Sheshbazzar

gurgle gurgle...











....that's the sound of the water in the hold of this sinking ship.

arnoldo

Yours?

Sheshbazzar

This shipwreck is not my thread. Thankfully.

Adam

Turning now to my current summation of "The Significance of John" as published (and supplemented) in Cincinnatus Society Bulletin, No. 3 (May-July 1988), pg. 1-13
(posted here in FRDB as #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles), the bolded [bracketed] indicate where my thinking has been revised. Source Strata in Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is often thought to be unified in style, thus from a single author. On closer study, however, there are various sources and editors that are spread throughout the 21 chapters. Once these stylistic criteria are used to delineate strata, reasonable conclusions can be reached about who the writers were.
Critical scholars have long supposed that there is a Signs Source or Signs Gospel underlying John as its first component. In the most limited scope given to this concept, the names Andrew and Phillip stand out as closest to Jesus. This is particularly true of the narratives in the first twelve chapters of John. Critics have pointed to seven miracles or signs as the focus for identifying the messianic role of Jesus.
There is another source to be named, identifiable even though its style is similar. Though John is considerably different from the three Synoptic Gospels, there is a core of similarity. By tradition this has been attributed to John incorporating certain essential parts of narrative, particularly the Passion of Christ. However, there is not enough exact word use to come from the finished Synoptics, but more likely from a shared source. [The shared source already existed, explaining why the Signs Source stops with John 12. The Synoptics draw partly from the Signs Source, but the core is the Passion Narrative, basically John 18-20. In the process towards the formation of the Synoptics the Passion Narrative and some of the Signs Source were merged and translated into Greek. The respective authors were John Mark and Andrew. Not long afterward this text was combined with the memoirs of Peter when he came to John Mark’s home in 44 A. D. The result was Ur-Marcus.
In contrast, in the process towards John the two sources were independently translated into Greek. The translator of the Signs Source added the Passion Narrative This was the first edition of John, a Signs Gospel. Its style is close to Synoptic style, particularly for the Signs Source, less so for the Passion Narrative. The writer also had some elements of the Discourses translated for him.]
Discourses are scattered in large segments in the first 17 chapters of John. The conventional critical thought is that these are theological reflections added later. However, muddled stylistic patterns and textual difficulties show the Discourses even more likely to be from a source than are the Signs. Most interestingly there is a pattern of development in them that would be well explained by a source that was or contained notes of Jesus’s sayings even during His lifetime. The name that introduces us to this type of discourse and explicitly gives us a rationale for writing, is Nicodemus.
The style of the Discourses is unlike the above two sources that constitute the Signs Gospel. Its style is also like the narrative sections that are outside the usual stylistic markers (Synoptic) of the Signs Gospel. It shows the most signs of being translated from an Aramaic original, probably by a scribe who was involved with the Editor in the later stages of writing this gospel, thus giving the whole book a “Johannine style“.
The Discourses came into John by a complicated process. Some of the smaller pieces are merged into stories that are some of the seven signs supposed to mark the Signs Source. Thus it looks like the Signs Gospel arose in a process where the Discourses were available to draw from. At that time or in a continuing process, the larger Discourses were also added in. The hand of this editor can be seen in his trademark referral to Pharisees. These remarks are found both in Signs sections and in Discourses sections. I call this the P-Strand, an editorial layer that is distinguished by having the style of the Signs sections and the word “Pharisees” throughout. The person most in the know about high priestly officials and Pharisees would be John Mark. He would keep the style he had used in the Synoptic overlap and in the Signs, but he mostly incorporated the Discourses without obliterating its style. Nevertheless, there was enough intrusion of his style that some critics (the “hyper-critics” in my opinion) do not find even the Discourses to be from solely one writer. He or someone soon after him reworked the texts in a way that left confusion for later scribes.
Next in line comes a more intrusive Editor who left his mark almost everywhere in John. But wherever he inserted anything, if he gave a name he never used any article in front of it (technically “anarthrous”). No earlier or later strata has this characteristic, so his work can be identified in great detail. He was particularly active in John 13, the Last Supper, so he can be identified with the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple is never identified, nor does the name of John of Zebedee ever appear in this gospel, but nevertheless he seems like the best candidate for the Editor. He also wrote much that is in the last two chapters of John, the 20th and 21st chapters.
Only a theory like mine above has external evidence that can support it. Some traditions say that a John wrote this gospel, but it is too complex for such an easy answer. However, the Muratorian Canon, thought to date to about 170 A. D., tells us that Andrew had a vision that a team of apostles should write the work, and John should put it out in his own name. I have shown above the involvement of the named Andrew and John and also that they used Nicodemus’s notes and John Mark was a scribe and/or editor.

Plus here's the 5-line summary I posted in #76:

Adam

No one can say that there is no argumentation in this thread of mine. No argument on that? And still no arguments against my peer-reviewed argumentation?
You would think that in 30 years something would have come up that would undermine my presentation? I have acknowledged that there were imperfections and have tried to correct them. Putting aside my penchant for naming as too daring, what about my contribution to scholarship in identifying the intermediate P-Strand writer with his edition?

Joe Walleck likes to say this is the Big Leagues where we take nothing given without challenge. Yet here everyone bows to academia whenever it suits your purposes and ignores it when it doesn't.

So new challenge: my point from this thread is that source-criticism of the Gospel of John had a Golden Age in the 1970's from which new truths could be extracted. However, none of the major players could learn from one another, so no advances have been made in the last 30 years. None of you have been able to point to any book or scholar that undermines my thesis in Significance of John (nor my current seven eyewitness gospel records thesis in my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread). No one has gotten farther than saying you disagree. Ironically instead of citing scholars that debunk me, I've instead seen you (spin, that is) pointing out scholars that support me. Am I too far out ahead of everyone for anyone to recognize that this is the case? (After 30 years I think I have the right to ask that unthinkable question.)

Adam

Back on Dec. 4th you said it yourself, Shesh, that sources without supernaturalisms could meet your prime test for credibility. (That it might be boring does not seem relevant.) Not much later I did identify three or four of my eyewitnesses that could be shorn of supernaturalism. But you have roundly condemned on the other thread my "Gospel according to the Atheists". You're as ready to contradict yourself as to contradict me.

Adam

I see, Shesh,
That you have preferred to enter two more same-old, same-old from yourself instead of replying to my proof here of your self-contradiction.
Whichever side you take, you are still a "Fundie", but more than that--you insist that I must be a Fundamentalist or else I'm a Judas.

It's a key point that with my "Gospel according to the Atheists" I have presented three or four eyewitnesses with such straight-forward writings that they seem to prove HJ. There would seem to be no point in calling them liars, because there is nothing in them that in your world-view would have to be a lie--supernaturalism. Before I got to that point I thought that all the eyewitnesses necessarily included supernaturalism in their testimonies. If that had remained the only interpretation, then revealing them to be eyewitnesses would seem to need refutation by calling them liars. That would have preserved also viability for the MJ position.

What you seem to be insisting is that the MJ position is so important to you and your peers that you have to dismiss out-of-hand any evidence for HJ. That is, there are no eyewitnesses because there can be no eyewitnesses. Perfectly circular. This also preserves the truce that avoids calling the apostles liars. They never existed, so could not lie. If they never existed, they cannot be eyewitnesses. Neat. And circular.

Sheshbazzar

Play your one string fiddle to yourself while you sink.

Adam

And it's more than that. I came into FRDB fully prepared to acknowledge that anyone here could escape the logic of my eyewitness thesis by calling the eyewitnesses liars. Their testimony to a historical person would be pretty useless if all they were saying was lies or impeachable as lies.

But now I have presented three or four of my eyewitnesses with ordinary presentations that do not necessarily (from Atheist presuppositions) have to be lies. Thus we have HJ and a sound disproof of MJ. From my standpoint it is to the good that my eyewitness thesis has to be considered on its merits (including your presuppositions that mean the last three or four have to be liars or ridiculously credulous). From my standpoint it's not so good that establishing any eyewitnesses to Jesus does not now necessarily mean presumptive refutation of Atheist premises. (How I can accept non-supernatural eyewitnesses and yet affirm the supernatural I have not explained here, but it's just a matter of widening circles of knowledge.)

Sheshbazzar

Ahoy mates! Adam is getting really desperate, rather than addressing the points that are being made in other threads, Bad boy, he's attempting to get away with importing selected parts of them over to this sinking ship of a thread to obscure both context and content.
Be expecting you back on board "Gospel Eyewitnesses" to continue our discussion Adam.








.