their purposes were self-evidently different. However, that does not imply in any way that they were not attempting to present as a factual an account as possible (e.g. Luke's claim to be assembling an orderly account). The matter is thus largely irrelevant unless there are contradictory accounts that can be deemed more credible. Moreover, Vorkosigan does not make it clear that he is presenting a list of criteria extant in the ANE for the writing of histories (if so, Josephus would seem to fail on quite a few points) or applying modern criteria.

That being said, here are my responses to your various questions:

1. I quoted two different second century commentaries on the prologue of John, one by Ptolemy and one by Heracleon. Do you think that these two commentators make sound and permissible interpretations? Why or why not?

No, they are thoroughly unsound. Both are obviously Gnostic and as a result do considerable violence to the text in order to make it fit their arcane theological/cosmological system. Ptolemy starts with a colossal blunder – he appears to imply that “only-begotten” implies an “engendering” by God, which misunderstanding of course reached its peak with Arius (but survives today among such groups as the Mormons). Although the word monogenes is complex, it implies no such thing. But this is necessary in order for Ptolemy to establish his hierarchy of emanations, aions and the like. Similarly, Heracleon’s claim that “all things…excludes what is better than the world” is simply unjustified from the text, as is also the claim that another made them. Origen of course ably shredded this argument. Heracleon does however make a decent attempt at an explanation of the apparent disagreement between Christ and John over whether he is Elijah (see #7 below), although he gets loopy on other stuff – such as suggesting that Christ’s sandal is a metaphor for the world. And his statement that a lamb is an imperfect sheep is not only illogical but utterly contrary to the meaning of the Baptist’s exclamation (see #9 below).

The Gnostic problem can be best understood in terms of clashing anthropological viewpoints between Jews and Greeks. The Jews thought of man as a coherent whole - I have seen it referred to as “Semitic totality” - with the body, soul and spirit as a unified system. Conversely, the Greeks thought of the body as merely a vessel for the soul, and ultimately dispensable, which idea to a large extent continues today in Western thought. Understanding many NT passages as attempts to convey this Jewish understanding of man to a largely Gentile audience sheds considerable light on the Scriptures and often radically affects interpretation. The Gnostics were heavily influenced by Greek cosmological and theological thought and this explains much of their thinking. The flesh was, to the Gnostics, evil and to be disposed of at death never to be used again. Cosmologically speaking, this extended to the heavens and the idea that the true god would not soil himself by directly creating the material world, which was similarly evil; hence the interposition of a hierarchy of godly beings. The fragments from Heracleon show this thinking quite clearly.

This issue alone should demonstrate the fallacy of the claim that Gnosticism is the true Christianity: Christianity is at its base a Jewish religion and Gnostic ideas are squarely at odds with historic Jewish theological thought. Likewise, the idea of women having to become men (the Mormons have their version of this one too is not Christian and is easily refuted from the NT. The elevation of women was a Christian distinctive against both the Greeks and the Jews.

2. What do you think serves as the background for the thought and style found in the prologue of John? Is it the OT picture of personified wisdom? Is it the Qumranic dualism of light and darkness? Is it Gnosticism? Is it Hellenistic speculation on the Logos? Something else or a combination?

Obviously, from my answer above, not Gnosticism. I also see no parallels to light/darkness dualism, since there is no suggestion here that the darkness has any power. There is however a mix of Jewish and Greek theological ideas here, although personified wisdom is not what John has drawn from the OT. Jews had a conception of the Word – in Psalm 33:6 it is God’s agent of creation, which is especially recalled here. It is also God’s message (e.g. Hosea 1:1) and His standard of holiness (i.e., His law, Psalm 119:11), both of which are also applicable here. On the Greek side, the Logos is the world’s guiding reason, and also has value in this context. However, John quickly moves away from both traditions, saying that the Word became flesh (v14), which was blasphemous to the Jews and simply unthinkable to the Greeks. Evidently, John is saying something radically new here and is not afraid to give offense.

3. Unlike Matthew and Luke, there is no infancy narrative in the Gospel of John. Why? Does this tell us anything about John?

One might more easily ask why there is no infancy narrative in Mark. Mark has as a primary objective the establishment of Christ as prophecy fulfillment, which an infancy narrative would clearly assist. John however has no such objective – at least not primarily so – and it simply is not needed. Indeed, given the obvious intent to form a high Christology from the outset and the early description of a link between John the Baptist and Christ, the interpolation of an infancy narrative would have forced an ungainly chiasmus.

4. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God." Does this contradict the Hebrew Sciptures?

No. This is hardly the thread for examining alleged Biblical contradictions, don’t you think? As such, I really don’t want to get into this, but check <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/visiblegod.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/visiblegod.html</a> for a decent semi-quickie explanation from an apologist who is not too popular around here. It should also be noted that this is in full accord with Exodus 33:20. Alleged differences between the Gospels, however, while similar to alleged contradictions are, I think, a valid part of a study of an individual Gospels, especially John, given its unique place in the gospel narratives.

5. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus by John, but there is a mention of a dove from the sky in John 1:32. Why do you think this is so?

This is not a big deal. The baptism is understood, if not implied by the overall drift of the passage, which deals with John’s baptism versus Christ’s.

6. In John 1:20, it is said that, "he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, 'I am not the Messiah.'" Do you think that this is credible, or do you think that the author doth protest too much?

What is there about this that suggests it is not credible? It is however an interesting stylistic device, although the translation you are citing (whichever it is) rather minces the force of it. Most translations render “admit” as “confess”, which is rather stronger language, suggesting a public statement. The structure is also significant – confess, not deny, confess. Obviously this IS a denial, so it seems odd that John would say this. However, the repetition of confess indicates that John wants to show that this was effectively a positive assertion of considerable importance. So, if we were to amplify the passage, we might render it so: “John the Baptist made it clear, he didn’t just deny it, but made it very clear…”

Moreover, on a merely pragmatic level, considering that the claim the Baptist is denying is a capital crime, I don’t think he could really overdo the protesting, could he?

7. Matthew 11:14 says, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come." In John 1:21, John the Baptist answers the question of whether he is Elijah by saying that he is not. Do you think that this is an example of varying traditions behind John and the synoptics, or do you think that each author had the same understanding of the person of John the Baptist?

Theorizing about differing “traditions” is to my mind largely pointless speculation for ivory tower navel-gazers. It yields nothing and is ultimately unprovable. Such theories are founded on bad logic, namely that two differing effects cannot have the same cause.

That having been said, the gospels’ various statements on this matter are interesting. Mark’s only observation is to describe John’s clothing and diet (Mk 1:6). This is odd for two reasons. First, Mark is not normally given to such extensive detail, being the archetype of brevity. Second, a Jewish readership would recognize this as being the same as Elijah, but a Gentile readership – such as that generally accepted for Mark - likely would not. Matthew gives the identical description (Mt 3:4), also without elaboration, but he is writing for Jewish readers who would not need it. He also has the comment of Christ’s that you cite. Luke omits the description, although he includes all the remaining features of the same passage in Matthew and Mark. However, he has very early in his account explained that John comes “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk 1:17). This gives rise to several conclusions: i) that John is not Elijah personally returned from the heavens; ii) John is of an order with Elijah; iii) John has a similar mission to Elijah’s; iv) John has the same authority as Elijah. This sheds light on Christ’s statement in Matthew: his statement that John was the Elijah who is to come could be paraphrased as saying John was the new Elijah (as, say, George Bush might be described as the new Reagan), and, by extension, that’s all the Elijah you’re getting. This is also what Heracleon is getting at when he talks of the Baptist having Elijah’s attributes. Interestingly, he appears to miss the appropriateness of his own analogy with clothing.

But that still leaves the Baptist’s own denial in John. Does it seem likely that John did not know his appearance and behavior would not draw obvious comparisons to Elijah? Hardly. Indeed – it would seem that he fully intended for the comparisons to be drawn. And that may be the point: there is a similarity but not an identity, just as Luke appears to be saying. Therefore, he is perfectly justified in answering no to the priests and Levites, who presumably meant the question to be taken in a fully literal sense. It is also clear from the passage that he wants the focus to be on his ministry, not his person (which is, of course, to prepare for the person on whom the focus should be). The passage is also interesting in that the Jews evidently did not see an identity between the Messiah and the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15, which Christians of course do.

As for differing understandings: I think it is fairly clear that the synoptists were in agreement. As for John, he makes no editorial observations here (although he does plentifully elsewhere), so we have nothing directly on which to base a conclusion. However, if John as written relatively late, as is generally agreed, we then have to show that he was unfamiliar with the three existing Gospels to explain his silence on the matter, or else assume that he found nothing objectionable. Also, the Evangelist is very likely the same person as the Apostle (I think it difficult, based on Westcott's powerful argument, to show otherwise). Thus we have Luke’s citation of Christ, which John was a witness to, and again have to explain his silence as something other than tacit agreement.

8. John 1:31 has the Baptist say, "I did not know him." Can this be squared with the tradition about the kinship of Jesus and John found in the infancy narrative of Luke?

So? Where do the infancy narratives of either Matthew or Luke say that the two cousins ever met? The only record of them ever being close to each other is before their births. Given that they grew up in separate locations in Galilee and the Judean hill country (which we can assume were a good distance from each other, since Mary was presumably sent to her cousin Elizabeth to hide her pregnancy from the locals), this is hardly surprising. Do you know by sight every relative you have? I certainly don’t.

9. John 1:29 and 1:36 have the Baptist say, "Behold, the Lamb of God." What do you think that the imagery of the Lamb of God means?

Fairly clearly, this is a reference to the Jewish sacrificial system of atonement and to the story of Abraham and Isaac (specifically Genesis 22:8). Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sins and provided by God Himself. Interestingly, the Baptist has an intuitive understanding of this that the disciples patently do not.

10. In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to be disciples at the same time. In John 1:40-42, Andrew had been called first and told his brother Simon about Jesus. How do you account for these two different ideas?

Because they’re different events. The account in John is of Christ’s initial contact with Andrew and Simon. The synoptic account is of a later event at which Simon is persuaded that Jesus is the Christ by virtue of the miraculous catch of fish. Note that in John there is no indication that he is so persuaded (although his younger brother Andrew evidently is). John does not state that they followed him at this point, although Nathanael and Philip evidently do. Note that the command “Follow me” (v43) is given to Philip, not Simon and Andrew. Moreover, the nickname Peter – which has the force of “Rocky” – is at this point as much a joke as it is a prophecy. Simon is a waverer and is called a rock in the same way that a tall man is called Shorty. Given that his older brother likely remained skeptical, it would follow that Andrew would honor his family duties and continue to work with Simon until such time as he was ready to drop everything also (Andrew not having heard the teaching on this yet).

11. In John 1:46, it is put on Nathanael's lips that, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Where do you think this statement against Nazareth came from?

Here’s a link - <a href="http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm" target="_blank">http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm</a> – to an Israeli travel agency of all things, which gives a good perspective on this. Note that the implication is not that Nazareth is bad, but merely too small to produce anything of value.

12. In John 1:51, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." What does this mean? Was it fulfilled?

You answered this one quite adequately yourself already.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Berean ]</p>

Vorkosigan

However, I would say that the evangelists would have been very clear that they were not writing histories as such; their purposes were self-evidently different. However, that does not imply in any way that they were not attempting to present as a factual an account as possible (e.g. Luke's claim to be assembling an orderly account).

You are correct. That alone would not mean they were not attempting to be factual. It is that plus all the other things in my by-no-means-exhaustive list that demonstrates the evangelists were not much interested in facts. Further, even if they were much interested in facts, there is currently no way to know if they got hold of any.

The matter is thus largely irrelevant unless there are contradictory accounts that can be deemed more credible.

This is an evasion. To what extent the gospels contain history is an important question whether or not independent accounts contradict them. In any case, independent accounts do contradict them, as we were just discussing re Josephus' account of JBap.

Moreover, Vorkosigan does not make it clear that he is presenting a list of criteria extant in the ANE for the writing of histories (if so, Josephus would seem to fail on quite a few points) or applying modern criteria.

Niether. I am presenting a list that shows that the evangelists were uninterested in getting their facts right, and that the gospels as a result probably contain little, if any, real history of Jesus. At no time do they behave like an ancient historian engaged in doing just that. Can you imagine any of them making a trip to an obscure altar to verify an inscription about Hannibal, like Polybius did?

No, they are thoroughly unsound. Both are obviously Gnostic and as a result do considerable violence to the text in order to make it fit their arcane theological/cosmological system.

Hmmm. Now here is definitely a case of the pot....

Ptolemy starts with a colossal blunder – he appears to imply that “only-begotten” implies an “engendering” by God, which misunderstanding of course reached its peak with Arius (but survives today among such groups as the Mormons). Although the word monogenes is complex, it implies no such thing.

When two arcane theological/cosmological systems clash...."only begotten" would appear to imply an engendering; the word appears also in Josephus, I think, where Izates is the "only begotten" son of Queen Helen. I seem to recall Isaac being the only begotten of Abraham too. In any case lots of ancients saw it as meaning an engendering, and Jesus definitely having a beginning in time. Except in this one case, the meaning of "begotten" is always considered to contain an engendering.

Really, though, it is irrelevant, except to the people who got killed for picking the wrong side on this one.

The.... and ultimately dispensable, which idea to a large extent continues today in Western thought.

A good point.

This issue alone should demonstrate the fallacy of the claim that Gnosticism is the true Christianity: Christianity is at its base a Jewish religion and Gnostic ideas are squarely at odds with historic Jewish theological thought.

"True Christianity" is a value; one could identify the Gnostics with True Christianity, or the Marcionites, or the Ebionites, or whoever. This is, in any case, an aside and not relevant.

Obviously, from my answer above, not Gnosticism....However, John quickly moves away from both traditions, saying that the Word became flesh (v14), which was blasphemous to the Jews and simply unthinkable to the Greeks. Evidently, John is saying something radically new here and is not afraid to give offense.

What exactly is unthinkable to the Greeks here? A god becoming flesh? Above you argued that "True Christianity" was Jewish in origin, you seem now to be veering away from that position. Do you reject John's claim that the Word was made flesh because it was blasphemous to the Jews?

One might more easily ask why there is no infancy narrative in Mark.

Yes, but we're discussing John 1.

Indeed, given the obvious intent to form a high Christology from the outset and the early description of a link between John the Baptist and Christ, the interpolation of an infancy narrative would have forced an ungainly chiasmus.

It doesn't seem ungainly when Luke does it; she carried it off rather well, I thought. There's nothing inherently ungainly about that particular chiasmus. I think this is rather weak. If you want to argue from aesthetics, perhaps John eliminated it because it would have seemed an ungainly swoop to have a caterwauling, diaper-wearing dingus juxtaposed with the lofty philosophy of the prologue.

4. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God." Does this contradict the Hebrew Sciptures?

... but check <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/visiblegod.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/visiblegod.html</a> for a decent semi-quickie explanation from an apologist who is not too popular around here.

He's actually quite popular; he always amuses us.

So, if we were to amplify the passage, we might render it so: “John the Baptist made it clear, he didn’t just deny it, but made it very clear…”

The issue is the necessity of the rhetorical overkill. It reeks of too much protestation.

Moreover, on a merely pragmatic level, considering that the claim the Baptist is denying is a capital crime, I don’t think he could really overdo the protesting, could he?

Was claiming to be the Messiah a capital crime? I have heard both ways.

However, he has very early in his account explained that John comes “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk 1:17). This gives rise to several conclusions: i) that John is not Elijah personally returned from the heavens; ii) John is of an order with Elijah; iii) John has a similar mission to Elijah’s; iv) John has the same authority as Elijah. This sheds light on Christ’s statement in Matthew: his statement that John was the Elijah who is to come could be paraphrased as saying John was the new Elijah (as, say, George Bush might be described as the new Reagan), and, by extension, that’s all the Elijah you’re getting. This is also what Heracleon is getting at when he talks of the Baptist having Elijah’s attributes.

Why did you label this kind of thinking "pointless speculation?" It makes interesting and thought-provoking reading the way you've handled it here.

As for differing understandings: I think it is fairly clear that the synoptists were in agreement. As for John, he makes no editorial observations here (although he does plentifully elsewhere), so we have nothing directly on which to base a conclusion. However, if John as written relatively late, as is generally agreed, we then have to show that he was unfamiliar with the three existing Gospels to explain his silence on the matter, or else assume that he found nothing objectionable. Also, the Evangelist is very likely the same person as the Apostle (I think it difficult, based on Westcott's powerful argument, to show otherwise).

You mean BF Westcott from the turn of the last century? Has time stood still? John the son of Zebedee was probably dead by the time this gospel was written. In any case there are multiple and conflicting traditions on the authorship of John, as Peter's website notes, and the Gospel has been heavily redacted. Further, John 21 appears to know that the BD is dead. In any case Acts 4:13 says that John Z was illiterate. Who the BD was will probably never be resolved. Erhman states in his intro that the final redactor was a native speaker of Greek who lived outside of Palestine, although they obviously had access to sources and individuals from that area.

Do you know by sight every relative you have? I certainly don’t.

Looks like a good argument to me. Although Jesus is god, and could probably be expected to know his relatives, being omniscient and all.

Because they’re different events. The account in John is of Christ’s initial contact with Andrew and Simon. The synoptic account is of a later event at which Simon is persuaded that Jesus is the Christ by virtue of the miraculous catch of fish. Note that in John there is no indication that he is so persuaded (although his younger brother Andrew evidently is). John does not state that they followed him at this point, although Nathanael and Philip evidently do. Note that the command “Follow me” (v43) is given to Philip, not Simon and Andrew. Moreover, the nickname Peter – which has the force of “Rocky” – is at this point as much a joke as it is a prophecy. Simon is a waverer and is called a rock in the same way that a tall man is called Shorty. Given that his older brother likely remained skeptical, it would follow that Andrew would honor his family duties and continue to work with Simon until such time as he was ready to drop everything also (Andrew not having heard the teaching on this yet).

I don't think this will really fly. The timing and context of events is totally different. In Mark, JBap gets put in the slammer and then goes into Galilee and grabs two disciples. In John, Andrew is one of JBap's disciples whom Jesus poaches from JBap. In John, the events take place on the other side of the Jordan; in Mark, on the Sea of Galilee.

Thus, in your sequence, Jesus calls A&S, first encountering them as disciples of John. They follow Jesus. Somewhere along the line, even though they think he is the messiah, they abandon him to go fishing. Later, JBap is thrown in the clink, and Jesus goes off to Galilee to preach -- obviously he's been going back and forth in your view, since both Mark and John imply that he went from Bethany to Galilee, so you need several trips (unmentioned in the gospels). After JBap gets thrown in the clink, Andrew and Simon are peacefully fishing, totally forgetting about the Messiah whom they identified recently, when Jesus shows up and says "Let's go!"

Don't think that really makes sense. I'll have to go with the contradiction on this one.

Vorkosigan