spin

The Significance of John [Editor’s title]

By Dale Adams

[T2]Abstract The Gospel of John was written by such a complicated process that only ancient texts first printed in 1966 enable a solution to the problem of authorship to be found. Even now, a proper understanding of its composition requires blending insights of many great scholars.[/T2]
The Gospel of John has been the leading book of the Bible for debate between Christians and non-Christians intellectuals. Critics have felt for almost two centuries that John can be considered non-factual. Nevertheless, many of these same philosophers have honored John for its style, its high-flown theology, and its Hellenization of the gospel. Hegelian pantheism under such critics as David Strauss (Leben Jesu, 1835) and F. C. Baur placed John into a Hegelian synthesis as the Antithesis to Hebrew Christianity. Many radical theologians have followed them in recognizing philosophic and history-moving value in John even though regarding it as a myth written more than a century after the Crucifixion of Jesus.

A larger number of unbelievers have focused on John as a prime disproof of Christianity. They have rightly pointed out that it contrasts sharply with the three Synoptic Gospels. They have reasoned that John must be spurious, thus disproving the Bible at its core, the life of Jesus. Partially agreeing with them, Liberal Christianity has avidly dismissed John as unworthy of a God, and has rebuilt tis theology on the Synoptic Gospels. One of these was Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), the greatest Bible scholar since Origen. Later in life, however, Harnack acknowledged that John was not so Greek as he thought. Later still, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 opened the possibility that John was of Palestinian origin and written very early. “The Three Sources and Five Editions of John” [author’s title] carries this trend to an extreme, but without giving in to the cruel God of Christian Fundamentalism. Indeed, that such exacting scholarship is required to ascertain the truth, paradoxically leads us back to a justification of Harnack against all his conservative (and radical) enemies, and it gives a view of a God that Harnack would have been happy to revere.

Read for content, the Gospel of John may be indeed the “seamless robe” David Strauss believed it to be. To reach its present state, however, John was composed in a complex tangle of rearrangements, combinations of various sources, and additions by several editors. This paper presents the sources and order of the composition of John. The usual analysis of the literature and presentation for the proofs for such a large project requires a book, which is to come. The results and basic argumentation of the research which went into this book are given here, with only such proofs and references to scholars as seem necessary.

The starting point for intensive study is a controversial point. Most current researchers choose to analyze the narratives for a Signs Source. There certainly is a logical starting point in the narratives in the Synoptic overlap sections. Beyond this, however, there is no reason to think that the other narratives are the earliest or next earliest strata.

To the contrary, the narratives can easily be set aside for later study as less likely to be extremely early. Had the non-Synoptic narratives been as early as the Synoptic passages, they would presumably have been popular and included in the Synoptics. The best reason, if early, for exclusion would have been that they were written in Aramaic. However, the Aramaisms in John are in the discourses. Even the Synoptic sections can be held to be necessarily later than 44 A. D. (The Ur-Marcus theory finds Aramaisms in Acts through Act 15. The gospel material would not have been written before Peter went to John Mark’s house in 44 A. D., Acts 12:12.) Let us therefore begin with the discourses, which could theoretically be earlier. [2011 Note: with John Mark instead as the author of the Passion Narrative, that portion could have been written even before 44 A. D.]

I. Analysis of the Discourses
[hr=1]100[/hr]

Why would the discourses not have been included In the Synoptics, if early? (1) They might have been unknown until later. (2) They might have been in Aramaic, difficult to work with. (3) They might have been unpopular. Indeed, all three of these reasons seem likely.

(1) The discourses may have been unknown to the Synoptic writers. The only reason to think that an apostle wrote the discourses is that the Farewell Discourse is set at the Last Supper, where only apostles are stated to have been present. However, cooks, servers, and even scribes could well have been present without specific mention. Besides, some critics believe that the “beloved disciple” was not an apostle; John Mark, John the Elder, or Lazarus being suggested variously. (Cullman, p. 76-77, 117)
(2) The discourses were originally written in Aramaic, according to the Aramaic scholars. Those who flatly deny written Aramaic discourse of any type are specialists in Greek. There is obviously bias on both sides, but the evidence of Aramaisms requires special pleading to attribute merely Aramaic thought-patterns. The most respected critic on the subject, Matthew Black, finds at least some discourse to be from an Aramaic original.(Black, p. 273). It is thus arguable that all the Johannine discourses were in Aramaic, but that some were retouched into smoother Greek when integrated with surrounding narrative.

[proceeding to first of the two sections of text deleted by the editor,]

(3) All the discourses are heady, and the dialogues with the Jews are outright polemical. Every reason existed to suppress the public discourses. The Farewell Discourse may have been regarded as private instruction unsuitable for general release until later.

Passing from the defensive to the offensive, what reasons argue for an absolutely early date for the discourses, rather than just a relatively early date as against the narratives? The same three reasons above argue for an early date in absolute terms.
(1) The discourses would easily have remained unknown if not by an apostle. To be included later, even though not by an apostle, would likely mean that some special value became recognized in them precisely because of early date. The discourses never record apostles as involved or even present in John 14. The discourses are set largely in Jerusalem, whereas Jesus’s ministry with his apostles is shown in the Synoptics to have been in Galilee. None of the apostles were natives of Jerusalem, and all traveled widely with Jesus throughout Palestine. The discourses thus were likely written by a non-apostle, at an early enough date to be later respected.
(2) John is now largely recognized as quite Aramaic, confirming Lightfoot’s evaluation over a century ago that John is the most Hebraic of the gospels. (Temple, p. 5) The most compelling reason for the discourses alone to be the most Aramaic section would be that the writer was writing from dictation. Even a native Greek speaker would prefer to write in Aramaic if acting as scribe. There is reason to believe that a Greek speaker wrote the discourses (see next paragraph and following), which he would have written in Aramaic only as a first-hand recorder.
(3) The controversial sting of the discourses preceding John 14 is not to be expected from a Christian presenting Jesus to the world in the best light. Nor would the later recollections of an anti-Christian be acceptable for inclusion in a gospel. The thrust of the case is that the dialogues must have been written at the scene (or shortly afterwards) by a non-Christian or pre-Christian, more likely the latter. The name provided for us is Nicodemus, a Greek name.

Nicodemus as author of the Johannine discourses makes good sense. His name occurs at John 3:1; 7:50; and 19:39. He was highly educated and a leader, well qualified to understand enough of Jesus’s theology to be able to record it well. He was not a committed follower, of Jesus, thus could record mere excerpts of Jesus’s public discourses which were most discreditable to Jesus (John 5:10 to 10:38). Only in John 3 is a more balanced, yet uncomprehending discourse presented. Yet all these different manners of recording fit around the person of Nicodemus. (1) In John 3 the visit by Nicodemus was a simple inquirer. (2) As of John 7:52 Nicodemus was given a charge to prove for himself that Jesus was not a prophet. This would explain the abrasive view of Jesus which is presented in John 5 and 7 to 10:21, all of which occurred at that same feast of Tabernacles. Nicodemus there recorded only criticisms of Jesus or Jesus’s least acceptable utterances.

[Somehow the following fits in here according to this.]
(3)After the voice from heaven glorifying Jesus as of John 12:28, Nicodemus recorded the full theology of Jesus from a believer’s point of view. He must have been a Christian at that time, at least, to be present at the Last Supper to record the Farewell discourse, John 14-17.
It follows necessarily from the foregoing analysis of Nicodemus’s changing perspective, that the discourses were written simultaneously with the speeches, or not long afterwards. John 3 must have been written before John 5, 7-10 occurred. I therefore go even farther in some parts than the startling thesis of Vacher Burch that John was written shortly after the Crucifixion. (Howard, p. 62) I hold that all the discourse portions were written before the Crucifixion.
I have not mentioned the Prologue and John 6. The Prologue was certainly the last discourse portion written, necessarily after the Crucifixion. Much has been made of its stylistic contrasts with the discourses of Jesus. I emphasize the stylistic similarities, regarding the differences as the author’s choice of worlds in contrast to his literal rendering of Jesus’s words.
The Eucharistic Discourse in John 6 is a more complex matter. It somewhat fits the general rule for John 5-10 that unpalatable statements of Jesus are included. However, a fuller picture of the related theology is presented. Where does John 6 fit into the overall context of the discourses?
That John 6 should precede John 5 used to be almost a canon of scholarship. Little weight is placed upon this arrangement today. However, the earlier critics were correct. John 5:47 flows into John 7:11 as if nothing had intervened. The latter section through John 10:21 is the Feast of Tabernacles. Sydney Temple, an expert on chronological matters, recognizes John as also a Feast of Tabernacles. Paradoxically, however, Temple regards John 5 as Tabernacles a year before. (Temple, p. 32) If John 5 is also Tabernacles and fits perfectly with John 7, then John 6 can reasonably be regarded as preceding John 5 or following John 10:21 or 10:40. The older critical choice of switching John 5 & 6 is satisfactory. (Howard, p. 264) With John 6 rearranged to follow John 3 without intervening discourse, it blends the more neutral presentation of Nicodemus’s visit with the abrasive excerpt from the Tabernacles Discourse of John 5; 7-10.


II. Separation of Narrative Strands
[hr=1]100[/hr]

A tendency has arisen to regard to regard the narratives in John as all of one piece through John 12, or even through the Passion Narrative (except for editorial additions). Fortna’s Gospel of Signs has even gone so far as to include the Resurrection appearance in John 21 within the source. (Fortna, p. 87-98, 237) Only marginal attempts have been made to find sources within the source. Nevertheless, such sub-sources can easily be identified.
The Synoptic materials within John are certainly a sub-source. Older scholarship regarded these passages as direct borrowing from the Synoptics in their final form. This borrowing actually was from sources underlying the Synoptics, because there is too little word-for-word agreement. The Johannine Synoptic passages exemplify perfectly the style of the source found by Fortna and confirmed by Freed. (Freed, p. 567) Therefore, the Synoptic overlap is a source within a source. We will see later that two sources are involved.

Few scholars have suggested any further sources-within-the-source. Several acknowledge the possibility, but they despair of any way of differentiating it. However, Temple has confidently identified numerous small sub-sources. Let us explore Temple’s insights.
Temple finds that the prime starting point for a Signs Source is actually a separate sub-source. The only two numbered signs in John are called the Cana-Source by Temple. He stops with identifying John 2:1-11 and 4:46-54 as the Cana-Source. (Temple, p. 37, 43, 90, 120) Why stop there, however? Most scholars continue on to develop a complete Signs Source of seven signs.

Several scholars of the 1970’s have presented research which, put together, leads to firm conclusions. From Temple let us turn to Nicol, then to Freed, then to von Wahlde.
Nicol has carried on the stylistic research of Ruckstuhl, Schweizer, and his opponents, such as Fortna. Nicol studied the relative proportion of Johannine stylistic characteristics in various passages. The specific passages which are stylistically neutral (Synoptic style, we might say) include Temples’s Cana-Source. The additional passages with phenomenally low (1.0 or less) Johannine style include John 1:35-51;4:1-9, 16-19, 27-30, 40, 43-45; 5:1-9; 6:16-25; 9:1-2, 6-7; 11:1-6, 11-17, 33-44;12:1-8, 12-15. (Nicol, p. 25-26) Subtracting the Synoptic section (6:16-25) included herein, the expanded tentative Cana-Source becomes almost a full Signs Source.

Freed’s criticism of Fortna’s Gospel of Signs confirms the above. Freed discovered that the signs Source used rare words not found elsewhere in the Bible. Starting with these hapax legomena found in the Cana-Source, antlein leads into John 4 (though not to just the verses picked by Nicol); John 2:8, 9; 4:7, 11, 15. Likewise, hydria links them: John 2:6, 7; 4:28. John 5 and 9 are linked by kolymbethra: 5:7; 9:7. Other rare words occurring twice are krithinos (6:9, 13), epichriein (9:6, 11), and litra (12:3, 19:39). Other rare words occur only once in the Bible in this proposed source at John 2:6; 4:9, 35, 52; 5:2, 13; 9:1, 6, 8; 11:11, 13, 35, 39(2), 44. Twenty-one out of Freed’s 73 rare words occur in a proposed strand (much smaller than Fortna’s source) barely 10% of the entire gospel. (Freed, p. 570-72) Careful study of Freed’s table compared with Nicol’s dictates slight modification of the Signs Source at this point, however.

What of the remainder of narrative usually included by critics in the Signs Source? Perhaps more mixture of Johannine editing exists in these sections. Is there a style which characterizes specifically the Source narrative which is not in the Signs Source?
Urban von Wahlde provides the key for identifying “Source” narrative outside the Signs Source. He separates “earlier” “P-Material” from ”J-material,” based upon the use of the words “Pharisee” or “Jew”. Von Wahlde’s results do not coincide with Fortna’s. The term “Pharisee,” if recovering a source, distinguishes a source separate from the Signs Source. None of the Nicol Source passages contain the word “Pharisees.” Nevertheless, there is overlap with Fortna’s Signs Gospel. The P-Material extends, however, into the discourse sections. The parts of the discourse chapters where “Pharisee” occurs are not in the discourses proper. Whereas Jesus is quoted in these chapters saying “Jews” quite often, he never says “Pharisee.” This accompanying narrative to the discourses is identified by Howard Teeple as being in the Source to be recognized. (Teeple, Ch. 12) Von Wahlde and Teeple are basically compatible. Putting their work together, we obtain a narrative “source” which is interwoven with discourses and with Nicol’s Signs Source narrative. But if the Signs Source is removed from Teeple’s and von Wahlde’s larger suggested Source, the remainder [exclusive of the Passion Narrative] looks like the work of an editor. Not to pre-judge the case, let us call it the “P-Strand.”

What are the “P-Strand” sections and what is their nature? The world “Pharisee” occurs first at John 1:24, and it recurs at 3:1 and 4:1, but in the latter more as editorial introductions. “Pharisee” comes into intense use in John 7, and then again in small parts of John 9, 11, and 12. The word ochlos for “crowd” or “people” is often associated, though also coming from source dialogues not included below. A preliminary rendering of the “P-Strand” is thus John 1:19-31; 3:1a; 4:1a; 7:25-27, 31-32, 43-49; 8:13a; 9:1, 13-16, 24-28, 40a, 11:46-50, 55-57; 12:12, 17-22, 42-43. (Von Wahlde discourages attempts to differentiate P-Material beyond John 18:15.) Other than John 1, this is obviously the work of an editor.

The P-Strand per above apparently includes the names Andrew and Philip at John 12:20-22 repetitively. The word use in these verses is strikingly similar, however, to the pattern of John 4:11, 31, 33, 40, 42, 47b; 11:21. These verses more readily identify with the Signs Source. Let us remove these verses from the P-Strand and explore whether the names Andrew and Philip can be related to the Signs Source.

[2011 note: To go against von Wahlde’s advice and going beyond John 18:5 and my article as published in 1988, additional P-Strand verses might include 20:3-5, 8, 11b-14a, 22-23, and 26-27. But as I hold that John Mark wrote both the P-Strand and the Synoptic Source, these verses might have already been included earlier. Both Matthew and Mark diverge from the underlying “Petrine” source, so only Luke is available for a good comparison and may have omitted some of these verses.]

The names Andrew and Philip can be tied to the Signs Source better than the P-Strand [can be]. The names occur repeatedly in John 1:40-48. Nicol definitely identifies this as Source. These names occur again at John 6:5-8. Nicol may consider these verses as Source, also. However, Nicol’s’ hesitation at specifying all of John 6:1-15 as Source is due to later insertions of Johannine material which I admit include the names themselves. My understanding of the Signs Source is that it specified Andrew and Philip, but rarely gave their names. The text as originally written said things like “two of his disciples,” one of the two,” and “this one,” as still found in our text at John 1:35, 37, 40, and 41.

The places where names were inserted later can be recognized by the absence of the Greek article before the names. In contrast, the styles of both the Signs and P-Strand sections include using the article before most names.
The terminology requires redefinition at this point Nicol called “Source” and other authors called “Signs Source” what we now are beginning to see was actually the additions by the first editor style, which I call Signs-style, is so well-preserved because it was not complied by an editor who added his Johannine style to everything. These editions are best called simply the “Signs.” In contrast, the Second Edition of John 1 call the P-Edition. It added the P-Strand and the larger part of the Synoptics passages within John.

These first two editions of John can be differentiated from one another by style and content, but for practical purposes can be treated as one process. For these two editions conclusive proof cannot be given that one preceded the other, or what is the exact relationship. What seems to have occurred is a teamwork of author and scribe. The sources employed were written by the scribe, and he added final editorial touches of his own. However, the new stories added (the Signs) were done by the author (or his personal scribe) in his own style. To explain it all in detail is best reserved for a separate study.

The source pieces seem to have been brought together in a double process of editing. For our purposes now and probably for as much as we can know anyway, this can all be treated as one operation. All the Discourses and all the Synoptic passages in John were brought in as sources during this editing. The miracle stories called Signs were not from a source, but were additions basic to this editing itself. They are free from Johannine style, so we can know that an editor added them—they did not acquire the mild Johannine characteristics notable in whatever the co-editor touched. The co-editor brought in his Discourses, the Passion Narrative, and various inserts about the Pharisees.

The result of the process (the combined First Edition and Second Edition of John) was most of our Gospel of John. We might call this the Signs-Discourse Gospel, conceptually similar to the Narrative-Discourse Source developed by Temple (the main part of the “Core” of his book, the Core of the Fourth Gospel). It could be called the Primary Edition. To use the shortest and to express its similarity to Temple’s concepts, I will call it the “Core Gospel.”

The Core Gospel began with the full Prologue except for John 1:17. The Prologue was simply theology by Nicodemus after he had written the Discourses from dictation. The somewhat different word use in the Prologue is because they are Nicodemus’ words, not Jesus’. The rest of Chapter 1 was also largely in the Core Gospel. The word “Pharisee” first occurs at John 1:24, and the section through 1:31 seems to be P-Strand. The Call of the Disciples which follows is from the Signs, except that the repetitions of names were added later. Indeed, the name Andrew probably did not appear in the text, which is an argument for Andrew as author of the Core Gospel.

I have tried revising {the paper here}, but only come to mildly different conclusions that may be less valid than the original, so I'll leave off with just a few [brackets] for new insertions and {ellipses} for what I would now prefer not be stated.

The Core Gospel continued right through chapter after chapter. The components are often difficult to identify. The first miracle story, the Wedding at Cana, is easy to identify as from Signs, however, because of its non-Johannine style. The cleansing of the Temple, John 2:13-21, is from the Synoptics. Along with the Following Chapter 3, it is in [mild] Johannine style. John 3 is from the Discourses, however. [The Discourses seem to have been translated into Greek with the mild Johannine style also found in a later edition of John.]

Chapter 4 returns to Signs style, but contains several small chunks from the Discourses, in Johannine style. Careful analysis of the particular Johannine characteristics here reveal that the P-Strand characteristics usually present in the Discourse are absent in 4:31-38. Evidently the Signs editor obtained these quotations directly from the Discourses. The larger public Discourses sections have been mediated through the P-Strand editor. The text available to both was Greek, the common Johannine style proves, but the P-Strand editor extensively rewrote the large Discourses.

Regardless of the above surprise about John 4:31-38, the other Discourses quotation does show P-Strand characteristics. Verses 20-24 exhibit the typical blend of Nicol’s criteria which appear in the larger Discourses. Now these verses are clearly an insertion into the story of the Woman at the Well, a disparagement of Samaritan theology. The P-Strand editor was able to work upon the Signs after they were finished.

The Discourses in John 4:31-38 which are not in P-Strand style were added when Signs was written. The perhaps most characteristic Signs word is used to introduce this section, the word “rabbi,” is used at John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; and 11:8. It is used with passages simply from Signs, simply from the Discourses, or most characteristically at point of transition from one to the other. The use of the word “rabbi” is strong evidence the Signs passages were the work of an editor, rather than Signs being a source.

The Signs editor did not merely bring Discourses material into his Signs. He also brought Signs stories into the Discourses. John 5 and 9 are the examples of this phenomenon. The Discourses must originally have had some explanation of the miracles which occurred. Nicodemus may have written something on this order; “A man came to us claiming to have been healed of paralysis by Jesus.” The present John 5:5-9, 16-17, was substituted, probably by someone who, unlike Nicodemus, had seen the healing. In Chapter 9 the new verses substituted were verses 1-2, 6-7, 14, 16b, and 18-19. [continued...]

spin

... The rest of John 5 is almost all from the Discourses. The rest of John 9, however, includes significant sections from the co-edited P-Strand. John 9:13-16 (and 40a) includes the word “Pharisee,” and 24-28 in similar [mild] Johannine style seems to continue the same insertion.

The reader may have noted a paradox. Whereas in John 4 the Signs editor used Discourses directly without P-Strand mediation, in John 5 he inserts his story into P-Strand rewritten Discourses. It cannot be that the P-Strand editor incorporated the Signs into his own book, because he always re-styled everything he rewrote. P-Strand must here have preceded the Signs. Signs and P-Strand do not have a simple First and Second Edition relationship. They were concurrent. The Signs writer who incorporated John 4:31-38 Discourses evidently decided to commission the P-Strand writer to write down for him the rest of the Discourses he wanted to use. Then he inserted his own Signs where appropriate. Later, the P-Strand writer got his chance to add his own material and whatever Discourses had not already been worked in.

The Discourses in John show intractable textual difficulties. The reason may be that after the P-Strand writer rewrote them {for use by the Signs editor}, some later scribe went back to the original as the basis for much of his copy of those chapters.
From John 5, the thrust of the text skips to John 7:11. Chapter 5 concluded with almost 40 verses from the Discourses. The Discourses continue almost without interruption. Insertions of the world “Pharisee” identify John 7:31-32, 43-49; and 8:13 as P-Strand, as also is probably the case with 7:25-27. Chapter 9 has the insertions described in the previous paragraph, but John 10 is almost entirely Discourses.

John 11 is quite complex. Some verses from the Discourses are embedded by the Signs editor; verses 9b-10 are prefaced by “rabbi” in verse 7. The basic story is from Signs; John 11:1a, 3, 6-8a, 13, 20-25, 35-36, 38b-39a, and 41-45. This Raising of Lazarus is followed by the consequence that the high priests plot to kill Jesus; from the P-Strand comes John 11:46-50, 56. Here is evidence that the P-Strand is later than the Signs, because the Signs story is presupposed. It is true that this section is necessarily later, but the Signs may nevertheless be later than the underlying materials apparently prepared for Signs by the P-“Strand editor. The other verses in Chapter 11 are from later editions.

John 6 is out of order in the present text. It possibly belongs after 10:19 or even 10:21, but the common agreement is that it belongs before John 5. The result is a simple chronological progression; an April Feast of Passover, John 6, an October Feast of Tabernacles in John 5; 7-10:21, and a December Feast of Dedication in John 10:22-39. The narrative in John 6 is largely Synoptic, yet the style is less Johannine than the main Synoptic passages in John (2:13-25; Ch. 18, 19, 20). The Feeding of the 5000 in 6:1-25 is thus either from a different source (presumably the [scribe of Ur-Marcus]) or was incorporated into John by the Signs editor, not the P-Strand editor, or both (my position). The names Andrew and Philip are inserted into the Synoptic story, again indicating Signs. The name Andrew was apparently only hinted in the text, anonymity being dropped at verse 8 the next edition of John. (Once again, this points to Andrew as author of Signs.) The characteristic Signs word “rabbi” precedes at verse 25 the Discourses section which runs from John 6:26-53, 58, 63. Signs resumes at 7:66-67, 70-71.

John 12 parallels John 6 in having a Signs-style Synoptic story preceding a major public discourse by Jesus. Nowhere else in John is a public discourse at one occasion almost a chapter long, but no longer. John 12:1-8, 12-15 is low in Johannine style; about half is from the [Ur-Marcus] used by the Signs editor. The P-Strand also appears at verses 12, 17-19. The names Andrew and Philip identify the next three verses as from Signs, however. (For the only time in John the name Andrew is preceded by the Greek article, indicating that the name stood in the text of this edition rather than having been inserted by a later editor. However, if the Signs preceded P-Strand, the P-Strand editor could have added the name. Most likely, the name Andrew was substituted for a noun which was preceded by the article.) John 12:42-43 is P-Strand.

The Farewell Discourse in its entirety was brought in during this Core Gospel editing, as were all the Discourses. John 13 was not yet included.
The Passion Narrative was largely included within the Core Gospel of John. This came from translation of an underlying source, Aramaic Ur-Marcus.{#57}

The Resurrection stories have been variously accepted or rejected as simple continuations of the Passion Narrative. A core is similar to the Synoptics, but the stories flesh out in divergence from the Synoptics. Much of the divergent material can and should be held to be from the Core Gospel, however. The style largely corresponds with the source as variously developed by the source critics. This basically traces to the “other disciple” who ran with Peter to the tomb in John 20:2-10. This disciple was not the beloved disciple, that notation in John 2):2 being most likely a later gloss (phileo is used instead of agapeo). He could not have been Peter or Thomas, both named in this chapter. His anonymity implies his participation in the production of John. His intimacy with Peter suggests a fellow apostle or close associate. Many scholars believe that the home in Bethany where Jesus and his followers stayed belonged to John Mark’s family. I believe that John Mark was this “other disciple” at the tomb. The verses he contributed in the P-Strand were probably 20:2b-8, 11b-14, 26-27, and 30. [Or some or all of these could have been already there from Ur-Marcus.]

The primary edition of John (the Core Gospel which resulted from the Signs and P-Strand additions to the Synoptic and Discourses sources) contains so much of John that the question arises as to whether the rest of John can also be encompassed within it. I acknowledge that the general style of the remainder of John is not very different from the larger part of the Core Gospel, except for the Signs. It is this similarity which has misled scholars to view the Signs as a source which was incorporated unchanged in to whole of otherwise Johannine Style. The very latest editorial insertions into John show a very Johannine style, identified in Johannine studies as from the Redactor. How to distinguish such later insertions from earlier material would seem hopeless, except for wherever the changes were made into the Signs.

Only very recently has the impasse stated above been overcome.
General style of John is similar, but detail style is radically different. The discovery of excellent papyri in Egypt has rendered older scholarship obsolete. The texts of P66 and P75 were published only in [1962]. The first challenging new use of them came in 1974 when Howard M. Teeple published The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. These two papyri (plus the fragmentary P45) together with the two best uncial manuscripts give a new exactness as to the precise letters used in John. Copyists are less careful about one letter words and about double consonant spelling than they are about more substantive matters. Nevertheless, these are very important in determining sources and editorial strands. Teeple showed by comparison of P66, P75, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that one editor of John never used the Greek article before proper nouns, whereas all the other writers did so to some degree. Very usefully, it turned out the last editor, the Redactor, always used the article, whereas the next to last main editor never used the article. Because the later changes have not been blurred by a multitude of later writings, it is the last two layers which can be identified in the most detail as compared with earlier materials. The core Gospel can be separated rather well from the later two major editions, because the stylistically similar Redactor is separated from it by a layer in-between which is very distinct from either. Further the last two major editions are both quite distinct from the Signs, which is a major section of the Core Gospel in which both later editors made insertions.{#59}

The total perspective of the process of writing John can now be stated, before going on to fill in the specifics. The Core Gospel encompasses the First and Second editions of John in which the Signs and P-Strand respectively were added. These two editions have a reciprocal relationship in which the editor of the Second editions apparently rewrote the main sources used by both, which were the Discourses and the Ur-Marcus part of the Synoptic passages. Other explanations are possible of how the Core Gospel came to be written. The Third edition never uses articles before proper nouns. It is similar in sentiment and style to the Johannine Epistles. It includes John 13 and all other references to the “beloved disciple”. Its author is John, and I call it the Beloved Disciple edition. The Fourth edition adds a Transition Strand between John as author and the fifth edition. It is not a major edition. It is identified by passages where the Sinaiticus text includes the article, but the other three main texts omit it. The Fifth edition is by the Redactor, who added many comments and clarification to prepare John for widespread circulation, most notably the final eight verses of John. I call the additions the MLM strand.

Before continuing to the analysis of the Third edition, comparison of the above with Teeple is necessary to explain that Teeple would not agree with it, yet I must acknowledge that the research underlying it is largely his. Only for the Fifth edition by the Redactor do I accept Teeple with little change. My Third edition largely corresponds to Teeple’s E (Editor) strand, less all the discourses Teeple lists therein. My Core Gospel agrees roughly with the other two main strands Teeple derived, his S and G strands, plus the portion of Teeple’s E which is Discourse.

The Beloved Disciple (BD) edition once again involves great detail work to extract its contents. Fortunately, the key to rendering it is straightforward and obvious. All the other editors of John used arthrous style (prefacing proper nouns with the article), except that the P-edition used anarthous Old Testament names. The BD edition uniformly used anarthrous names, reinforced by use of double names. There is thus a special character to the BD edition. The edition which introduces the Beloved Disciple is very tender. Loving, and constantly marked by exact, even repetitive naming of the other disciples involved.

Identifying anarthrous names does not solve all the problems, as indicated above. Any anarthrous Old Testament names could be BD edition, P-edition, or from the Discourse Source. Fortunately, the Discourse Source is different in character and not likely to be confused with the BD edition.

Detail recovery of the BD edition additions, henceforth BD strand, is tedious. A listing, too detailed for comment, follows. Basically, it agrees with the E portion of Teeple’s four way rendering, less almost all Discourse included by Teeple: John 1:17, 22-23, 40-41, 43a, 44b, 46, 48, 50; (2:23b-25); 4:10, 13-14, 44; 6:2-3, 8b, 15, 24ab, 42, 60, 65, 68a; 10:40- 41; 11:1, 8b-10, 16, 22, 33c -34, 51-53; 12:1b, 4b. 14b-16, 21a, 13:1b-9, 12-17, 21-22, 24, 30-36 ,38; 17:3; 18:1a, 2, 4-8, 10ac, 13a, 14, 25a, 26b, 30; 20:2, 6a, 10-11a, 14b-15, 18, 24-25; 21:2a, 3-6, 7b, 11, 15b-17a, 17c, 25.

Comparing my rendering above against Teeple will result innumerous discrepancies, I admit. No conflict is necessary with the many mere words or portions of verses which Teeple sorts out as from his E editor. My analysis is not precise, merely identifying verses, primarily. The larger discrepancies are real, however, because I am free to assign editorial insertions to other editors or to recognize sayings as deriving from the Discourse Source.

[I can find no linguistic proof for a P-Strand layer. P-Strand may well identify an author or person consulted, but his input was to get the scribe of the Source Gospel to include these words. There was no separate P-Strand or Second Edition, unless you want to count the Source Gospel with these few additions, still in verb-first style:
John 1: 20-21, 24-28, 35-37, 42-44; 7:40-49; 9:13-17; 11:46-50, 55, 57; 12:18-22; 20:11b-14, 16-17.

Apparently this same person remained involved when the text was turned over for E additions, in subject-first style. If so, the same key words Pharisee, prophet, and Christ were used and help identify these passages:
John 7:25-27, 31-32, 50-52; 9:27-28, 40; and 12:42, 43

Either one of the above two stages could be called the Second Edition to keep in parallel with my 1988 article as published, and again with the next stage with the great number of editorial additions as E, the Third Edition.]{#63}

[ Regarding my Posts #13 and #15 here in Significance of John, I can find no linguistic proof for a P-Strand layer. P-Strand may well identify an author or person consulted, but his input was to get the scribe of the Source Gospel to include these words. There was no separate P-Strand or Second Edition, unless you want to count the Source Gospel with these few additions, still in verb-first style:
John 1: 20-21, 24-28, 35-37, 42-44; 7:40-49; 9:13-17; 11:46-50, 55, 57; 12:18-22; 20:11b-14, 16-17.

Apparently this same person remained involved when the text was turned over for E additions, in subject-first style. If so, the same key words Pharisee, prophet, and Christ were used and help identify these passages:
John 7:25-27, 31-32, 50-52; 9:27-28, 40; and 12:42, 43

Either one of the above two stages could be called the Second Edition to keep in parallel with my 1988 article as published, and again with the next stage with the great number of editorial additions as E, the Third Edition.]

Just as the Beloved Disciple strand would require a book to comment upon, so also the next two editorial layers. I must forego most of the analysis. Here again, I must rely upon Teeple’s analysis of the Redactor R as the basis for my conclusions. Once again, Teeple is merely the starting point, however. My analysis of the textual problems has to be reserved for a book.
Cutting through all the argumentation, my position is that John the Apostle wrote the Beloved Disciple strand. {Then he turned the project over to John Mark to finish to which I assign the MLM strand. However, for a transitional period the two Johns worked together on chapters 13 and 21 and caused a flurry of textual discrepancies by working on two texts concurrently.} [Foregoing two sentences superceded. The final Redactor was not John Mark, but may have preserved some of his recollections and interpretations.]

That the Beloved Disciple strand was written by John is easy to justify, because the words, style, and themes of the Johannine epistles agree best with the BD strand. (The epistles also share some similarities with the discourses in general. The common ground is far too little to indicate that the writer of the Discourses also wrote the Epistles. Some literary influence or scribal identity is the probable explanation.) The later MLM (Martha, Lazarus, and Mary) strand is profuse with the names of Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha. John Mark was apparently this Mary’s son, and was also the “disciple known to the high priests.” (This cannot be proven, but compare John 11:1 with Acts 12:12 for this Mary as his mother. John Mark as cousin of Barnabas, a Levite, seems to have been of a priestly family. See Col. 4:10 and Acts 4:36.) John Mark has also been identified as a bishop of Alexandria, and the Neutral Text from Alexandria may trace back to him.

Before turning to John Mark’s MLM strand itself, chronological sequence heretofore followed leads us to the Transition strand. Fifty pages of textual study would be necessary to support this adequately, but any conflict between the Sinaiticus and other Neutral texts I regard as indicative of this strand. Before John stopped working on John and after John Mark started, they kept parallel copies. They added verses per oral conversation; John in anarthrous style, John Mark in his uniformly arthrous style.
The stray verses resulting from this collaboration of John and John Mark could be the following: John (1:46b; 2:24; 3:23-24; 5:14; 6:7, 43, 70a; 7:16a; 8:12a, 39b; 9:28; 10:23a-23b, 25; 11:1, 14a, 21, 40,46; ) 12:1c-2a, 3b, 7, 12b, 22a; 13:10a, 23c, 26a, 27, 29a, 29b, 36b, 37; 20:16, 17,21, 8, 9; 1:1, 10, 12-14.

The addition of the above created the 4th Edition of John. The above verses in parentheses are regarded as probably chance textual irregularities. Only the concentration of “errors” in John 12, 12, 13, 20, and 2 do I regard as significant. Only in John 12 to 21 is the Sinaiticus text in these variances quite regularly in conflict with P66, P75 and Vaticanus. (Only at 11:14, 21, 40; 12:2a, 3b, 7; 13:10a, 23b, 27, 29a-29b does Sinaiticus obtain support from one of the others. P66 and P75 both have lacunae in John 20:16, 17 and 21:1, 12-14, however, so the probabilities are merely strong, not astounding.) I regard the conflicts in John 11 as due to the relatively great activity of John Mark in John 11 in the later final version.

IV. MLM Strand and Summary
[hr=1]100[/hr]


The final Redactor of John is the most tedious of all the editors to enumerate, yet of little trouble for scholarly documentation because my version largely follows Teeple’s R. Teeple distinguished the rigorously arthrous style of R and his relatively higher Greek style. To the criteria Teeple enumerated, I would assign the characteristic words “Passover.” “Feast of the Jews,” and the names forming the acronym MLM: Martha, Lazarus, and Mary.

I depart from Teeple’s R primarily in John 11. Teeple attributes about eight verses to the Redactor. As I believe John Mark to be the Redactor and that this Mary was his mother, I add a number of additional verses; John 11:4, 19, 25b-7, 39b-40. These additions do not violate Teeple’s rules except that in verse 19 I hold that even R’s rigidly arthrous style permitted him to omit the article before the second of two names linked by kai.{#77}

The MLM Strand, my revision of Teeple’s R, is as follows: John 2:23-23, (3:23-24,) 4:39; 5:2-3a, 18, 36; 6:4, 54-57, 58b-59; 7:2; 10:22; 11:2-5, 18-20a, 26-27, 30-32a, {39c-40;} 45b; 12:6, 9b-11a, 17b-18a; 13:18-19, 23a, 25a; 17:12c; [18:9;] 19:5b, 13d-14a, 17c, 20, 24b, 28b, 31-37, 42a; 20:9; 21:2c, 7a, 15, 17b, 18-24.

I do not hold to precision in this delineation, because the P-Strand and MLM Strand are so stylistically similar. MLM in general must follow the BD Edition, however, whereas the P-Strand must precede it, even if the same author {presumably Mark} wrote both P-Strand and MLM Strand.

(The stylistic criteria used by Nicol in his “Source-Critical Separation” table have to be given the utmost weight ((Nicol: 19-21). Quick scanning of the lists refutes any idea that the supposed uniform Johannine style was laced in everywhere by the author. That many consecutive verses are devoid of any of the 82 elements of style proves that the final editor did not rewrite everything in his style. Nor are the sections without Johannine style later additions which escaped the process; all source-critics agree that these Signs stories are very early. Indeed, I have shown that they survived four later layers of insertions without contamination of style. This non-contamination principle forces respect for all other elements of style which are present—they must be due to the writer who added the words. Clearly distinct styles exist between the Beloved Disciple Strand use of criteria 2, 62, and 76as against the Redactor’s style using 9, 10, 42, 45, 55, 65 69, 76, and 2 (but 2 much less as compared to the BDE Strand). The P-Strand has its own distinct style: 2, 10, 17, 55, 59, 66, 69, 73, and 76. (Nevertheless, the P-Strand and Redactor seem like the same writer as a less skilled and later as a more skilled Greek writer.)

Indeed, the style of R is so very Johannine that the author of R has to be the first choice as scribe of all the Core Gospel, except for the Signs. { I thus arrive at the astounding proposition that John Mark was the scribe for the early stages of both Mark and John, but also the final Redactor of both.} He was the scribe for Peter in 44 A. D. to write Aramaic Ur-Marcus. Sometime later he aided Andrew in preparing the Core Gospel in John in Greek, which included rewriting the Discourses for his use. Then he added the small passages of the P-Strand. John Mark did some work concurrently with him. { John Mark prepared the final redaction after the death of Peter and perhaps of John.}

V. Dating
[hr=1]100[/hr]


In summarizing the order of composition of John, I will also suggest dates. The dates are far earlier than traditional or radical critics allow, but many recent scholars likewise suggest dates before 70 A. D. John A. T. Robinson’s Redating the New Testament came out in 1976 to bad reviews, but the early dates [were soon] given very serious consideration, as by E. Earle Ellis in 1980 in New Testament Studies.

The Discourse Source was written by Nicodemus before the Crucifixion, about 30 A. D. It was first translated into Greek. Andrew, in adding the Signs, started to use this first translation, then had John Mark rewrite for his use. The Signs may have been written before 44 A. D. {The Signs incorporates Twelve-Source or Q, but excludes Ur-Marcus. The scribe for the Twelve-Source must have been Andrew’s scribe, because all the Signs are in Synoptic style. This was the First Edition.}

The P-Strand does include Ur-Marcus, which was written in 44 A. D. This was the Second Edition, all written by John Mark. The First and Second Editions together comprise the Core Gospel.

The Third Edition of John was the work of a wholly new author and scribe (unless the scribe was the first translator of the Discourses). The author was John the Apostle. {Before he finished, however, John Mark was again working on John, using a different copy of the manuscript.} This gave rise to the Transition Strand of textual conflicts between Sinaiticus and other texts. Lastly, [a Redactor] completed John, the Fifth Edition.

[hr=1]100[/hr]

Source Material

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.

Carson, D. A. “Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Biblical Literature. 97 (1978), 411-29.

Cullman, Oscar. The Johannine Circle. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Ellis, E. Earle. “Dating the New Testament.” New Testament Studies. 26 (1980), 487-502.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs. Cambridge: University Press, 1970.

Freed, Edwin D. and Russell B. Hunt. “Fortna’s Signs Source in John.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 94 (1975), 563-579.

Howard, Wilbert F. The Fourth Gospel in recent Criticism and Interpretations. 2nd Ed. London: Eppsworth, 1935.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 19j75.

Nicol, W. The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Parker, Pierson. “John and John Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 79 (1960), 97-109.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Sanders, J. N. “St. John on Patmos.” New Testament Studies. 9 (1962), 75-85.

Teeple, Howard V. The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Evanston Ill.: Religion and Ethics Institute, 1974.

Temple, Sydney. The Core of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Mowbray’s, 1975.

Von Wahlde, Urban C. The Terms for Religious Authorities in the Fourth: A Key to Literary Strata?” Journal of Biblical Literature. 98 (1979), 231-253.

Zimmerman, Frank. The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels. New York: KTAV, 1979.

Dale C. Adams [565 Fountain Way, Dixon CA 95620]

[Above from pg. 13. This bibliography is not complete; it includes books I found helpful for either the history of source criticism of John or for the source criticism itself, for analysis or creative insight. I omitted books that I read but found unhelpful for me. Thus Raymond Brown and Barnabas Lindars are not on the list, although in retrospect I cannot say that their views are wrong, just that they have no evidence.]{#80}

Jeffrey Gibson

Too bad. But it's not our fault that the text was corrupted. And you shouldn't expect us to be moved by that, let alone to do your work to restore what you wrote. Would you ask an editor of a journal to whom you submitted an article to reconstruct a text you sent to him that was corrupt?

I have no idea what it is you are asking me to say. What details?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Spin is correct. This is all assertion. There is little to nothing which backs up any of the (global and apodictic) claims made.

I'd be surprised if Bossman ever really said that he was going to publish it -- rather than that he would send it off to have it reviewed.

In the FWIW department, editors usually send the readers' comments to a submitter. Did you ever receive those?

In any case, if you want to see what an actual analysis of the linguistic features of John looks like, see E. Ruckstuhl, Johannine Language and Style. The Question of Their Unity , pp, 125-147 in De Jonge, M., ed. L'Èvangile de Jean: Sources, rèdaction, thèologie. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 44. Journées bibliques de Louvain 1975. Gembloux [Belgium]: J. Duculot; Leuven: University Press, 1977; repr. Leuven: University Press; Peeters, 1987.
ISBN: 2-8011-0123-0.


Jeffrey

Adam

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jeffrey. Are you saying that my article fails within itself for lack of argumentation and evidence or that the global and apodictic claims are unacceptable because outside Consensus?

I reviewed my correspondence with Bossman. BTB had assigned an issue on the gospels, and O'Grady's summary on John was chosen instead by the editorial board. There was thus no next issue in which to publish another article on John. Also worth mentioning is that he never saw the opening paragraphs preceding the third paragraph, "Read for content, the Gospel of John...David Strauss". The opening was inserted in 1988 by my editor using the cover letter I titled "The Significance of John" I used to justify publishing the paper.

Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl have the methodological fault of contrasting style in John with the rest of the New Testament. That can only identify style spread out throughout John, not what contrasts arise from disparate sources within John. It continues traditionalist Roman Catholic apologetics. Neirynck and Van Bella at University of Leuven continue with more careful scholarly questioning of sources. Such methods were handy to dispose of most early source theories (like Bultmann's), but more recent source-analysis reveals, as in my paper, Section IV, that different editors employed different sets of the basic Johannine characteristics.

Adam

You are correct. This third section header should be inserted in your Part 2 in this thread Post #162 more than half way down (two screens down) before
"The Beloved Disciple (BD) edition..."

"III. The Beloved Disciple (3rd) Edition (BD Edition) and the 4th Edition"

Thank you for all your work here.
Edited to add:
I spotted an error I made listing the 4th Edition in my Post #77 that shows up shortly before "IV" in Part 2 from spin's collection:
20:16 to 21 is correct, but not the rest:
20:16, 17,21, 28, 29; 21:1, 10, 12-14.

Adam

In the last few days I have been perusing writings by Adolf Harnack, arguably the greatest Bible scholar ever, such as Luke, the Great Physician. He presents the case for the "we" sections in Acts and a 62 CE dating with extended explanations. He dismisses any number of scholars as simply wrong. By New Atheist standards for "evidence" and proof there isn't a lot there, just common sense that it was more likely Luke as author wrote "we" wherever he was present and he would not have concluded Acts where he did without further text unless that was the date of writing.

So I guess the criticism here is not just that my presentation is 30 years out of date, but the full century since Harnack wrote. I apologize for dropping to Harnack's outdated level.

Jeffrey Gibson

Since virtually everything I've published has been "outside"/a challenge to the consensus, I hardly think that papers that are are unacceptable just because of that.

It's the former. There's no argument, let alone any use of evidence to back up your claims. Just assertion after assertion. There's no engagement with views contrary to your claims. Basically all you say is that "I like this idea, so it must be so" and "Take my word for it, this is true, and others (the actual page citations of which, I will not give) think it is, too". "So and so argues X, but he's wrong -- and why? because I say he is".

What do you mean you reviewed it? Had a look at it again?

What do you mean there was no next issue?. BTB did not cease publication in 1980. Have they never again since then published articles on John?

Please quote Bossman's exchange with you. Show us exactly what he said to you about your the worth of your paper and that he did indeed accept it for publication.

How is that a fault? If you want to get a sense of what John's style is and whether he is using sources, that's exactly one of the things one must do. And that's not all Ruckstuhl did, is it.

And when did I mention Schweizer?

Horseshit. If the style is the same as other NT documents then you can argue sources. If the style is different from that of other NT (or any other) authors but is consistent throughout John, then you have few reasons to say that there are sources, let alone disparate ones in John. You are assuming what needs to be proven. And I see no close analysis of John's style from you, let alone a demonstration of how the style of one of your alleged sources differs in any significant way from any other of your alleged sources to warrant anyone concluding not only that there are sources for John, but that you have identified them.

And yet this is exactly what you'd have to do to make your case.

That's just what it does not reveal since you give few examples of these characteristics, let alone demonstrate that they are indeed different sets of them that are found only in certain places within John, but not others.

All you do is to say there are. Why on earth should I believe you?

In any case, one wonders if your paper had been noted by Bossman as good and worth publishing, why you didn't submit it to another peer reviewed journal when he said that they weren't going to publish it after all. Too much work to bring it into another house style?

And if nothing has changed in the last 30 years with regard to source criticism, one wonders why you don't attempt to submit it again to BTB or elsewhere. You cannot use the excuse that it would be too difficult to reformat it given how easy word processing programs make this sort of task.

If you have such confidence in it, then put up or shut up -- send it to JBL or JSNT or NTS or Biblica or CBQ or EQ.


But you won't, will you. You'll find some excuse not to.

Sorry, but you continue to show me that you are not only clueless about how bad your paper is and what a good source critical argument looks like and entails, but also incapable of hearing why it is so bad, that any further correspondence with you on this matter will be a waste of my time.

Jeffrey

Toto

Forget about New Atheist standards. If you just use common sense, why would an author write a supposed history and not supply his own name - but then drop subtle hints that he was an eyewitness by using the first person plural in a few passages? If the author was an eyewitness, why not come out and claim that? If the author was writing history, why not follow the usual conventions of history and name his sources?

And even if the author intended to claim to be an eyewitness, why believe him? (or her?)

Are you familiar with Vernon K. Robbins "By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages"? You may not agree with his conclusions, but you can't really ignore them and expect to be taken seriously.

Adam

Adolf Harnack was no Fundamentalist. Or even a Christian. He did not publish what he did for apologetic purposes. Too bad we can't ask him why he wrote such drivel.

Harnack wrote with flair. What amazes me is that scholars today can write so well even though burdened with our current standards of multiple citations in multiple footnotes. (I never found it possible for me to write clearly with verve while juggling footnotes.) An excellent example is Christopher Tuckett: Q and the History of Early Christianity, 1996. In his case, at least, my admiration is lessened by how he could ignore such clear evidence that the Gospel of Thomas shows Q overlaps with the Synoptics. Maybe the secret is to be single-minded and closed to viewpoints adverse to one's own.