Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The sort of primitive redaction criticism engaged in by the OP, consisting of simply comparing gospels, is popular with internet forum scholars. It bears the same relationship to actual redaction criticism, and actual biblical scholarship, as checkers bears to chess.
The Gospel of John has always been highly problematical. Its highfalutin theology and high Christology are impossible to assign to anything other than a late date. Hence the predominate view that it is the last gospel, considerably later than the Synoptics.
And yet, we have its internal claims to be the work of an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry and the early tradition that the author, or at least the source, was the apostle John. Parts, as renowned scholar Richard Bauckham has shown, definitely seem to have their origin in eyewitness testimony.
Hence some noted scholars, such as John A. T. Robinson and Raymond Brown, have argued that John is in fact the earliest gospel. But then we bump up against the high theology that is clearly late and surely far above the intellectual capacity of the apostle.
By far the most compelling theory I have encountered is that there was indeed an early version of John that did predate the four gospels we now have. The theory is that this early version contained material that was controversial and even unacceptable to the later church. Hence, it was reworked into the gospel we have today, both to eliminate the unacceptable portions and to address some of the heresies prevalent at the time of the reworking.
Some scholars believe the remnants of the early version and the later additions can be identified on literally a verse-by-verse basis. See http://www.historical-jesus.com/ur-john-text.html. (I don't agree with everything Powell says, but his work on John is fantastic and has been received favorably by academics, which is almost unheard-of for a layman in the insular world of NT scholarship.)
I find this approach compelling and believe it provides the answer to why John seems to be both "very early" and "very late." The answer is: It's both.
Yes..here. No point on arguing Gospel problems to the converted.
The problem is that John appears to be Two different writers. It isn't surprising. The John redactor says that he has an eyewitness and we can trust his word. Some supposed that he was speaking of himself, but it really doesn't look like that.
When I first did a 'reconciliation' of the gospels - to see what they all agreed on after serious contradictions were tossed out without trying to explain them, it was surprising how well was John fitting in with the synoptics (which, let me say at the outset, is One Single source - edited as 3 gospels three times, at least and probably four times) but at the same time rather shocking at how much was missing.
The baptism scene, aside from the differences. the arrival in Galilee - and the healing at a distance , even though there are serious differences, is surely the same event in the 3 versions (Matthew, Luke and John).
And then....nothing, until Jesus sails to Bethsaida for the feeding of 5,000 and the recognition of the messianic mission, and it can't be too often said, that there is no transfiguration in John at this point. It seems that he has never heard of it.
But for similarities, he sets out for Jerusalem (and it has to be for the last time, even though it's at Tabernacles, not Passover as the synoptics have it) and after a lot of stuff not found in the synoptics, Jesus arrives in Peraea (John 10 40), as do the synoptics - though from Galilee not via Jerusalem.
Thereafter John pretty much follows Holy Week (now stretched out to Passover because heaven forbid the events should happen during Sukkhot) aside from not having blind Bartimaeus healed at Jericho but having the raising of Lazarus on arrival at Bethany. There is also an overnight stay at the house of Lazarus and collecting the donkey in the morning, as contrasted with this being done as soon as Jesus arrives from Jericho as in the synoptics.
Apart from having to bring back the temple cleansing from before the baptism the synoptics and John tell the same story, more or less.
So the baptism, (possible healing at a distance) feeding of the 5,000 and holy week, are pretty much in line.
But look at what has been left out. all the teachings and wrangles in Galilee. All those healings. All the parables - every one.
And for John, all those wrangles with the crowds of Jews and all the sermons Jesus delivers.
Come on it isn't too hard to see a basic story that the synoptics and John use (and 'Use' is the word and no mistake ) with John writing his own material. There's an interesting clue here, by the way at John 9 where Jesus heals a blind man - a beggar, note (9.8), who subsequently gets questioned about this by the pharisees, and the 'beggar' talks back to them like a Greek lawyer on the Areopagus. John has forgotten his character and is arguing for himself. Incidentally, I suspect that this might be the 'Bar -Timaeus' story but not at Jericho, but in Jerusalem with some local landmark (pool of Siloam) used as a setting.
Which is why John originally sounded to me like a real eyewitness with the editor adding in his own preaching. But I already suggested that even the apparently factual details night be John's own work
I've mentioned before the healing of the man suffering with palsy, again at a Jerusalem landmark, the Pool of Bezetha. Jesus heals him with 'take up your pallet and walk'. Just as with the man with the palsy in Galilee in the gospels. And that happens before the feeding of the five thousand, putting it where the Galilee material would be (if it was) while the Blind man would be Holy week, like Bar -Timaeus.
Now I can think up excuses as well as the apologists - Jesus used the same words to two different palsy sufferers. They were two different blind men.
Sure, like there were two different Temple cleansings (which I've heard argued), and there were two different donkey rides - one when Jesus arrived and then another after the supper at Bethany, and two healings at a distance - one done from Cana of the Ruler's son and another n Capernaum with a Centurion's servant.
No, these excuses do not wash, and when several of them show a similar story reworked heavily, then the other excuses don't work. After all, nobody argues that there were two crucifixions - one with a spear thrust and one without? No - a different apologetic: 'they just forgot to mention it' takes it's place. Like no transfiguration in John. I have heard that the disciples were supposed to keep it quiet, but I haven't heard anyone try to argue that John didn't think it worth a mention.
But all this raises a problem - if there is a basic true story, and eyewitness, behind all this, doesn't it mean that the Jesus story (never mind discrepancies) is true by eyewitness testimony?
Oh bugger
Well, you have spoilers in the form of a lot of atheism from me, so you'll know, no, that won't wash either.
And I may tell you why, but night now I just want a drink and pipe -up.
Nowhere in the Gospel of John does the author refer to himself as "John." Christians have simply declared that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, and have made the assertion stick over the centuries through sheer force of numbers. Not to mention the threat of being burned at the stake.
John was and still is a very common name. Writing in the second century Papias indicated that that there was an early Christian named John that Papias himself personally knew. Papias referred to this John as John the presbyter, or John the elder. This second John, the elder, has a more clear direct connection to the authorship of Gospel John than does the apostle John, who in fact has no direct connection to Gospel John at all, other than by popular Christian tradition.
Read the novel The Fifth Gospel. One of the interesting takeaways in the story is that John is completely symbolic and was never meant to be otherwise to begin with. (Hope that's not a spoiler, but I won't tell you exactly why it has such an impact in the story.)
There are several theories from eyewitness to (as you say) symbolic (which means 'not true at all'). I'm really only concerned with a possible 'historical' Jesus, and John at one time looked rather factual, once the sermons and raving at 'Jews' was taken out.
The 5th gospel was a term used for the Turin Shroud, and of course there is a fifth synoptic gospel of Peter, (incomplete - just from the end of the trial to just after the resurrection.
There are several theories from eyewitness to (as you say) symbolic (which means 'not true at all'). I'm really only concerned with a possible 'historical' Jesus, and John at one time looked rather factual, once the sermons and raving at 'Jews' was taken out.
The 5th gospel was a term used for the Turin Shroud, and of course there is a fifth synoptic gospel of Peter, (incomplete - just from the end of the trial to just after the resurrection.
The book is about a man trying to prove that the Turin Shroud is authentic. It has a lot of fascinating information about the Diatesseron, which was an attempt to combine all four gospels into a single narrative. It's also a peek into the world inside Vatican City.
Written by one of the co-authors of The Rule Of Four.
ETA: I'll spoil the ending for you in a rep note, Trans.
The sort of primitive redaction criticism engaged in by the OP, consisting of simply comparing gospels, is popular with internet forum scholars. It bears the same relationship to actual redaction criticism, and actual biblical scholarship, as checkers bears to chess.
And your apologetics is popular with internet forum Christians. It relies heavily on cherry picking Christian biblical scholars, often early ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The Gospel of John has always been highly problematical. Its highfalutin theology and high Christology are impossible to assign to anything other than a late date. Hence the predominate view that it is the last gospel, considerably later than the Synoptics.
Apparently Catholic theologians are banned by papal degree on discussing it's Gnostic nature. But I would not date it considerably later than the Synoptics as a group of texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
And yet, we have its internal claims to be the work of an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry and the early tradition that the author, or at least the source, was the apostle John. Parts, as renowned scholar Richard Bauckham has shown, definitely seem to have their origin in eyewitness testimony.
Tertullian, writing around 200 AD said his version of the gospel ended at chapter 20. So chapter 21, the one with the eyewitness claim, appears to have been added later. Tertullian does not know chapter 21.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Hence some noted scholars, such as John A. T. Robinson and Raymond Brown, have argued that John is in fact the earliest gospel. But then we bump up against the high theology that is clearly late and surely far above the intellectual capacity of the apostle.
While other noted scholars disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
By far the most compelling theory I have encountered is that there was indeed an early version of John that did predate the four gospels we now have. The theory is that this early version contained material that was controversial and even unacceptable to the later church. Hence, it was reworked into the gospel we have today, both to eliminate the unacceptable portions and to address some of the heresies prevalent at the time of the reworking.
While John is almost certainly by several authors, we have no way of dating when the individual parts of the gospel were written, so it can only remain an hypothesis that it was earlier. But it is often using and responding to the synoptics, which we can demonstrate are not independent of each other, so we can clearly say the gospel as we know it was most likely the last written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Some scholars believe the remnants of the early version and the later additions can be identified on literally a verse-by-verse basis. See http://www.historical-jesus.com/ur-john-text.html. (I don't agree with everything Powell says, but his work on John is fantastic and has been received favorably by academics, which is almost unheard-of for a layman in the insular world of NT scholarship.)
I find this approach compelling and believe it provides the answer to why John seems to be both "very early" and "very late." The answer is: It's both.
The problem with his hypothesis is Tertullian not mention chapter 21 at all, even though Tertullian is commenting on the actual verses. This is evidence we can actually date, not simply an hypothesis based on ifs and maybes. But it is interesting he rejects the hypothetical Q while arguing for Q type source for John.
Nowhere in the Gospel of John does the author refer to himself as "John." Christians have simply declared that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, and have made the assertion stick over the centuries through sheer force of numbers. Not to mention the threat of being burned at the stake.
John was and still is a very common name. Writing in the second century Papias indicated that that there was an early Christian named John that Papias himself personally knew. Papias referred to this John as John the presbyter, or John the elder. This second John, the elder, has a more clear direct connection to the authorship of Gospel John than does the apostle John, who in fact has no direct connection to Gospel John at all, other than by popular Christian tradition.
Yes. The names of the gospels are doubtful. I have seen various stories made up about John Mark and how he came to write 'Mark' (listening to Peter recall what Jesus did, though Peter apparently never heard of the nativity, nor the water into wine and apparently told Mark not to describe Jesus appearing "They've heard that before so no need to put that in") and more made up excuses to dismiss reasons why these cannot be eyewitness accounts than would make a handrail to the moon.
But the gospels of John seemed to hint that the identity of the eyewitness was known. He was at the Baptism with Andrew and Peter and seems to have been with Peter before the trial, even getting Peter into the High Priests house. And in a way that suggests that this 'beloved disciple' had contacts in the Sanhedrin. And wasn't there a lot of 'loved' young men, asking about eternal life, reclining at supper with Jesus and being the brother of Mary and Martha.
And Jesus' links with Pharisee rulers who were on his side, like Jairus, after Jesus healed his daughter and Joseph of Arimathea what was in the Sanhedrin? And wasn't this Rich young 'ruler', who might have been Lazarus, and (since he had to be around to help with the burial) Nicodemus (which might be a Greek epithet attached to a Jewish synagogue president), the one to whom Jesus entrusted his mother? It all begins to look like a snug little family with stronger links to the well -off Sanhedrin Pharisees than to poor Galilean fishermen.
So that rather directs attention away from John, the third with Peter and James. So where does the 'John' name of this mysterious observer, who seems to buzz around after Peter like a drone, watching as he trowels through the burial clothes in search of some trace of Jesus.
Nothing really seems to suggest the 'John' title, and I've always been a bit cautious about Church fathers who swore they knew someone who talked to someone who claimed they knew a John who had been the son of Zebedee.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-21-2020 at 09:17 AM..
The sort of primitive redaction criticism engaged in by the OP, consisting of simply comparing gospels, is popular with internet forum scholars. It bears the same relationship to actual redaction criticism, and actual biblical scholarship, as checkers bears to chess.
Just remember, apologetics and cherry picking is the most rational position to take. People that use it as evidence against claims really are just out to prove their statements of belief more than helping others to form beliefs.
but ... and its a big but ..
that in no way makes a deity sent its son to die for our sins as the most reliable position to take.
The book is about a man trying to prove that the Turin Shroud is authentic. It has a lot of fascinating information about the Diatesseron, which was an attempt to combine all four gospels into a single narrative. It's also a peek into the world inside Vatican City.
Written by one of the co-authors of The Rule Of Four.
ETA: I'll spoil the ending for you in a rep note, Trans.
I dug into the Turin shroud quite a bit as that was (if anything) the best evidence for a Jesus, if not a resurrection. No wonder it was called 'the fifth gospel'. But (as you may have heard me post) I concluded that it has to be fake, even before the (disputed) C14 dating.
While the shroud itself is a curious 'scorched negative' flat image (which, itself rules out any sheet or wrap as described in the gospels) the bloodstains look like they are (or were) applied - whether blood or paint.
The relevance to topic is - spear thrust or not? The synoptics have no spear -thrust and Luke tacitly denies it as Jesus turns up showing his hands and feet, but not his side. Further, the 'eleven' (minus Judas, of course, who is busy exploding in a nearby field) are there - including Thomas, giving the lie to the whole fingers in the side in John and the sear -jab and the whole veracity of John's gospel.
Which is a bit of a shame, as it seemed at one time to be an eyewitness story with details that the synoptics had missed. And John looks pretty good, especially after Josephus on the son of Damnaeus, which shows just how rough the Boethius clan could get with anyone they suspected might be trying to challenge their control of the temple.
John having Jesus taken straight to the Father - in Law of Caiaphas for a questioning and then straight of to Pilate, makes a lot more sense that that Sanhedrin trial which only makes sense if the Sanhedrin were all Christians otherwise claiming to be Messiah or even 'son of God' could not be blasphemy, quite apart from which, you could be sure that False Witnesses would have their stories matching.
Yes, at one time, John's (eyewitness source) account looked quite convincing, especially since, (shorn of the sermons, and public disputes) it is a straightforward story without all that endless preaching and healing in Galilee.
The sort of primitive redaction criticism engaged in by the OP, consisting of simply comparing gospels, is popular with internet forum scholars. It bears the same relationship to actual redaction criticism, and actual biblical scholarship, as checkers bears to chess.
The sort of primitive redaction criticism engaged in by the OP, consisting of simply comparing gospels, is popular with internet forum scholars. It bears the same relationship to actual redaction criticism, and actual biblical scholarship, as checkers bears to chess.
The Gospel of John has always been highly problematical. Its highfalutin theology and high Christology are impossible to assign to anything other than a late date. Hence the predominate view that it is the last gospel, considerably later than the Synoptics.
And yet, we have its internal claims to be the work of an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry and the early tradition that the author, or at least the source, was the apostle John. Parts, as renowned scholar Richard Bauckham has shown, definitely seem to have their origin in eyewitness testimony.
Hence some noted scholars, such as John A. T. Robinson and Raymond Brown, have argued that John is in fact the earliest gospel. But then we bump up against the high theology that is clearly late and surely far above the intellectual capacity of the apostle.
By far the most compelling theory I have encountered is that there was indeed an early version of John that did predate the four gospels we now have. The theory is that this early version contained material that was controversial and even unacceptable to the later church. Hence, it was reworked into the gospel we have today, both to eliminate the unacceptable portions and to address some of the heresies prevalent at the time of the reworking.
Some scholars believe the remnants of the early version and the later additions can be identified on literally a verse-by-verse basis. See http://www.historical-jesus.com/ur-john-text.html. (I don't agree with everything Powell says, but his work on John is fantastic and has been received favorably by academics, which is almost unheard-of for a layman in the insular world of NT scholarship.)
I find this approach compelling and believe it provides the answer to why John seems to be both "very early" and "very late." The answer is: It's both.
I have to see this as referencing the kind of so called 'gospel authority' stuff that starts with a theory and tries to justify it and coming up with (as you show) contradictory ideas.
The way it looks (to a mere amateur that looks at al the text and not just the bits that suit my theory) is a basic story (matching the basic story of the synoptics) and could be 'the earliest' - proto Mark, or the earliest version of the gospel. The Rylands fragment (of John) is dated to the 2nd c. but that date is disputed.
And the additional material of the sermons and the bashing of the 'Jews' has the mark of a late date. Peter is surely the latest of all with its' odd and fanciful complications of the story and the Jews an entire people working together to kill Jesus, which is even more 'late' in anti semitic thought than Luke. Mind, John has Jesus rowing with 'the Jews' as a mob disputing with him as though everyone but his followers were against him, which does sound late -Christian.
Anyway, you won't be interested. Your purpose is only to dismiss anyone who says what you don't like, waving a few scholars about as though nobody else could ever come up with anything worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Just remember, apologetics and cherry picking is the most rational position to take. People that use it as evidence against claims really are just out to prove their statements of belief more than helping others to form beliefs.
but ... and its a big but ..
that in no way makes a deity sent its son to die for our sins as the most reliable position to take.
I trust that you meant to write :apologetics and cherry picking is the absolutely not most rational position to take otherwise the rest of your post doesn't follow.
I began comparing the gospels in an effort to try to make some sense of the contradictions. The fact is that doing so showed up shocking discrepancies that can't just be tossed out by calling the method 'primitive'. I later on read that the method I'd used was the same redaction criticism taught to Bible students. Just the same.
I may mention (again) one scholarly work on Matthew which was very good until he got to the 'two donkeys' problem, and then he waved it away in the most 'wooden' dismissal possible. No, Experts and Authorities can sometimes learn a few tips in open - minded assessment of Gospel text from the online amateurs.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-21-2020 at 09:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because heaven forbid the events should happen during Sukkhot) aside from not having blind Bartimaeus healed at Jericho but having the raising of Lazarus on arrival at Bethany. There is also an overnight stay at the house of Lazarus and collecting the donkey in the morning, as contrasted with this being done as soon as Jesus arrives from Jericho as in the synoptics. 
it isn't too hard to see a basic story that the synoptics and John use (and 'Use' is the word and no mistake 
) with John writing his own material. There's an interesting clue here, by the way at John 9 where Jesus heals a blind man - a beggar, note (9.8), who subsequently gets questioned about this by the pharisees, and the 'beggar' talks back to them like a Greek lawyer on the Areopagus. John has forgotten his character and is arguing for himself. Incidentally, I suspect that this might be the 'Bar -Timaeus' story but not at Jericho, but in Jerusalem with some local landmark (pool of Siloam) used as a setting.
