Jack,

I would raise two points about your reconstruction.

1) The beginning of 19:38 is META TAUTA.

Isn't this a common expression? I would say that it is hardly representative
of a style.

I find it in John 3:22; 5:1; 5:14; 6:1; 7:1; 13:7. Are all these text by the
same hand of John 21? That would be very hard to believe.

2) You suggest that the Gospel once began with 1:19.

However, 1:19 starts wtih the following words: KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH MARTURIA
TOU IWANNOU.

Both the conjunction KAI and the demonstrative hAUTH point back to something
that has already been mentioned. Most scholars think that the Gospel once
started with John 1:6-7, then it continued with John 1:19ff.

In this way the Gospel would begin so: EGENTO ANQRWPOS APESTALMENOS PARA
QEOU ONOMA AUTWi IWANNHS.

Thus we would understand why 1:19 speaks of hH MARTURIA as it  were already
known to the reader.

We would also have a beginning close to the standards of Biblical narrative:
compare 1 Sam 1:1 in the OT and Luke 1:5 in the NT. It fits classical Hebrew
prose to begin a story saying: WAYHI 'ISH. Greek translators render it KAI
EGENETO ANQRWPOS. By the time the NT was written, such beginnings would be
well known.

The scholars who suggest an original form of the Gospel starting with 1:6-7;
1:19ff, suggest that when the prologue was added to the Gospel verses 1:8
and 1:15 were written. The function of 1:8 is to link the historical
character of John with the beginning of KOSMOS as told in the preceding
verses;  the function of 1:15 would be that of providing a parallel to 1:6-8
within the circular structure of the prologue (or the chiastic structure,
though I am unwilling to use the word chiasm for a structure of more than 4
elements). So the redactor used the same words that already appeared in 1:29
and used them in 1:15.

I would like to know if you have objections to this reconstruction.

Marco

On 11/24/06, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>
>   (…)
>
> There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in the same manner as John
>
> 21:1 suggesting, to me, that the same copyist/redactor did both. I think
> the original beginning of John was at 1:19. Going with my theory that ch
> 21
> was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to John,
> I
> also look at the Prologue and see no certain Aramaic origin. I do see
> Mark's
> use of PROS HMAS and this is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
> John. Mark is missing a conclusion. John has an extra conclusion. Mark
> anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 without
>
> the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first appearance.
>
> In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times. In John (21:15-17) Peter affirms
> his love three times. That completed another Markan bracket. In Mark, the
> shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
> the new shepherd..another Markan bracket. In Mark, the first words spoken
> to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST words spoken are
> "follow
> me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan bracket.
>
> If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
>
> ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
> restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
>
> I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support in this supported
> by
> Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few Johannine
> signature phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark
> and John with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find this in Mark's
> frequent use of the historic present resulting from Aramaic narrative
> participle also frequent in John and John 21. There is also a connection
> between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
>
> use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and
>
> 12:2.
>
> My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an ongoing project but I see
> the pen..er..reed..of Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
> soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.
>
> > Why, for example, is it
> > more likely that these three units of scripture were
> > added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
> > the "original author or authors"?
>
> Why were the following redactions, editorial inserts and glosses added?
> Theology.
>
> 1:22-25 added by redactor
>
> 1:30 added by redactor
>
> 1:32 added by redactor
>
> 2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction
>
> 2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss
>
> 2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
> aorist
>
> to conform to Ps 69:9
>
> 2:23-24 redaction from "signs"
>
> 3:3 from older baptismal tradition
>
> 3:5 "water" added by editor
>
> 3:13 added
>
> 3:16 added
>
> Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in PJ was 4, 6, 5, 7.
>
> 4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss
>
> 4:2 redaction, contradicts PJ 3:22
>
> 4:46-54 from "signs"
>
> Ch 5 should follow chapter 6
>
> 5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)
>
> 5:25 redaction
>
> 5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added
>
> 5:28-29 redaction
>
> 5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
>
> PJ's
>
> present realization
>
> 6:1-15 redaction from "signs"
>
> 6:23 gloss
>
> 6:27 editor's "future" addition
>
> 6:39-44 editor's
>
> 6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist
>
> 7:1 editor's
>
> 7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in PJ
>
> 7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in PJ
>
> 7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
> Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.
>
> 8:12-59 original PJ material but for:
>
> 8:13 added
>
> 8:14a added
>
> 8:14b is original, also GThom 24
>
> 8:15 added
>
> 8:17a added
>
> 8:17b original PJ from Deut. 19:15
>
> 8:18 added
>
> 8:19a added
>
> 8:19b original PJ also in Q and Lk 10:22
>
> 8:20a added
>
> 8:20b original PJ..also Egerton
>
> 8:21b "and shall dies in your sins" added
>
> 8:21c "where I am going" original PJ..also Apoc James 2:23-27
>
> 8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38
>
> 8:23-24 added
>
> 8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43
>
> 8:26-28 added
>
> 8:31a added
>
> 8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19
>
> 8:32 orig PJ
>
> 8:33 added
>
> 8:34a added
>
> 8:34b orig PJ
>
> 8:35 Orig. PJ
>
> 8:36 added
>
> 9:22 would have to have been edited after
>
> the Birkat ha-minim in 85CE
>
> 9:35 "signs" redaction
>
> 10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29
>
> 10:19 goes with Ch 9.
>
> 11:2 added
>
> 11:45-50 "signs" redaction
>
> 12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.
>
> 13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here
>
> 14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ
>
> Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ
>
> 19:34 added
>
> 20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics. PJ ended here
>
> Ch 21 editor's appendix
>
> Glosses:
>
> 4:1 "the Lord Knew"
>
> 4:2
>
> 4:11b "Sir.....
>
> 5:4
>
> 5:27 "because he is the..
>
> 5:40
>
> 6:6*
>
> 6:23
>
> 6:27
>
> 6:51-58
>
> 6:71*
>
> 8:21 "and shall die in your sins
>
> 8:27*
>
> 8:31a
>
> 11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magd with a prostitute but at
>
> odds with Luke 7:36
>
> 11:25-26
>
> 12:33*
>
> 12:47-48
>
> 13:10 "not save to wash his feet
>
> 13:11*
>
> 14:30 "much"
>
> 16:16 "because I go to the father
>
> 18:9
>
> 18:32*
>
> 19:34-35
>
>
> > As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
> > Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
> > commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
> > commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
> > version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
> > various elements of the Jesus tradition. The purpose
> > of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
> > community from which these commentaries came) appears
> > to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
> > In other words I think these writers were
> > intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
> > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were "doing
> > theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
> > those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
> > Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
> > evidence that there is a second story line throughout
> > the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
> > from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
> > and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
> > ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
> > element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
> > festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
> > Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
> > important to this theory (or method of study), which I
> > have set forth in part in this space before. For that
> > reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
> > that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
> > (that is, some one or some group other than those
> > responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
> > text.)
>
> John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the
> Prologue
> does not. I think it was appended as an antiphonal hyms chanted between a
> lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
> 1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
> "proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
> than the present Greek canonical John actually stimulated the composition
> of
> the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus. The Aramaic or translation Greek PJ was used,
> perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek version was
> composed around 90ish CE. It is easy to see how the Prologue, as happened
> elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached. The use of
> the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had a purpose
>
> of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence the
> "blend"
> of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the Gospel and
> observed by other scholars.
>
> > Would you or other listers be interested in a
> > dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
> > Redactor(s)]?
>
> That is what the list is for and we would be interested in good
> referencing
> and citations.
>
> > (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
> > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do you
> > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
> > Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I would
> > be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
> > debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
> > others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
> > and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
> > work of one or more redactors.)
>
> Such a dialogue is in keeping with the purpose of the list as long as
> standard canons of scholarship are involved.
>
> Shlama
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Kilmon
> San Antonio, Texas
>
> >
> > Yours in Christ's service,
> > Tom Butler
> >
> >
> > --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@... <jkilmon%40historian.net>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@... <pastor_t%40pacbell.net>>
> >> To:
<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Jack,
> >> > I trust that your test, at least with reference
> >> > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
> >> > bouncing.
> >> > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
> >> > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
> >> has been placed on hold or has a different list > >
> > been created where the discussion continues?
> >> >
> >> > Tom Butler
> >> > Sparks, Nevada
> >>
> >> I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
> >> to start a thread combined with busy times. I, for
> >> one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
> >> critical opinions concerning the redactors of
> >> 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
> >> chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera. Perhaps
> >> some of our members have studied these.
> >>
> >> Jack Kilmon
> >> San Antonio, Texas
> >
> >
> >
> > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> >
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-subscribe%40\
yahoogroups.com>
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-unsubscrib\
e%40yahoogroups.com>
> > PROBLEMS?: e-mail
johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-owner%40yahoogro\
ups.com>
> > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kym

I am trying to take your thesis seriously and I am doing a detailed response
of this one small piece. You indicated to me that the section of John 5 is
part of the hand - one finger, I think.  I have shrunk the image of the
structures and repeated it to see what fingers of two hands might look like
(see http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-6.jpg)

If one finger only, then 10 more similar structures must be found - that's a
lot of text and it doesn't fit: John is a little less than 20,000 words;
chapter 5 - this part is 650 words which I have fit into about 390 nodes;
That would make the fingers 6500/20000 or more than 25% of the text.  You
must have meant something else.

Note also http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-5.jpg now includes the middle of chapter 5
showing some connections between the middle and end - all of these are
meaningful connections e.g. concerning glory and honour, the acts that the
Son has to finish, and the response of the people - belief or unbelief, whom
you accept, whom you are willing to glory in.

Though your thesis is extreme - specifically because it claims that the
Gospel does not do what text normally does, namely be heard or seen or
performed, but it purports to paint an image. It could be a radical act of
adoration and is therefore not ruled out of court like the modulo-19
arithmetic of some scholars in other traditions.

You are not alone in assuming that words can make an image. George Herbert
wrote a poem in the shape of an altar; and some artists have made images of
words with great complexity long before the use of computers.

In other words, your thesis does not deny the prime directive: that this
Gospel was written by human beings conscious of what they were doing. So the
images could then be imaged using the software that I have access to.  With
millions of variations on skin colour, I could even give it some
verisimilitude.

For those who like to see the Chi in the chiasm, there are a couple that are
obvious in diagram 5 since I left them in the X form rather than indenting
them.  Maybe we go overboard with concentric structures. :)

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

Dear J-Lit Listers,
   Once again I have received a message indicating that
this message bounced from the group.  I have followed
the instructions to reactivate my membership in the
group and am re-sending this message.  I hope it goes
through this time.
   Jack, I'm leaving all of the messages attached this
time.  I hope this helps determine what is going on
with the computer system.

Tom Butler

--- Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Date: 28 Nov 2006 00:23:33 -0000
> To: pastor_t@...
> From: Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Unable to deliver your message
>
>
> We are unable to deliver the message from
> <pastor_t@...>
> to <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>.
>
> Your email account has been bouncing mails.  This
> means that emails
> sent to your account over several days have been
> returned to us.
> This is sometimes because mail boxes are filled up,
> or because of
> configuration problems.  To reset your Yahoo! Groups
> account, please go
> to http://groups.yahoo.com/myprefs?edit=2
>
> For further assistance, please visit
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/
> > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:09:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
>
> Fabbri,
>
>   Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing
> with
> "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
> written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
>
>   I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
> bit differently than you do.  He has set forth a
> theory that a redactor's work can be detected
> throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
> prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
> adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the
> work
> of that redactor.  (It will be interesting to see if
> he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
>
>   I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
> that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
> scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
> except for what can be identified as redactions made
> by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
> refutable.
>
>   If approached from the point of view that the
> Gospel
> is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
> leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple),
> then
> one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
> or writing style throughout the text (other than, as
> I
> have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance
> on
> semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
> of the Pentateuch).
>
>   To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
> consider whether the work of that whole community of
> scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or
> more
> collaborating hands.  In that case, the
> aforementioned
> evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
> the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
> produced the consistency, and therefore should not
> be
> removed from the text for the purposes of study.  It
> could also be possible that the materials that don't
> reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be
> components
> that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
> edit, but which had been selected to be included in
> the text as a whole.
>
>   The Prologue is a good case in point for this
> consideration.  What value would there have been for
> the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
> Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
> hymn?  It would seem to be more important to include
> it in the text without editing it than the other way
> around.
>
>   I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett
> and
> RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes
> to
> us, rather than by trying to detect editorial
> changes
> before studying it's content and structure.
>
>   My reasons for taking this position, however, are
> somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's.  As I
> have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see
> a
> consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
> consistency that is disturbed when either the
> prologue
> or chapter 21 is removed.
>
>   I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on
> the
> list will join me in this, for the idea that
> uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
> Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
> mining its wealth of meaning.  Only after that step
> has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
> determine if any of the material that seems not to
> fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
> meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
>
>   Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
> scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
> gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
> editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
> believes that such a change would have been made by
> the hand of a redactor.
>
>   I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
> were intentionally writing scripture.  If that was
> known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
> would expect to be able to discern a reason for
> adding
> gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that
> would
> make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in
> the
> first century Christian community than it would have
> been without the changes. Why else would such
> changes
> be made?
>
>   I have found significant meaning even in what is
> often described as "transitional material" in this
> gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
> analysis).  I fear that loosing such parts of the
> text
> may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
>
>   I may be in a minority on this.  Perhaps those
> favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
> error in my rationale before we begin dealing with
> the
> detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
> their theory/ theories.
>
>   I will do my best (still working on Jack's
> detailed
> list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
> point out why removal of the material identified as
> redactions does more damage to the text and to our
> ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
> to clarify its structure or meaning.
>
>   That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
> debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up.
> Is
> there another, a better way to describe where we are
> on this thread?
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21
> is
> > not written by the same
> > person that wrote John 1-20.
> >
> > I find the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a
> fully-fledged
> > conclusion, that refers
> > back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in
> > John 2-12. Therefore,
> > unless the contrary is proved, I understand John
> > 20,30-31 as the conclusion
> > of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or
> > not).
> >
> > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> > TAUTA. It is reasonable to
> > think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that
> > is to the Gospel as a
> > whole down to the first conclusion in John
> 20,30-31.
> >
> > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> > not written by the beloved
> > disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:
> >
> > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his
> witness
> > is true". The verb is in
> > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
> > easily distinguished from
> > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> > person: "he".
> >
> > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> > author of John 1-20, he
> > would be a person who testifies on his own behalf.
> > As John 5,31 says: "If I
> > testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be
> > verified".
> >
> > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> > the beloved disciple
> > wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among
> the
> > brothers. These verses
> > make sense if they were written after the death of
> > the beloved disciple: the
> > author seems worried that some brothers might
> think
> > that Jesus was wrong.
> > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these
> > verses.
> >
> > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> > 20,30-31 make it plausible
> > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21
> was
> > added subesequently. The
> > fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not
> modified
> > when chapter 21 is
> > added leads to think that the author of John 21
> > didn't think he could change
> > what was already written. This doens't happen in
> > John 1-20, whenever the
> > test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a
> > correction is inserted
> > within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't
> take
> > the same liberty.
> >
> > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are
> never
> > named before: that is,
> > the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are
> > never named in John 1-20.
> > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> > 21 was written.
> >
> > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of
> them
> > are not existent in
> > John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is
> > OPSARION.  ICQUS is never
> > used.  Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> > the auothr of John 21 is
> > the same as the author of John 1-20.
> >
> > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> > give me certainty. I
> > recognis that the following reasons are indiciary.
> > If consiered separately,
> > they make it more likely that the author is
> > different. All together, they
> > make a strong case against identity of author.
> >
> > If would be very interested to read a refutation
> of
> > any of the given
> > reasons.
> >
> > Marco
> >
> > On 11/22/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >   Jack,
> > > I understand that you are suggesting that the
> > > Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de
> > Adultera"
> > > are contributions to the text of the Fourth
> Gospel
> > > made by a redactor or redactors. If my
> > understanding
> > > of what I take as your suggestion (or theory
> > commonly
> > > supported by most Johannine scholars) is
> correct,
> > it
> > > seems to me that this would make a good thread
> for
> > > discussion on this list.
> > > Why do you think these are indications of the
> work
> > > of a redactor or redactors? Why, for example, is
> > it
> > > more likely that these three units of scripture
> > were
> > > added to the text by a redactor or redactors
> than
> > by
> > > the "original author or authors"?
> > > As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
> > > Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
> > > commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
> > > commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
> > > version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning
> > of
> > > various elements of the Jesus tradition. The
> > purpose
> > > of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of
> > the
> > > community from which these commentaries came)
> > appears
> > > to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
> > > In other words I think these writers were
> > > intentionally writing scripture as they
> expounded
> > upon
> > > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were
> > "doing
> > > theology" or "reflecting Christologically"
> before
> > > those terms had meaning in most Christian
> > communities.
> > > Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
> > > evidence that there is a second story line
> > throughout
> > > the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms
> > borrowed
> > > from the Septuagint are identified as "signs"
> > (semeia)
> > > and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
> > > ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
> > > element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
> > > festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
> > > Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
> > > important to this theory (or method of study),
> > which I
> > > have set forth in part in this space before. For
> > that
> > > reason, I would be willing to argue against the
> > idea
> > > that they are evidence of a redactor or
> redactors
> > > (that is, some one or some group other than
> those
> > > responsible for creating and shaping the rest of
> > the
> > > text.)
> > > Would you or other listers be interested in a
> > > dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or
> > No
> > > Redactor(s)]?
> > > (I confess that I do not recognize the other
> term
> > > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do
> you
> > > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught
> in
> > > Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I
> > would
> > > be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue
> /
> > > debate along with any other pericopes, should
> you
> > or
> > > others seeking to support or reject the idea
> that
> > this
> > > and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect
> > the
> > > work of one or more redactors.)
> > >
> > > Yours in Christ's service,
> > > Tom Butler
> > >
> > > --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...
> > <jkilmon%40historian.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...
> > <pastor_t%40pacbell.net>>
> > > > To:
> >
>
<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Jack,
> > > > > I trust that your test, at least with
> > reference
> > > > > to my e-mail address, proved that you are
> not
> > > > > bouncing.
> > > > > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit
> list.
> > > > > Are we all so busy that discussion of the
> > Gospel >
> > > > has been placed on hold or has a different
> list
> > > >
> > > been created where the discussion continues?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Butler
> > > > > Sparks, Nevada
> > > >
> > > > I think it may be everyone waiting for someone
> > else
> > > > to start a thread combined with busy times. I,
> > for
> > > > one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
> > > > critical opinions concerning the redactors of
> > > > 4G and opinions on the addition of the
> prologue,
> > > > chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.
> Perhaps
> > > > some of our members have studied these.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Kilmon
> > > > San Antonio, Texas
> > >
> > >
> > > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system
> > color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> > > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> > > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System
> > color=#0000ff>Tom
> > > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________
> > Marco V. Fabbri
> > Roma
> > Italy
> >
> > e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
> > fax: ++39-06-68164400
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system
> color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>


<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

Fabbri,

   Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing with
"Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."

   I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
bit differently than you do.  He has set forth a
theory that a redactor's work can be detected
throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the work
of that redactor.  (It will be interesting to see if
he agrees with my summary of his theory.)

   I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
except for what can be identified as redactions made
by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
refutable.

   If approached from the point of view that the Gospel
is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple), then
one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
or writing style throughout the text (other than, as I
have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance on
semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
of the Pentateuch).

   To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
consider whether the work of that whole community of
scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or more
collaborating hands.  In that case, the aforementioned
evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
produced the consistency, and therefore should not be
removed from the text for the purposes of study.  It
could also be possible that the materials that don't
reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be components
that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
edit, but which had been selected to be included in
the text as a whole.

   The Prologue is a good case in point for this
consideration.  What value would there have been for
the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
hymn?  It would seem to be more important to include
it in the text without editing it than the other way
around.

   I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett and
RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes to
us, rather than by trying to detect editorial changes
before studying it's content and structure.

   My reasons for taking this position, however, are
somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's.  As I
have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see a
consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
consistency that is disturbed when either the prologue
or chapter 21 is removed.

   I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on the
list will join me in this, for the idea that
uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
mining its wealth of meaning.  Only after that step
has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
determine if any of the material that seems not to
fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
meaning might have been added by a later redactor.

   Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
believes that such a change would have been made by
the hand of a redactor.

   I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
were intentionally writing scripture.  If that was
known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
would expect to be able to discern a reason for adding
gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that would
make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in the
first century Christian community than it would have
been without the changes. Why else would such changes
be made?

   I have found significant meaning even in what is
often described as "transitional material" in this
gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
analysis).  I fear that loosing such parts of the text
may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.

   I may be in a minority on this.  Perhaps those
favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
error in my rationale before we begin dealing with the
detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
their theory/ theories.

   I will do my best (still working on Jack's detailed
list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
point out why removal of the material identified as
redactions does more damage to the text and to our
ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
to clarify its structure or meaning.

   That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up.  Is
there another, a better way to describe where we are
on this thread?

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

P.S.  Since first writing this, I've become aware that
all of the messages sent to the list have not been
arriving at my computer.  I hope to catch up to the
conversation soon.  It is not my intention to ignore
anyone else's contributions.

--- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> not written by the same
> person that wrote John 1-20.
>
> I find the following reasons:
>
> 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> conclusion, that refers
> back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in
> John 2-12. Therefore,
> unless the contrary is proved, I understand John
> 20,30-31 as the conclusion
> of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or
> not).
>
> 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> TAUTA. It is reasonable to
> think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that
> is to the Gospel as a
> whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.
>
> 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> not written by the beloved
> disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:
>
> 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> is true". The verb is in
> first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
> easily distinguished from
> the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> person: "he".
>
> 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> author of John 1-20, he
> would be a person who testifies on his own behalf.
> As John 5,31 says: "If I
> testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be
> verified".
>
> 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> the beloved disciple
> wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the
> brothers. These verses
> make sense if they were written after the death of
> the beloved disciple: the
> author seems worried that some brothers might think
> that Jesus was wrong.
> Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these
> verses.
>
> 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> 20,30-31 make it plausible
> the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was
> added subesequently. The
> fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified
> when chapter 21 is
> added leads to think that the author of John 21
> didn't think he could change
> what was already written. This doens't happen in
> John 1-20, whenever the
> test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a
> correction is inserted
> within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take
> the same liberty.
>
> 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> named before: that is,
> the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are
> never named in John 1-20.
> Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> 21 was written.
>
> 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> are not existent in
> John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is
> OPSARION.  ICQUS is never
> used.  Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> the auothr of John 21 is
> the same as the author of John 1-20.
>
> I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> give me certainty. I
> recognis that the following reasons are indiciary.
> If consiered separately,
> they make it more likely that the author is
> different. All together, they
> make a strong case against identity of author.
>
> If would be very interested to read a refutation of
> any of the given
> reasons.
>
> Marco
>


<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

Tom,

I had realized that were problmes with the delivery of messages. I suspeect
it might be a problem for several subscribers.

Due to a deadline a must meet, I will need a couple of days to answer you.

Oh, and my name is Marco. The problem is with my e-mail settings, that
reverse the order of name and surname.

Marco

that is, Marco V. Fabbri

On 11/28/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
>
>   Fabbri,
>
> Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing with
> "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
> written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
>
> I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
> bit differently than you do. He has set forth a
> theory that a redactor's work can be detected
> throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
> prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
> adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the work
> of that redactor. (It will be interesting to see if
> he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
>
> I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
> that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
> scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
> except for what can be identified as redactions made
> by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
> refutable.
>
> If approached from the point of view that the Gospel
> is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
> leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple), then
> one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
> or writing style throughout the text (other than, as I
> have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance on
> semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
> of the Pentateuch).
>
> To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
> consider whether the work of that whole community of
> scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or more
> collaborating hands. In that case, the aforementioned
> evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
> the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
> produced the consistency, and therefore should not be
> removed from the text for the purposes of study. It
> could also be possible that the materials that don't
> reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be components
> that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
> edit, but which had been selected to be included in
> the text as a whole.
>
> The Prologue is a good case in point for this
> consideration. What value would there have been for
> the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
> Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
> hymn? It would seem to be more important to include
> it in the text without editing it than the other way
> around.
>
> I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett and
> RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes to
> us, rather than by trying to detect editorial changes
> before studying it's content and structure.
>
> My reasons for taking this position, however, are
> somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's. As I
> have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see a
> consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
> consistency that is disturbed when either the prologue
> or chapter 21 is removed.
>
> I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on the
> list will join me in this, for the idea that
> uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
> Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
> mining its wealth of meaning. Only after that step
> has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
> determine if any of the material that seems not to
> fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
> meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
>
> Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
> scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
> gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
> editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
> believes that such a change would have been made by
> the hand of a redactor.
>
> I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
> were intentionally writing scripture. If that was
> known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
> would expect to be able to discern a reason for adding
> gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that would
> make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in the
> first century Christian community than it would have
> been without the changes. Why else would such changes
> be made?
>
> I have found significant meaning even in what is
> often described as "transitional material" in this
> gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
> analysis). I fear that loosing such parts of the text
> may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
>
> I may be in a minority on this. Perhaps those
> favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
> error in my rationale before we begin dealing with the
> detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
> their theory/ theories.
>
> I will do my best (still working on Jack's detailed
> list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
> point out why removal of the material identified as
> redactions does more damage to the text and to our
> ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
> to clarify its structure or meaning.
>
> That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
> debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up. Is
> there another, a better way to describe where we are
> on this thread?
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> P.S. Since first writing this, I've become aware that
> all of the messages sent to the list have not been
> arriving at my computer. I hope to catch up to the
> conversation soon. It is not my intention to ignore
> anyone else's contributions.
>
> --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> > not written by the same
> > person that wrote John 1-20.
> >
> > I find the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> > conclusion, that refers
> > back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in
> > John 2-12. Therefore,
> > unless the contrary is proved, I understand John
> > 20,30-31 as the conclusion
> > of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or
> > not).
> >
> > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> > TAUTA. It is reasonable to
> > think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that
> > is to the Gospel as a
> > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.
> >
> > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> > not written by the beloved
> > disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:
> >
> > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> > is true". The verb is in
> > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
> > easily distinguished from
> > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> > person: "he".
> >
> > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> > author of John 1-20, he
> > would be a person who testifies on his own behalf.
> > As John 5,31 says: "If I
> > testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be
> > verified".
> >
> > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> > the beloved disciple
> > wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the
> > brothers. These verses
> > make sense if they were written after the death of
> > the beloved disciple: the
> > author seems worried that some brothers might think
> > that Jesus was wrong.
> > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these
> > verses.
> >
> > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> > 20,30-31 make it plausible
> > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was
> > added subesequently. The
> > fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified
> > when chapter 21 is
> > added leads to think that the author of John 21
> > didn't think he could change
> > what was already written. This doens't happen in
> > John 1-20, whenever the
> > test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a
> > correction is inserted
> > within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take
> > the same liberty.
> >
> > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> > named before: that is,
> > the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are
> > never named in John 1-20.
> > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> > 21 was written.
> >
> > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> > are not existent in
> > John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is
> > OPSARION. ICQUS is never
> > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> > the auothr of John 21 is
> > the same as the author of John 1-20.
> >
> > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> > give me certainty. I
> > recognis that the following reasons are indiciary.
> > If consiered separately,
> > they make it more likely that the author is
> > different. All together, they
> > make a strong case against identity of author.
> >
> > If would be very interested to read a refutation of
> > any of the given
> > reasons.
> >
> > Marco
> >
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob,

Thank you.

Imagine vertical and horizontal axes, cross-shaped. From the top, the
first six micro-chiasms (1:1-51) on the vertical axis represent the
head (the head of a man - cf. Rev 13:18).

Then, on the horizontal axis, are the the forty-one structures from
2:1 - 11:44. These make up the hands. There are thirteen various-sized
micro-structures in the Signs and Discourses Macro-chiasm which
provide the spacing between the 'fingers'. The first and last signs
act as inclusios for the whole (2:1-11 and 11:43-44), the central
structure (and, therefore, focal point for the whole gospel) is
11:48-51. Between the second and third fingers on each 'hand' are
consecutive signs and/or discourses which indicate that something
should be there. That something-nothing, as I describe it, represents
the nail-holes/wounds in the hands. Between the other signs and
discourses are the twenty-eight sevenfold formations of the Dialogue
Macro-chiasm. Let me try to show this pictorially, I will use numbers
to represent the Dialogue formations; imagine them each as small
vertical columns along the whole structure which is positioned
horizontally.

s-2-d-3-d-3-s-s-3-s-3-(d)-3-d-3-d-s-3-d-3-d-2-s

Note that the two 'thumbs' (two segments hence two micro-chiasms) are
on the outsides. Therefore the 'hands' are palms forward.

The next three micro-chiasms from 11:45-12:50 with the nine from the
Farewell Discourse (chs 11-17) are again on the vertical axis and
these represent the ribcage. The Greek in 18:1 (i.e. immediately below
the ribcage where the spear thrust would have been) is important,
especially 'valley' which is 'a winter torrent' (it was not winter but
there was a 'torrent' from Christ's side).

The rest of the micro-structures (ten till 20:29) continue on the
vertical axis There are no distinguishing features so these represent
the rest of Jesus' body and legs.

I described the 'feet' - two micro-chiasms separated by the unique
tripple tristich parallelism and all contianed between the inclusios
of 20:30,31 and 21:25,24 - to Marco earlier. The division between the
feet could not be a chiastsic structure because that would confuse the
'image' - there could only be two feet. This little complex is placed
horizontally but centred on the vertical axis.

"<=>"

" for inclusios, < and > for the chiasms/'feet' and = for the parallelism.

Remeber that this is not a photograph but a stylistic representation.
The central structure is very important, to feed on this gospel is to
feed on Christ.

I must respond to your previous to me but do not have the time at this
moment.

Kym




--- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
<bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Kym
>
> I am trying to take your thesis seriously and I am doing a detailed
response
> of this one small piece. You indicated to me that the section of
John 5 is
> part of the hand - one finger, I think.  I have shrunk the image of the
> structures and repeated it to see what fingers of two hands might
look like
> (see http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-6.jpg)
>
> If one finger only, then 10 more similar structures must be found -
that's a
> lot of text and it doesn't fit: John is a little less than 20,000 words;
> chapter 5 - this part is 650 words which I have fit into about 390
nodes;
> That would make the fingers 6500/20000 or more than 25% of the text.
  You
> must have meant something else.
>
> Note also http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-5.jpg now includes the middle of
chapter 5
> showing some connections between the middle and end - all of these are
> meaningful connections e.g. concerning glory and honour, the acts
that the
> Son has to finish, and the response of the people - belief or
unbelief, whom
> you accept, whom you are willing to glory in.
>
> Though your thesis is extreme - specifically because it claims that the
> Gospel does not do what text normally does, namely be heard or seen or
> performed, but it purports to paint an image. It could be a radical
act of
> adoration and is therefore not ruled out of court like the modulo-19
> arithmetic of some scholars in other traditions.
>
> You are not alone in assuming that words can make an image. George
Herbert
> wrote a poem in the shape of an altar; and some artists have made
images of
> words with great complexity long before the use of computers.
>
> In other words, your thesis does not deny the prime directive: that this
> Gospel was written by human beings conscious of what they were
doing. So the
> images could then be imaged using the software that I have access
to.  With
> millions of variations on skin colour, I could even give it some
> verisimilitude.
>
> For those who like to see the Chi in the chiasm, there are a couple
that are
> obvious in diagram 5 since I left them in the X form rather than
indenting
> them.  Maybe we go overboard with concentric structures. :)
>
> Bob
>
> Bob MacDonald
> Victoria BC
> http://gx.ca
> http://bmd.gx.ca
>

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for the good discussions of John's structure and composition. The aporias
in the text do call for critical thought as to how the Gospel of John came
together, especially as the final editor claims to be preparing the work of
another, whose "testimony is true." In addition, the language and style of the
Prologue appears more similar to 1 John 1 than it does to the rest of the
narrative, so a synchronicity of tradition is likely to have been accompanied by
a diachronicity of composition.

Here are my two outlines of John's composition and history of the Johannine
situation that are found at the end of my new book on the Fourth Gospel and the
Quest for Jesus, that came out last month with T&T Clark (just a reminder, the
60% discount lasts through Nov. 30th, tomorrow, and here is the e-mail address
of Emma Cook [emma@...] in case it was missed the special offer
at the SBL meetings).

On the first posting on the subject of John 21, just a clarification that
opsarion does indeed occur in ch 21 as well as ch 6, which I think bolsters
their both having been added as later, supplementary material, along with the
prologue, chs. 15-17 and some other passages as well.

Responses are welcome!

Paul Anderson

***
In Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus; Modern
Foundations Reconsidered LNTS 321, Library of Historical Jesus Studies
(London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 193-95, 196-99).

APPENDIX I
A Two-Edition Theory of Johannine Composition

While a theory of composition works necessarily from earlier to later, the
strongest evidence will often be a factor of identifying first the apparent
later material that was added to earlier material. Therefore, the following
elements of this two-edition theory of Johannine composition ascend in order of
certainty as well as chronology.

A) The Formation of the Johannine Tradition (30–85 CE)

• The Johannine tradition develops in its own way as an independent Jesus
tradition.
• Material is formed in its own patterns, perhaps developing with Amçn Amçn
sayings, egô eimi sayings, signs narrations, dialogues, and Scripture
references.
• The Johannine Passion narrative develops in its own distinctive way.
• Connections between signs and discourses emerge with signs being expanded in
the discourses.
• Some interfluentiality between the pre-Markan and early Johannine tradition
emerges, especially involving graphic detail and some points of content.
• John’s oral-traditional material becomes a source for Luke/Acts, and possibly
the Q tradition.
• Some material may have been produced in written form, and duplicate sections
may have been gathered together.

B) The First Edition of the Johannine Gospel (John A) is written by the
Johannine Evangelist (80–85 CE)

• In desiring to augment, complement and correct Mark, the first edition of John
was written as (chronologically) the second Gospel.
• Beginning with the ministry of the Baptist, John A contains five signs
designed to convince Jewish family and friends that Jesus was the Messiah. These
signs are the five that are not in Mark (chs 2, 4, 5, 9, 11) or any of the other
Synoptic traditions.

(Page 193)


• Most prevalent are the intense dialogues with Jewish leaders, seeking to show
that Jesus was indeed the authentic prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15-22).
• The first two signs fill out the early part of Jesus’ ministry, and the latter
three signs fill out the Judean ministry of Jesus, building around Mark.
• The Johannine gospel is written that the reader might believe that Jesus is
the Jewish Messiah (Jn 20.31).

C) The Johannine Epistles are written by the Johannine Elder (85–95 CE)

• 1 John was written as a circular to various Johannine churches exhorting them
to love one another and to maintain solidarity with Jesus and his community of
faith, following at least one schism.
• 2 John was written to a church exhorting its leadership not to receive docetic
preachers.
• 3 John was written to a church leader, Gaius, suffering the inhospitality of
Diotrephes, plausibly a hierarchical aspirant rejecting Johannine Christians and
any who take them in.

D) Interim Period between the Two Editions of the Johannine Gospel (85–100 CE)

• The Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach (and perhaps write) locally
or more extensively.
• Emphases upon antidocetic correctives (costly discipleship) emerge in the
Johannine teaching as a factor of Gentile believers desiring to assimilate under
Roman demands of emperor worship.
• Some dialogue emerges between Johannine and Matthean Christianity (or its
purveyors) regarding aspects of church leadership and organizational
development.
• The Beloved Disciple dies, leaving his final witness to be gathered and
distributed by another.

E) The Johannine Elder compiles and finalizes the Johannine Gospel (John B) and
sends it off as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, whose ‘witness is true’
(100 CE)

• The Prologue (Jn 1.1-18) is added as an engaging introduction to the Johannine
narrative.
• Chapter 6 is inserted between chs 5 and 7 (following ‘Moses wrote of me,’ at
the end of ch. 5; the unit fits well after the second healing sign mentioned at
the beginning of ch. 6; ch. 5 originally continued into ch. 7). The editor added
v. 71 to take the focus off of Peter.

Page 194


• Chapters 15–17 are inserted between chs 14 and 18 (14.31 originally flowed
into 18.1).
• Chapter 21 is added as a second ending, and the final two verses were crafted
to imitate the original ending of ch. 20.
• The editor/compiler also adds ‘Beloved Disciple’ and ‘eyewitness’ passages to
affirm the Gospel’s authority.
• He then sends it off to the churches as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
whose testimony is true – a distinctively ideological claim, seeking to affirm
how Christ desired to lead and unify the churches through the work of the Holy
Spirit (at least partially as a corrective to Diotrephes and his kin).
• In this later material most of John’s incarnational (anti-docetic) material
and ecclesial emphases can be found.

F) Post-Johannine Influences continue into the second century CE

• The spurned Johannine docetists took with them at least some portions of the
Johannine gospel and developed into at least one strand of second-century
Christian Gnostics – perhaps those represented by Heracleon, who wrote the first
commentary on John. In addition, Johannine connections with Thomasine and other
Gnosticizing traditions may have evolved during this time.
• Johannine influences appear also to have been foundational for the Montanist
movement in Asia Minor, but these trajectories need not have involved spurned
docetists. They simply may reflect the fact that the
Johannine emphasis upon the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the church
deserved to be taken seriously by committed Christians, and this represented
something of the intentional focus of the later Johannine material.
• Other aspects of John’s influence upon the mainstream Christian movement in
the second century resulted in an immense impact on the early church, and the
greatest number of second-century gospel fragments are from the Gospel of John.
The Bodmer Papyrus dates a Johannine fragment as early as 125 CE, so John can no
longer be regarded late-and-only-late.
• Both Polycarp and Papias claimed to have been influenced by the Johannine
Elder, and it is likely that the Johannine influence continued on for some time
through them and others. By the time of Irenaeus, the
Johannine tradition’s authority becomes yoked to his interests in defeating the
Valentinians and the Marcionites, and the Johannine memory was used to bolster
the movement it once challenged.

Page 195


APPENDIX II
A Historical Outline of Johannine Christianity

The Johannine situation spanned three major periods with at least two crises in
each, a total of six crises. A seventh may be added – as dialectical engagements
with Synoptic perspectives on Jesus’ ministry may be inferred – but these
overlapped all three major periods. While these were largely sequential, they
were also somewhat overlapping. Social movements rarely enjoy the luxury of
engaging only on one front at a time, nor does one crisis wait until another is
passed before presenting itself. The Johannine situation involved several sorts
of dialogical relationships, in different settings, and it deserves to be
considered in longitudinal perspective over a 70-year time-span.

A. Early Period – A Northern Palestinian Setting of the Johannine
Tradition’s Development (30–70 CE)

Crisis I: North-South Tensions over Authentic Worship and what God Requires (Jn
2-5)

• The Ioudaioi are described in some parts of John as Judeans (chs 11–12) or
from Jerusalem (chs 1–2).
• Jesus is rendered as a northern prophet like Moses (Samaritan, Galilean or
both?).
• The Jerusalem-centred leaders overlook Jesus’ Messiahship because he comes
from the north (Nazareth) rather than the city of David (Bethlehem).
• Samaritans and Galileans are privileged in John, and yet authentic worship is
independent of place and form.
• The Jerusalem-centred religious authorities reject the revealer and become
typologies of the unbelieving world.

Crisis II: The Ministry of Jesus versus the Ministry of John the Baptist? (Jn
1, 3 and 10)

• The Fourth Evangelist (and some of the other disciples of Jesus) may have left
John to follow Jesus; John’s ministry remains important.
• John’s baptism in the free-flowing Jordan posed a striking contrast to

Page 196


constrictive means of ritual purification – liberal accessibility of the Spirit
– likewise, Jesus’ ministry!
• Baptist adherents were pointed to Jesus by the eulogizing of Jesus by the
departed hero.
• The baptism of Jesus is emphasized over John’s as a factor of setting the
record straight among those who knew the latter but not the Holy Spirit (Acts
18.24-19.7).
• Hence, water does not suffice (Jn 3.5), and Jesus himself did not baptize,
although his disciples did (Jn 4.2).

Transition A: From the Early Period to the Middle Period, including a Move to
Asia Minor or one of the Gentile-Mission Churches

B. Middle Period – Asia Minor I, The Formation of the Johannine Community (70–85
CE)

• The evangelist moves from a Palestinian setting to one of the mission churches
(Asia Minor?).
• Dialogues with local Jewish communities continue; they do not begin.
• Explanations of Jewish customs and Hebraic phrases are ‘translated’ for a
Gentile audience.
• Gospel material becomes further organized into teaching units, including signs
and discourses together.
• An interfluential engagement with the oral Markan material gives rise to an
augmentation and correction of Mark.

Crisis III: The Local Synagogue and Antichristic threat 1 (Jn 9.22; 12.42; 16.2;
1 Jn 2.18-25)

• John’s Christianity moved from Palestine to one of the mission churches
(Ephesus).
• The Jamnia Council codifies local practices rather than jump-starting all
marginalization of Jesus-adherents.
• Christians are expelled from Synagogue; the Birkat ha-Minim curses
‘Nazarenes’.
• Accusations of ‘ditheism’ lead to at least some expulsion, but more
characteristically, socio-religious pressure (Jn 9.22; 12.42; 16.2).
• Some Johannine community members are recruited back into the Synagogue, and
this produced the first Johannine schism.

Page 197


Crisis IV: Emperor Worship and its Implications: Pilate, the Confession of
Thomas, ‘the Second Beast’ and ‘666’ (Revelation 13; Jn 20.28; even 1 Jn 5.21?)

• Domitian required Emperor worship as a sign of loyalty to the Empire (to
reverence Caesar’s statue, offer incense, say ‘Caesar is Lord’, deny Christ,
etc.).
• ‘Lord and God’ was required of officials (notice the striking confession of
Thomas, Jn 20.28).
• Jews had been given a dispensation.
• Gentiles saw little wrong with emperor laud.
• Synagogue separation meant vulnerability before Rome.
• Christians were to confess Caesar or die (stay away from idols – 1 Jn 5.21).

Transition B: From the Middle Period to the Later Period – Emerging Communities
in Johannine Christianity

C. Later Period – Asia Minor II, The Expansion of Johannine Christianity (85–100
CE)

• The first edition of John is finalized, but the evangelist continues to
preach, addressing the needs of the community.
• Other communities begin to form, though, and the Elder addresses them, as
well.
• Concerns with Jewish and Roman issues continue, but docetizing preachers and
hierarchical tendencies raise new concerns.
• The Elder finalizes the witness of the Beloved Disciple after his death and
circulates it among the churches.

Crisis V: Docetizing Gentile Christians and Antichristic threat 2 (1 Jn 4.1-3; 2
Jn 7; the gospel’s second-edition material – Jn 1.1-18, chs 6, 15-17, 21,
Beloved Disciple and ‘eyewitness’ passages)

• Some Gentile Christians believed it was not a problem to worship Caesar.
• Jewish Christian leadership emphasized ‘one Lord’ who suffered and died for
us.
• The docetists argued Jesus did not suffer, he merely appeared to.
• John’s leadership emphasized Jesus’ suffering and our willingness to do the
same.
• False teachers (teaching assimilation with Rome) are opposed by John’s
leadership.

Page 198


Crisis VI: Institutionalization within the Late First-century Church (3 Jn 9-
10; second-edition material – Paraklçtos passages; juxtaposition of Peter and
the Beloved Disciple)

• The Johannine leadership felt the apostolate had been hi-jacked by the
structuralists, and they sought to provide a Spirit-based (historical)
corrective.
• This is why Diotrephes was threatened.
• The juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple and the Parakletos
passages set the record straight (Jesus’ original intention).
• ‘His witness is true!’ bears with it ideological (ecclesiological)
implications.
• The Elder thus circulates the gospel ca. 100 CE as a witness to Jesus’ will
for the church.

Crisis VII: Dialectical Engagements with Synoptic and Prevalent Christian
Renderings of Jesus’ ministry (30–100 CE, spanning all three periods)

• Correcting the valuation of Jesus’ works (revelatory signs not ‘ate and were
satisfied’, Jn 6.26).
• The Kingdom goes forward as a function of truth (Jn 18.36-7, not power, even
thaumaturgic power).
• Jesus is the light of the world (versus his followers, Jn 8.12).
• Moses and Elijah are present in Jesus, not in the ministry of John the Baptist
or at the transfiguration (Jn 1.19-23).
• The second coming of Christ was not necessarily what he predicted (in Mark
9.1); rather, what he actually said (to Peter, by the way) is ‘What is it to you
if he lives until I come again…you follow me!’ (Jn 21.18-24).

D. Post-Johannine Christianity – The Johannine Gospel Impacts the Mainstream
Christian Movement and Alternative Ones (100 CE-->)

The Johannine gospel was taken by expelled Gentile (docetizing) Christians into
their movement, leading to the formation of Gnostic Johannine Christianity
(Heracleon et al.). Some Johannine influence goes toward influencing Christian
enthusiasm reflected in the Montanist movement (with Montanus calling himself
the ‘Paraklçtos’, the inclusion of women in ministry, and the desire to restore
the spiritual vitality of the Church).

Most of John’s influence impacted the mainstream Christian movement, so that by
the turn of the second century CE, more copies/fragments of John have been found
than any other gospel narrative. The Gospel of John became the most popular
Christian document in second-century Christianity, among orthodox and heterodox
communities alike.

Page 199



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

I will start answering your detailed e-mail.

I share your interest for the text as it is. That is the text  that was
received by the Church as a sacred text, and all of it has the same valure
for the faith of the Church. In this sense, I am not suggesting that the
original text is more important than later additions.

This doesn't prevent me to investigate into the story of the text. If
evidence is provided that the text underwent a development, I am ready to
accept that. It will become part of my understanding of the history of the
text: the history of its redaction, and the history of its trasmission. I
will value the original layers and the later layers, too.

I share with Jack the idea that a redactor adds some passages to John.

I don't agree that the same redactor added Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 and chapter 21.
Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 is a passage that we single out for text critical reasons.
It is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. It first appears in Codex
Bezae. It also has a lot of hapax legomena (if you are interested, I can
submit a list). The conclusion that text criticism draws is that, for both
external and internal reasons, the text doesn't belong to the original.

Interestingly, some manuscripts have the same text in other locations: at
the end of the Gospel of John, or at the end of Luke. It has been suggested
that this can be explained if Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 was a piece of tradition that
was written down on its own, and added later to the Gospel. If so, Jn. 7: 53
- 8:11 has its own value, but is not part of the structure of John. It
becomes part of John only in the fifth century. Either John had no structure
until the fifth century, or Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 doesn't belong to that
structure.

As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am skeptic.
I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We have no news that
this happened at the beginning of C.E. We know of texts that developed
orally with the contribution of many authors, but don't know of text that
were written by several hands at once. When an author wrote, he was alone or
he enjoyed the help of a secretary, but no more than that. The author could
dictate the text, and the secretary could be granted some freedom to add
something, as Tertius does in Romans. In this case, Tertius says that he is
adding a line of his own. Or Paul sometimes says that he is personally
penning a sentence, when he is no longer dictating. The author could also
ask his secretary to shape his ideas into a written text. In this case, the
literary author is the secretary, who writes in his own words. Cooperation
could go no further than that. The bottom line is that no more that one hand
could hold the calamus at the same time.

If so, than whenever I suggest that a different hand is writing, the burden
of proof lies upon me. This is why I took pains to prove that John 21 is
wrote by a different person than the beloved disciple.

You can point to the fact that John 21 says that "we know that his witness
his true". It looks like more than one person is speaking. If you are ready
to accept that, because you take the author's word, then you should also
accept that, according to the author of John 21, what comes before is
written by the beloved disciple. This doesn't mean that we should refuse to
admit that other hands wrote this part or that. It means that we can't
assume that as a general rule, but rather that whenever we say that a person
different from the beloved disciple is writing, the burden of proof is upon
us. As you see, I am not taking John 21 lightly. I accept it as part of the
Gospel, and I take it very seriously.

As for the author, or authors, of John 21. I still think that no more than
one person at once can hold the pen and write. If the person that writes
John 21 writes that "we know", then I draw the conclusion that he has the
authority to speak for a group. The author of John 21 would be in a
condition similar to that of the author of 2-3 John, that often speaks in
first person plural, even if he is one man, that is the PRESBUTEROS of 2
John 1 and 3 John 1. The same PRESBUTEROS says in 3 John 12: hHMEIS
MARTUROUMEN. It looks like he can speak for a group of brothers. This can be
explained, if the PRESBUTEROS plays a part in the leadership of a Christian
community. The letters to Timothy and Titus, along with the Letters of
Ignace of Antioch, show that this could happen around the end of the first
century and around the beginning of the second century.

I believe that also the beloved disciple was such a leader. This is why he
could also speak for others.

Marco

On 11/28/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
>
>   Fabbri,
>
> Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing with
> "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
> written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
>
> I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
> bit differently than you do. He has set forth a
> theory that a redactor's work can be detected
> throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
> prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
> adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the work
> of that redactor. (It will be interesting to see if
> he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
>
> I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
> that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
> scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
> except for what can be identified as redactions made
> by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
> refutable.
>
> If approached from the point of view that the Gospel
> is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
> leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple), then
> one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
> or writing style throughout the text (other than, as I
> have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance on
> semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
> of the Pentateuch).
>
> To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
> consider whether the work of that whole community of
> scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or more
> collaborating hands. In that case, the aforementioned
> evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
> the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
> produced the consistency, and therefore should not be
> removed from the text for the purposes of study. It
> could also be possible that the materials that don't
> reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be components
> that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
> edit, but which had been selected to be included in
> the text as a whole.
>
> The Prologue is a good case in point for this
> consideration. What value would there have been for
> the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
> Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
> hymn? It would seem to be more important to include
> it in the text without editing it than the other way
> around.
>
> I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett and
> RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes to
> us, rather than by trying to detect editorial changes
> before studying it's content and structure.
>
> My reasons for taking this position, however, are
> somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's. As I
> have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see a
> consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
> consistency that is disturbed when either the prologue
> or chapter 21 is removed.
>
> I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on the
> list will join me in this, for the idea that
> uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
> Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
> mining its wealth of meaning. Only after that step
> has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
> determine if any of the material that seems not to
> fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
> meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
>
> Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
> scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
> gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
> editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
> believes that such a change would have been made by
> the hand of a redactor.
>
> I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
> were intentionally writing scripture. If that was
> known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
> would expect to be able to discern a reason for adding
> gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that would
> make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in the
> first century Christian community than it would have
> been without the changes. Why else would such changes
> be made?
>
> I have found significant meaning even in what is
> often described as "transitional material" in this
> gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
> analysis). I fear that loosing such parts of the text
> may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
>
> I may be in a minority on this. Perhaps those
> favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
> error in my rationale before we begin dealing with the
> detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
> their theory/ theories.
>
> I will do my best (still working on Jack's detailed
> list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
> point out why removal of the material identified as
> redactions does more damage to the text and to our
> ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
> to clarify its structure or meaning.
>
> That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
> debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up. Is
> there another, a better way to describe where we are
> on this thread?
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> P.S. Since first writing this, I've become aware that
> all of the messages sent to the list have not been
> arriving at my computer. I hope to catch up to the
> conversation soon. It is not my intention to ignore
> anyone else's contributions.
>
> --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> > not written by the same
> > person that wrote John 1-20.
> >
> > I find the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> > conclusion, that refers
> > back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in
> > John 2-12. Therefore,
> > unless the contrary is proved, I understand John
> > 20,30-31 as the conclusion
> > of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or
> > not).
> >
> > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> > TAUTA. It is reasonable to
> > think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that
> > is to the Gospel as a
> > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.
> >
> > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> > not written by the beloved
> > disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:
> >
> > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> > is true". The verb is in
> > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
> > easily distinguished from
> > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> > person: "he".
> >
> > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> > author of John 1-20, he
> > would be a person who testifies on his own behalf.
> > As John 5,31 says: "If I
> > testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be
> > verified".
> >
> > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> > the beloved disciple
> > wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the
> > brothers. These verses
> > make sense if they were written after the death of
> > the beloved disciple: the
> > author seems worried that some brothers might think
> > that Jesus was wrong.
> > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these
> > verses.
> >
> > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> > 20,30-31 make it plausible
> > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was
> > added subesequently. The
> > fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified
> > when chapter 21 is
> > added leads to think that the author of John 21
> > didn't think he could change
> > what was already written. This doens't happen in
> > John 1-20, whenever the
> > test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a
> > correction is inserted
> > within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take
> > the same liberty.
> >
> > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> > named before: that is,
> > the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are
> > never named in John 1-20.
> > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> > 21 was written.
> >
> > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> > are not existent in
> > John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is
> > OPSARION. ICQUS is never
> > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> > the auothr of John 21 is
> > the same as the author of John 1-20.
> >
> > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> > give me certainty. I
> > recognis that the following reasons are indiciary.
> > If consiered separately,
> > they make it more likely that the author is
> > different. All together, they
> > make a strong case against identity of author.
> >
> > If would be very interested to read a refutation of
> > any of the given
> > reasons.
> >
> > Marco
> >
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System
color=#0000ff>TomButler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Marco,

Just one lttle snippet from your letter.

<<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>

It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
manner of books, reports, etc.

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...

Dear Kym:

your quotation of Acts is appropriate.

We have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dication, to reflect
the agreement of the Council, that is quoted as a document in the book of
the Acts, that is not written by a council.

I don't deny that people can work cooperatively. They can do this in various
ways. But in the antiquity this was done orally. Written texts are written
by individuals, that can take full advantage of the work of the group.

Today we have wikis, that allow cooperative writing. In the antiquity
writing was a very slow process, that lead to a single manuscript. The
manuscript then had to be copied, and this is slow, too. Modifications could
be done, but other people woulnd't know about them until the modified text
was copied and distributed. There was no multiple access to the same text.

Printed texts were a revolution. Digital text are a revolution. We should be
careful not to bring our habits back to the time when a book was written and
copied by hand.

At least, this is my view. I am open to change my mind, if  evidence from
ancient texts requires that.

Marco

On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
>
>   Dear Marco,
>
> Just one lttle snippet from your letter.
>
> <<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
> skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
> have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>
>
> It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
> happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
> There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
> worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
> manner of books, reports, etc.
>
> Kym Smith
> Adelaide
> South Australia
> khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Marco,

An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.

------------------------------------

`Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.

'(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
(EPECHEIROUN – had undertaken) to kill him.'

The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
`Jesus whom Paul preaches'.

Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...

`To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26)  or
if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.

------------------------------

What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
that for a month or two.

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...

Dear Kym,

thank you for pointing to this text.

I would contend that:
1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative
2) even if he did, this cannot be the same narrative as the Gospel of John
1-20.

1) DIHGHSIS is certainly a narrative. And this narrative has been arranged
according to a TAXIS, that is, an order that can be recognized.

My point is that a narrative can be arranged in a written form, but also in
an oral form. On its part, a written narrative can be arranged according to
an order that a reader can recognize, or it can be written in such a way
that the reader doesn't perceive a TAXIS.

I will refer to a famous fragment by Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his
Ecclesiastical History:

MARKOS MEN hERMENEUTHS PETROU GENOMENOS, hOSA EMNHMONEUSEN, AKRIBWS
EGRAPSEN, OU MENTOI TAXEI, TA hUPO TOU CRISTOU H LECQENTA H PRACQENTA. OUTE
GAR HKOUSE TOU KURIOU, OUTE PARHKOLOUQHSEN AUTWi, HUSTERON DE, hWS EFHN,
PETRWi, hWS PROS TAS CREIAS EPOIEITO TAS DIDASKALIAS, ALL' OUC hWSPER
SUNTAXIN TWN KURIAKWN POIOUMENOS LOGIWN.

Here we have Peter that arranges his teachings according to need, and Mark
that listens to Peter and writes down what he heard from him. Mark writes
OU... TAXEI. He does not impress into his narrative an order that is
perceived by Papias.

I am not asking that you agree that Mark reflects the preaching of Peter,
nor that Mark's narrative has no TAXIS at all. Rather, my point is that the
Greek ANATAXASQAI, when used to speak of a narrative, does not mean "write
down" a narrative, but rather "impress an order" to a narrative. This can be
done orally or in a written form.

The same frragment by Papias shows that Peter 's teching included accounts
of Jesus' words, but also of his actions (PRACQENTA).  An account of actions
is a narrative.  Here we have oral narratives by Peter, that are the source
for Mark's written narrative.

Again, I am not asking that such accounts by Peter were available to Mark.
Rather, I am suggesting that our text allows for narrations to be organized
and told even before anything was written.

In other words, we should distinguish between "composition" of a narrative,
that can be either oral or written, and "redaction", which is written.

In my opinion, there is no prove that Luke's ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN refers to
written composition. It may as well refer to oral composition. The Greek
allows for that.

Luke 1:3 says that he is going to write (GRAPSAI) a narrative, not that
"many" wrote narratives. If you contend that "many" wrote, you should prove
that. ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN is no proof.

You seem to agree with that, when you write in the excerpt of your book: "On
every other occasion in the gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a
derivative of GRAPSW if
someone was writing".  It appears that Luke uses the verb GRAFW when he
refers to a written account.

2) Even if Luke 1:1 referred to written accounts (and I disagree with that),
those accounts could not be the fourth Gospel as we know it. John 21:23 says
that the beloved disciple is the one "who bears witness and wrote these
things (hO GRAPSAS TAUTA)". Even if we knew nothing else about the beloved
disciple, this text says that he is one person and that he wrote: the third
singular is used. He could be one of the "many" that Luke 1:1 speaks about,
he can't be all of them.

Of course, you can deny that the picture of John 21 is not accurate. But, if
so, why should Luke 1:1 be more accurate? Why should the picture of Luke 1:1
provide a better understanding of John that the picture provided by John 21?
I would rather use John 21 to form a picture of John 1-20, and use Luke
1:1-4 to form a picture of Luke 1-24. At least, we are sure that John 21
speaks of the Gospel of John, while it is yet to be proved that Luke 1:1
speaks of the Fourth Gospel.

So much for now. I thank you for providing a chance for discussion on this.
It is wonderful to be able to hear from Nevada and from Australia, as if we
are were all living in the same city.

Marco




On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
>
>   Dear Marco,
>
> An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
> undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
> is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
> grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
> single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
> produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
> I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
> publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
> this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> `Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
> better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
> act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
> imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
> production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
> Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
> used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
> two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
> is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
> group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
> to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.
>
> '(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
> and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
> (EPECHEIROUN – had undertaken) to kill him.'
>
> The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
> relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
> `Jesus whom Paul preaches'.
>
> Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
> to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...
>
> `To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
> compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
> repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
> verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
> actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
> only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
> gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
> someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26) or
> if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
> the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
> The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
> EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
> encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
> single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
> that for a month or two.
>
> Kym Smith
> Adelaide
> South Australia
> khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
>
>

--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
>An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
>undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
>is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
>grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
>single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
>produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.

Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222.  However,
this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
press this grammatical point too hard.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                             mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:                                   http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors


> At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
>>An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
>>undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
>>is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
>>grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
>>single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
>>produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
>
> Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
> Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222.  However,
> this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
> in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
> press this grammatical point too hard.
>
> Stephen Carlson


I am certain you are correct, Stephen.  In about three weeks many will
undertake to decorate a tree.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton

Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is
asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom
Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's
view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are
identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he
reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other
synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he
holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a
non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes
something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan
contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as
having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter,
Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the
case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later
material as well as earlier material.

d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself)
arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written
John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is
rendered in a written form.

e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian
Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for
John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does
not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by
Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar
with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine
"interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues,
especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my
dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical
Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine
engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like
Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at
stake.

Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories
of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a
monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional
and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the
case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new
introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel
(2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume
(2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

Paul Anderson

***
While John’s tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent
Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades
before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact
with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does
influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the
relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been
different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as
Mark’s. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new
synthesis regarding John’s dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships
with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a “bi-optic”
alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical
engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

a)John’s Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions.
Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in
its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine
paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the
personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case
with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions.
Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared
buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities
in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions,
influence may have crossed in both directions, making “interfluence” a plausible
inference.

c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least
some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary
project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of
John’s departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality
(Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority;
rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as “the Bi-Optic Gospels.”

d)John’s Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine
tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke’s tradition. This
explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and
sides with John. Because many of John’s features are not followed, the Johannine
influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably
reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

e)John’s Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that
the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine
influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the “bolt out of the Johannine blue”
points to such a possibility.

f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition
of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and
possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to
emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of
Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and
Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over
how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other
in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus’ agency as the Jewish Messiah.

h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE)
the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity,
corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the
inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus
written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder.
After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other
material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
“whose testimony is true.”

j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels.
While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an
independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and
Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as
quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Peter,

Until just recently I have been all but silent on this and other lists
for a couple of years. I have been working on a book which will be
published in January and, until it was all together, I have refrained
from getting involved in too many conversations that would detract
from finishing it. It will also be of interest to the Synooptic List.
The book is titled, 'The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution'. I
see that John holds the key to the SP, but not only the key, it was,
itself, part of the process. It claims a combined apostolic effort to
enlarge Mark in a single volume but which ended up with John, Matthew
and Luke being written, all knowing what had been written previously -
i.e. Mk in the first instance and then Mk and Jn in the case of Mt and
Lk. I hinted at this in the last sentece in my last message and have
only, since then, completed the book.

Kym Smith
St Luke's Anglican Church
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...


--- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kirby <peter@...>
wrote:
>
> What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
> trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
> up to date.
>
> --
> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
> Student, CSU Fullerton
>

________________________________

From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is
asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom
Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's
view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are
identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he
reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other
synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he
holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a
non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes
something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan
contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as
having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter,
Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the
case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later
material as well as earlier material.

d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself)
arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written
John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is
rendered in a written form.

e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian
Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for
John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does
not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by
Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar
with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine
"interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues,
especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my
dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical
Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine
engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like
Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at
stake.

Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories
of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a
monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional
and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the
case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new
introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel
(2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume
(2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

Paul Anderson

***
While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent
Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades
before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact
with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does
influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the
relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been
different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as
Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new
synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships
with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic"
alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical
engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions.
Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in
its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine
paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the
personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case
with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions.
Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared
buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities
in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions,
influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible
inference.

c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least
some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary
project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of
John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality
(Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority;
rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine
tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This
explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and
sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine
influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably
reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that
the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine
influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue"
points to such a possibility.

f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition
of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and
possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to
emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of
Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and
Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over
how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other
in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE)
the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity,
corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the
inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus
written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder.
After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other
material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
"whose testimony is true."

j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels.
While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an
independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and
Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as
quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter and paul:

Thank you Paul for this helpful summary of recent work, and a quick description
of some of your points.

I do think that the issue comes down to a few key issues:

1.  Is the Johannine story sufficiently similar to Mark's outline to suggest
that he was influenced by it in his writing?  Or, alternatively, is the story a
narrative because ultimately the Jesus tradition simply demands it.  For me, I
simply don't see that many similarities in the story structure to see an
influence.

2.  I remain influenced by the way Windisch put the issue:  If John was using
Mark, then it would appear that he was trying to totally replace that gospel
with a different story. I am not convinced that that would be the case.  It is
easier to see independence.

3.  The key issue for some relationship is in close series of contacts.  That is
the burden of my work on connections between Luke and John in the passion
narrative. As you point out, I and Barbara Shellard (and you in a more limited
way) end up arguing that the direction points from John to Luke, not the other
way around.

4.  Of course the issue of traditions and oral influences is a bit different. It
is hard to argue with the idea that some Markan ideas (or others) had somehow
been caught up in the oral tradition.   I actually find that fairly plausible.
My hunch is that there were quite a few oral traditions swirling around in the
churches.  The difficulty is in detecting which way such influence works.  Were
Mark and John both influenced by these traditions, with some variations perhaps
involved depending on time and locations?  Or did Mark's tradition (or feasibly
John's) get caught back up in the ongoing traditions?  Again, the difficulty
here is to gain some critical control over these influences and dependencies.

5.  Which is why I find Lincoln's work, so dependent on Barrett's, so
unconvincing. It smacks of a nice "safe" approach, but doesn't show (in my
opinion) much hard work exploring how and why such dependencies might exist.

6.  Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found his article on
mark/john relationship the weakest of that volume and ultimately unconvincing.

Paul, at the final analysis, the problem I have with your theory is that it is
ultimately too complex (and hypothetical).  As Moody Smith pointed out with
respect to Boismard's rather complex chart of relationships (which admittedly
were literary, and hence even more difficult to sustain), one can create a
scenario that explains everything if one expands the variables and
interrelationship enough.  At some point some argument for simplicity as a
theoretical boundary (a form of Ockham's razor) should give us caution about
trying to explain too much.  On the other hand, I can't say that your approach
is wrong.  It just makes me nervous by explaining too much.

mark matson

________________________________

From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is
asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom
Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's
view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are
identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he
reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other
synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he
holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a
non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes
something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan
contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as
having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter,
Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the
case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later
material as well as earlier material.

d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself)
arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written
John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is
rendered in a written form.

e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian
Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for
John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does
not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by
Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar
with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine
"interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues,
especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my
dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical
Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine
engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like
Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at
stake.

Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories
of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a
monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional
and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the
case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new
introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel
(2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume
(2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

Paul Anderson

***
While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent
Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades
before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact
with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does
influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the
relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been
different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as
Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new
synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships
with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic"
alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical
engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions.
Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in
its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine
paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the
personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case
with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions.
Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared
buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities
in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions,
influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible
inference.

c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least
some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary
project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of
John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality
(Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority;
rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine
tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This
explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and
sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine
influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably
reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that
the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine
influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue"
points to such a possibility.

f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition
of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and
possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to
emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of
Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and
Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over
how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other
in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE)
the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity,
corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the
inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus
written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder.
After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other
material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
"whose testimony is true."

j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels.
While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an
independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and
Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as
quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Mark,

Your message didn't come through, so you might send it again. I'm interested in
your treatment of the issue, as well.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Matson, Mark (Academic)
Sent: Mon 12/11/2006 5:26 PM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



________________________________

From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is
asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom
Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's
view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are
identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he
reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other
synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he
holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a
non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes
something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan
contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as
having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter,
Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the
case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later
material as well as earlier material.

d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself)
arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written
John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is
rendered in a written form.

e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian
Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for
John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does
not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by
Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar
with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine
"interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues,
especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my
dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical
Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine
engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like
Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at
stake.

Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories
of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a
monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional
and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the
case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new
introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel
(2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume
(2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

Paul Anderson

***
While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent
Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades
before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact
with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does
influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the
relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been
different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as
Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new
synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships
with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic"
alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical
engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions.
Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in
its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine
paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the
personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case
with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions.
Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared
buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities
in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions,
influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible
inference.

c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least
some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary
project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of
John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality
(Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority;
rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine
tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This
explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and
sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine
influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably
reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that
the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine
influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue"
points to such a possibility.

f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition
of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and
possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to
emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of
Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and
Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over
how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other
in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE)
the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity,
corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the
inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus
written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder.
After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other
material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
"whose testimony is true."

j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels.
While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an
independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and
Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as
quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Mark, that's better.  I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and while a
brief engagement here cannot take the place of considering the fuller published
arguments, in my works and yours, let me add a few comments after your good
points (introduced by asterisks *). I also want to call for scholars to read the
published texts involved (Matson's book, and mine, plus Moody Smith's work, and
others) instead of allowing impressions to be formed too narrowly by even
meaningful listserve dialogue. Nonetheless, these general discussions are really
helpful in what they clarify as to why scholars believe what they do. I hope
that even several clarifications below are helpful in laying out what is being
said, as well as what is not.


Mark Matson says,

I do think that the issue comes down to a few key issues:

1.  Is the Johannine story sufficiently similar to Mark's outline to suggest
that he was influenced by it in his writing?  Or, alternatively, is the story a
narrative because ultimately the Jesus tradition simply demands it.  For me, I
simply don't see that many similarities in the story structure to see an
influence.

* Good point; I mean "influence" as a provocation to produce an alternative
narrative, not as a factor of dependence. John does not follow Mark in detail in
any closely structural sort of way, but I do think an alternative Jesus
tradition is what the Johannine evangelist seeks to provide. See MacKay's
analysis on this; while I don't go as far as he does, some interesting
narratological features suggest a general familiarity with Mark (might it have
been "heard" as a narrative read in a meeting for worship, for instance?).
Assuming with Lindars that John 6 and 21 are likely candidates for later
additions to John (along with some other material), the first edition of John
possesses the five signs that are not in Mark or any of the other gospels.
Therefore, the "first sign" and the "second sign" in Galilee might be seen to be
an augmentation of Mark 1 chronologically, and the other three signs (in Bethany
and Jerusalem) might be seen as an augmentation of Mark georgraphically. Matthew
and Luke built upon Mark, but John appears to have built around Mark.


2.  I remain influenced by the way Windisch put the issue:  If John was using
Mark, then it would appear that he was trying to totally replace that gospel
with a different story. I am not convinced that that would be the case.  It is
easier to see independence.

* No, Windisch is wrong, here. That overstates the alternatives as a forced
dichotomy: "If John knew Mark, and still did something independent, John's story
was so different that it must be construed as a total supplanting of Mark rather
than a complementing of Mark." That's too strong. John does render a similar
(and independent--even Bultmann acknowledges that) Passion narrative, with some
similar features in the beginning and middle, and I agree that the best answer
is to infer an independent Jesus tradition which is Johannine. However,
independence does not imply total isolation from familiarity with written Mark.
Here Gardner-Smith's correct inferences of John's essential autonomy gets
over-stated as a necessarily isolationist stance. Could it not be that John
poses an alternative view precisely because he is familiar with other renderings
of "signs that Jesus had done in the prsence of his disciples not written in
THIS book," implying known familiarity with and contradistinction against Mark?
I find that to be a more plausible rendering of John and Mark as representing
two "bi-optic" perspectives--from day one until their finalization.


3.  The key issue for some relationship is in close series of contacts.  That is
the burden of my work on connections between Luke and John in the passion
narrative. As you point out, I and Barbara Shellard (and you in a more limited
way) end up arguing that the direction points from John to Luke, not the other
way around.

* Yes, I think your work is very important here, and with you, I believe the
work of Lamar Cribbs has been overlooked to the detriment of Lukan-Johannine
analyses. I might not go as far as Cribbs in some of his inferences of Lukan
familiarity with a written John, but his and your analyses are really
intriguing. Here's where I pause on that: If Luke were familiar with written
John, the great catch of fish, the Temple cleansing, the I-Am sayings, and the
raising of Lazarus (as well as a few other things) would have been included by
Luke in ways commensurate with the Johannine ordering and presentation. This
would especially have been the case if Luke held the Johannine tradition to be
authoritative. Arguably, Luke 1:2 includes a direct tribute to the Johannine
tradition as one of his sources (gratitude to "eyewitnesses and servants of the
Logos"), and I believe Luke connects the disciple John with a Johannine motif
(unwittingly) in interesting ways. The implication is that Luke sides with John
against Mark at least three dozen times (in my outlines), where the Johannine
tradition is known. My inference is that where Luke follows Mark's outline and
general presentation instead of John's, this reflects not an authoritative
privileging of written Mark over written John; rather it reflects access to
written Mark but only a partial access to the Johannine narrative--plausibly
because it is not available in its written form. Then again, I could be wrong on
that, but these are some of the reasons I go in an oral-aural connection between
Luke and the Johannine tradition rather than a written-read one.


4.  Of course the issue of traditions and oral influences is a bit different. It
is hard to argue with the idea that some Markan ideas (or others) had somehow
been caught up in the oral tradition.   I actually find that fairly plausible.
My hunch is that there were quite a few oral traditions swirling around in the
churches.  The difficulty is in detecting which way such influence works.  Were
Mark and John both influenced by these traditions, with some variations perhaps
involved depending on time and locations?  Or did Mark's tradition (or feasibly
John's) get caught back up in the ongoing traditions?  Again, the difficulty
here is to gain some critical control over these influences and dependencies.

* Good points, Mark! That's why I agree that holding open possibilites for
informal contacts, and secondary orality makes sense--in both directions. That's
why a general theory of interfluentuality makes sense. So, as I say in my work,
the sketching of particular inferences do not displace other informal
possibilities, so in that sense, claiming to "settle it all" goes beyond what I
actually believe and claim.


5.  Which is why I find Lincoln's work, so dependent on Barrett's, so
unconvincing. It smacks of a nice "safe" approach, but doesn't show (in my
opinion) much hard work exploring how and why such dependencies might exist.

* Right! Of ALL the Johannine-Markan contacts, NONE of them are identical, which
is why even Barrett had to admit that the relationship, if there were a
relationship, had to have been different from Luke's and Matthew's dependence on
Mark.


6.  Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found his article on
mark/john relationship the weakest of that volume and ultimately unconvincing.

* I might want you to say more here; the features I do find convincing included
a plausible inference of Markan familiarity for John's audience, which would
explain (at least) the clarifications of "before" John's imprisonment (as
narrated in Mark) and "as Jesus had testified regarding the rejection of the
home-town prophet (as narrated in Mark). I see the contrastive features in John
as evidence of familiarity--setting the record straight over and against Mark.
So, the Baptist and Jesus ministered simultaneously for some time, and despite
the rejection in Nazareth, the Smaritans and the royal official did indeed
receive him. Likewise, the Temple cleansing was early, Jesus traveled to and
from Jerusalem several times before the final Passover events, and Jesus'
ministry was a bit less formalized than emerging traditions might be
representing (to name a few).


Paul, at the final analysis, the problem I have with your theory is that it is
ultimately too complex (and hypothetical).  As Moody Smith pointed out with
respect to Boismard's rather complex chart of relationships (which admittedly
were literary, and hence even more difficult to sustain), one can create a
scenario that explains everything if one expands the variables and
interrelationship enough.  At some point some argument for simplicity as a
theoretical boundary (a form of Ockham's razor) should give us caution about
trying to explain too much.  On the other hand, I can't say that your approach
is wrong.  It just makes me nervous by explaining too much.

* Yes, I appreciate the difficulties of considering possible contacts with other
traditions, but this is not Boismard; it needs to be read and weighed in its own
right, on the particulars before a fitting judgment can be made. Also, "John's
dialogical autonomy" is far simpler a theory than Bultmann's, and the evidence
is much stronger because we have real texts to deal with instead of imaginary
ones. Here's where Ockham's razor (the Principle of Parsimony) has played us
false, though: narrowing the options wrongly and forcing a choice between only
two options, when others might be considered. After all, a 70-year tradition
with many formative features would not have been constrained by the hypothetical
limiting of options (for instance, John's relation to "the Synoptics" had to
have been either X or Y; or, John's relation to the Markan tradition cannot have
been both B and C). So, here's how I apply Ockham's Razor on particular aspects
of the larger set of issues:

Question 1: Did John depend on other traditions? No. All the contacts are also
different, and I think we agree on the basic autonomy of John.

Question 2: Was John isolated from other traditions in its independence? I infer
some dialogical contact between John's and other traditions, and that most of
this involved engaging oral traditions, sometimes in both directions. I think we
agree in general, but you reject familiarity with written Mark. Would you say
that the Johannine evangelist did not know that any other gospels, including
Mark, were extant? Might even a general familiarity have called forth an
alternative narration?

Question 3: Was the Johannine tradition's relation with other traditions
monolithic--the same, or might it have been different in relation to different
traditions and forms? Here I go with a phenomenological analysis of the
evidence--considering "all" (at least most of them) the similarities and
differences between John and the other traditions, and developing particular
inferences on the basis of what the evidence suggests most plausibly. I think we
agree here, but you're reluctant on the particulars, which is fine, to begin
with. However, being reluctant to consider the particulars is different from
disagreeing with particular inferences. I'm happy to reconsider any of the
dozens of contacts and inferences, but they have to be sorted out text-by-text.
So, on particular contacts, I'm happy to consider a preferable solution if there
is one, including "no inference possible." However, that's different from saying
John had only one relationship with one gospel tradition--Luke's and all others
are "too complex" to be inferred.

Question 4: Is John's origin and development, including its similarities and
differences with other canonical traditions, explicable by means of a single,
monofaceted theory, based upon an Ockham's theory of privileging simplicity over
complexity? I'd be happy to say "yes" to this one, but the facts demand its
rejection. Again, physics works better with Parsimony than historical-critical
and literary-critical considerations, so a "single" explanation for the Civil
War or the collapse of the Berlin Wall might be attractive, but they are likely
to be wrong. This is precisely where Johannine studies have foundered, often
unnecessarily. Instead of arguing for "only one" socio-religious dialogue in the
Johannine situation, there may have been several. So, unless one is going to
argue "isolation," one must be ready to explain the particular contacts in ways
that are least speculative and most plausible. Here we may disagree;  I might
concur that to define the origin and devleopment of John simplistically is
attractive; I just think it hides from the facts.

So, we do agree upon the generalities of John's influence upon Luke, but do you
think that the Johannine tradition had a dialogical relationsihp with only one
tradition--Lukes? If so, why? On Johannine-Markan contacts, what do you do with
MacKay's work or my "Answerability" essay (see L-Lit website)? And, whence the
tension between Peter and the Beloved Disciple and the "bolt out of the
Johannine blue" in Q (if there was a Q)? Is the most plausible thesis one of "No
relationship," or "oral-traditional contact only," or should we look at all the
similarities and differences between John and the other traditions and try to
make modest inferences about what seems most plausible? That's what I'm trying
to do, and I'm happy to stand corrected on any of the particulars, and any of
the generalities. I'm not convinced, though, by allegations of "too complex" or
the privileging of Ockham over the complexities of the facts, themselves.

Thanks for the good engagement, Mark; it's a privilege to clarify some of our
questions and to gain a clearer focus on how to approach these important issues.

Take care,

Paul

***

mark matson

________________________________

From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is
asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom
Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's
view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are
identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he
reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other
synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he
holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a
non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes
something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan
contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as
having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter,
Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the
case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later
material as well as earlier material.

d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself)
arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written
John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is
rendered in a written form.

e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian
Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for
John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does
not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by
Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar
with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine
"interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues,
especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my
dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical
Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine
engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like
Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at
stake.

Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories
of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a
monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional
and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the
case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new
introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel
(2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume
(2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

Paul Anderson

***
While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent
Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades
before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact
with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does
influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the
relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been
different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as
Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new
synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships
with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic"
alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical
engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions.
Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in
its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine
paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the
personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case
with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions.
Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared
buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities
in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions,
influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible
inference.

c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least
some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary
project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of
John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality
(Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority;
rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine
tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This
explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and
sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine
influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably
reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that
the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine
influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue"
points to such a possibility.

f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition
of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and
possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to
emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of
Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and
Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over
how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other
in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE)
the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity,
corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the
inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus
written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder.
After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other
material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple,
"whose testimony is true."

j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels.
While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an
independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and
Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as
quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?  I am
trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
up to date.

--
Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
Student, CSU Fullerton



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> * No, Windisch is wrong, here.  <<snip>> Could it not be that John
poses an alternative view
> precisely because he is familiar with other renderings of
> "signs that Jesus had done in the prsence of his disciples
> not written in THIS book," implying known familiarity with
> and contradistinction against Mark?

Granted, Windisch stakes out extreme either/or's (he is German of an
era, after all).  But they are provocative.
But does John seem to be writing in contradistinction against Mark?
That would comport with one of Windisch's alternatives.  Help me see a
bit more how he stakes out a contradisctinction, and if it is friendly
(correction) or hostile (replacement).

> Here's where I pause on that: If Luke
> were familiar with written John, the great catch of fish, the
> Temple cleansing, the I-Am sayings, and the raising of
> Lazarus (as well as a few other things) would have been
> included by Luke in ways commensurate with the Johannine
> ordering and presentation. This would especially have been
> the case if Luke held the Johannine tradition to be
> authoritative. Arguably, Luke 1:2 includes a direct tribute
> to the Johannine tradition as one of his sources (gratitude
> to "eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos"), and I believe
> Luke connects the disciple John with a Johannine motif
> (unwittingly) in interesting ways.

As you know, my focus was on the passion narrative. Interestingly, I did
do some work comparing overall points of contact (ala Cribbs) and found
that most of these are closely related to some version of Fortna's signs
source.  SO.... We may have a case where Luke did not know the whole
completed John.  Certainly the material in the dialogue sections (hence
the I-am statements) seem to have to real presence in Luke.  Luke 5 /
John 21 presents an interesting case.  There is of course a similarity
here on details, but the point is completely different.  But that is so
difficulty because we don't know what to do with John 21.  If it was
written later, did it receive some influence (orally probably) from the
story in Luke 5?

But order issues don't concern me.  Luke has a pattern of re-ordering
material, especially from Matthew.  He is clearly an active
editor/composer.  And he does evaluate materials, and choose how to use
them in support of his overall plan and gospel, which is quite different
that Matthew and John, and even Mark. (see below)

> The implication is that
> Luke sides with John against Mark at least three dozen times
> (in my outlines), where the Johannine tradition is known. My
> inference is that where Luke follows Mark's outline and
> general presentation instead of John's, this reflects not an
> authoritative privileging of written Mark over written John;
> rather it reflects access to written Mark but only a partial
> access to the Johannine narrative--plausibly because it is
> not available in its written form. Then again, I could be
> wrong on that, but these are some of the reasons I go in an
> oral-aural connection between Luke and the Johannine
> tradition rather than a written-read one.

You are right, of course, that Luke often sides with Mark (vs. John, and
vs. Matt.).  Is it because Luke only had written Mark and oral John?  I
suppose that is possible, though I think in the passion narrative it is
stronger than that.  But why wouldn't Luke, if he had and used various
sources, evaluate them differently?  This is what I think he did. He may
well have heard (and read) Mark first, and it became his operative
gospel.  But then he heard/read other gospels (Matt & John), and learned
other traditions, and then had to evaluate each and fit them into a
narrative. Hence there is the great interpolation, the scattering of the
Sermon on the Mount into more functional focused issues, some
reordering, etc.  That sounds like Luke's editorial method.  For him to
be somewhat suspicious of the radically different John, and yet
intrigued and even convinced on a number of issues contained in John,
does not surprise me.


> 6.  Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found
> his article on mark/john relationship the weakest of that
> volume and ultimately unconvincing.
>
> * I might want you to say more here; the features I do find
> convincing included a plausible inference of Markan
> familiarity for John's audience, which would explain (at
> least) the clarifications of "before" John's imprisonment (as
> narrated in Mark) and "as Jesus had testified regarding the
> rejection of the home-town prophet (as narrated in Mark).

Let me re-read Bauckham's argument before I venture more here.


> Question 1: Did John depend on other traditions? No. All the
> contacts are also different, and I think we agree on the
> basic autonomy of John.

Agreed.

> Question 2: Was John isolated from other traditions in its
> independence? I infer some dialogical contact between John's
> and other traditions, and that most of this involved engaging
> oral traditions, sometimes in both directions. I think we
> agree in general, but you reject familiarity with written
> Mark. Would you say that the Johannine evangelist did not
> know that any other gospels, including Mark, were extant?
> Might even a general familiarity have called forth an
> alternative narration?

I don't see evidence of John's knowledge of any written gospels.  I
think you sense me correctly here.  Or, to be more precise, I don't see
any evidence that he does.  Was he aware of various traditions? Probably
(or at least possibly).  He certainly relied on traditions in the
composition.  But he frames the gospel in such a unique way -- the
signs, long dialogues, the central plot issue of the early and sustained
(and growing) objection by "the Jews", etc. -- that it is hard to see
the strong similarities. And even the passion week, with the calendar
differences, the lack of a cultic Lord's Supper, the long extended
farewell speeches, no Gethsemane, no apocalyptic speeches, very
different trial scene, etc., all are so distinctively different it is
hard for me to imagine a written gospel that he is reacting against.  I
don't see the asides, the reframing of specific quotes or scenes, that
would suggest a rhetorical engagement or alternative narration.  If he
did know a written gospel, he simply ignores it.

>
> Question 3: Was the Johannine tradition's relation with other
> traditions monolithic--the same, or might it have been
> different in relation to different traditions and forms? Here
> I go with a phenomenological analysis of the
> evidence--considering "all" (at least most of them) the
> similarities and differences between John and the other
> traditions, and developing particular inferences on the basis
> of what the evidence suggests most plausibly. I think we
> agree here, but you're reluctant on the particulars, which is
> fine, to begin with. However, being reluctant to consider the
> particulars is different from disagreeing with particular
> inferences. I'm happy to reconsider any of the dozens of
> contacts and inferences, but they have to be sorted out
> text-by-text. So, on particular contacts, I'm happy to
> consider a preferable solution if there is one, including "no
> inference possible." However, that's different from saying
> John had only one relationship with one gospel
> tradition--Luke's and all others are "too complex" to be inferred.

I think I agree with you. I certainly wouldn't rule out variable use of
traditions.  Some he accepted, some he rejected.  By no means would I
assert a knee-jerk monolithic "NEIN" to this.  It's just that I don't
see a lot of evidence.  Perhaps we would be best served revisiting
these.  And indeed I think we could begin with John 6, the basis of your
first book, and look a bit more closely. I am game if you are.


> Question 4: Is John's origin and development, including its
> similarities and differences with other canonical traditions,
> explicable by means of a single, monofaceted theory, based
> upon an Ockham's theory of privileging simplicity over
> complexity?

No, as above. And I assume some of your response was rhetorical begging
the question.  I invoked Ockham (offhandedly), so I will take the heat.
Still, one has to allow that the more complex the scenario is, the
harder it is to swallow all of that.  My point is simply that when we
are dealing with reconstruction, one has to wonder if complexities
aren't an attempt to "solve" all the problems that we see. Or that it
might not be our imposing our theories on the text.
>
> So, we do agree upon the generalities of John's influence
> upon Luke, but do you think that the Johannine tradition had
> a dialogical relationsihp with only one tradition--Lukes? If
> so, why? On Johannine-Markan contacts, what do you do with
> MacKay's work or my "Answerability" essay (see L-Lit
> website)? And, whence the tension between Peter and the
> Beloved Disciple and the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" in
> Q (if there was a Q)?

Well, again I simply don't see evidence. But I am happy to be persuaded.
I have not read MacKay's work, and so will have to read it (it is
clearly important).  Could you send me a copy of your "Answerability"
essay?  I will get up to speed with those.  Maybe this will bring us
more into conversation range.

And I don't really find much evidence for Q (as I have published already
some arguments that Luke used Matthew, rather than Q).


Paul, these are wonderful exchanges. I certainly hope you take my frank
exchanges as friendly.  As you know I value your work as some of the
very best work in John's gospel in the last 2-3 decades or so.  I hope
that others on the list see this as collegial and friendly wrestling for
the truth.  I for one would be happy to continue and focus on some
particulars (as you note, it is the particulars that drive the final
conclusions, not vice versa).  I would hope others might join into this
discussion and not leave it simply up to us.

mark

Dear Kim,
after some years of silence and observation only an encouragement
from my side to your absolutley right approch: According to my
research the very starting point and basis for all three Synoptic
Gospels Mk, Mt and Lk, and also for the further development of
itself, is hidden in the Gospel of John. Probably you know my
publications on this issue:
Peter Leander Hofrichter: Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker. Das
vorredaktionelle "Johannesevangelium". Theologische Texte und Studien
6. Olms, Hildesheim u.a. (1997) 2., neubearb. Aufl. 2002 ISBN
3-487-10371-0
Peter Leander Hofrichter (Hrsg.): Für und wider die Priorität des
Johannesevangeliums. Symposion in Salzburg am 10. März 2000.
Theologische Texte und Studien 9. Olms, Hildesheim u.a. 2002 ISBN
3-487-11692-8
In Modell und Vorlage the respective parallels of the Greek text of
the Gospels are fully presented.  I am very much interested in your
forthcoming book. With all good wishes

Yours
Peter Hofrichter
Salzburg/Austria

em. Prof. Peter L. Hofrichter
Wallmannhofstrasse 3
A-5400 Hallein




Am 11.12.2006 um 13:32 schrieb Kym Smith:

>
> Until just recently I have been all but silent on this and other lists
> for a couple of years. I have been working on a book which will be
> published in January and, until it was all together, I have refrained
> from getting involved in too many conversations that would detract
> from finishing it. It will also be of interest to the Synooptic List.
> The book is titled, 'The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution'. I
> see that John holds the key to the SP, but not only the key, it was,
> itself, part of the process. It claims a combined apostolic effort to
> enlarge Mark in a single volume but which ended up with John, Matthew
> and Luke being written, all knowing what had been written previously -
> i.e. Mk in the first instance and then Mk and Jn in the case of Mt and
> Lk. I hinted at this in the last sentece in my last message and have
> only, since then, completed the book.
>
> Kym Smith
> St Luke's Anglican Church
> Adelaide
> South Australia
> khs@...

Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter
Wallmannhofstrasse 3
A-5400 Hallein
Tel. +43 6245 85010; +43 664 2027098



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for breaking your silence and giving some encouragement. I
am sorry but I am not familiar with your publications. If I had a
command of German I am sure I would be. (I am often made aware of my
ignorance on this list). Like my work on the structure of John I have
gone where no one has gone and so have not really been able to use
much material from elsewhere.

I'd rather wait for the book to be available so that those interested
can see the whole argument rather than try to put it out piecemeal.
What I am prepared to say is that it claims that there was an
apostolic attempt to expand Mark and produce a comprehensive gospel (I
have called this AEEMark – Apostles' and Eyewitnesses' Expansion of
Mark) but, for various reasons, this attempt was abandoned. Had
AEEMark been completed it would have been `the' gospel and so
superseded Mark that it is unlikely that the smaller gospel would have
survived. It would also have meant that Matthew, Luke and John would
probably not have been written at all. When it was abandoned, that
same group produced John and commissioned Matthew and Luke to do
lesser versions of what they originally intended (i.e. expansions of
Mark).

What is most exciting is that there are literary clues which make it
possible to reconstruct AEEMark to the point that it was abandoned. As
I have said, it is John that has provided the key to this.

I will let you – and the list – know when it is ready.

Best wishes,

Kym Smith
St Luke's Anglican Church
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...





--- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Peter Hofrichter
<Peter.Hofrichter@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Kim,
> after some years of silence and observation only an encouragement
> from my side to your absolutley right approch: According to my
> research the very starting point and basis for all three Synoptic
> Gospels Mk, Mt and Lk, and also for the further development of
> itself, is hidden in the Gospel of John. Probably you know my
> publications on this issue:
> Peter Leander Hofrichter: Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker. Das
> vorredaktionelle "Johannesevangelium". Theologische Texte und Studien
> 6. Olms, Hildesheim u.a. (1997) 2., neubearb. Aufl. 2002 ISBN
> 3-487-10371-0
> Peter Leander Hofrichter (Hrsg.): Für und wider die Priorität des
> Johannesevangeliums. Symposion in Salzburg am 10. März 2000.
> Theologische Texte und Studien 9. Olms, Hildesheim u.a. 2002 ISBN
> 3-487-11692-8
> In Modell und Vorlage the respective parallels of the Greek text of
> the Gospels are fully presented.  I am very much interested in your
> forthcoming book. With all good wishes
>
> Yours
> Peter Hofrichter
> Salzburg/Austria
>
> em. Prof. Peter L. Hofrichter
> Wallmannhofstrasse 3
> A-5400 Hallein
>
>
>
>
> Am 11.12.2006 um 13:32 schrieb Kym Smith:
>
> >
> > Until just recently I have been all but silent on this and other lists
> > for a couple of years. I have been working on a book which will be
> > published in January and, until it was all together, I have refrained
> > from getting involved in too many conversations that would detract
> > from finishing it. It will also be of interest to the Synooptic List.
> > The book is titled, 'The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution'. I
> > see that John holds the key to the SP, but not only the key, it was,
> > itself, part of the process. It claims a combined apostolic effort to
> > enlarge Mark in a single volume but which ended up with John, Matthew
> > and Luke being written, all knowing what had been written previously -
> > i.e. Mk in the first instance and then Mk and Jn in the case of Mt and
> > Lk. I hinted at this in the last sentece in my last message and have
> > only, since then, completed the book.
> >
> > Kym Smith
> > St Luke's Anglican Church
> > Adelaide
> > South Australia
> > khs@...
>
> Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter
> Wallmannhofstrasse 3
> A-5400 Hallein
> Tel. +43 6245 85010; +43 664 2027098
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Mark,

Thanks for the profitable engagements, and also for the kind words. Yes, I think
these discussions are very valuable, especially when they help us clarify what
in particular we are claiming to know, as well as why an inference might be a
valid one. So, thanks for not being offended by my pointed questions; I’m
certainly happy to receive yours. By the way, the web address of the
Answerability essay is: http://catholic-resources.org/John/SBL2001-Anderson.html
in case anyone would like to see some of the more detailed argument on a sketch
of what the longitudinal contacts might have been between the Johannine and
Markan traditions.

Let me come back to the Johannine-Lukan relationships later; that will give me
time to look more closely at your book, as well. On John and Mark, though, here
are two of the six features (#s 2 and 4) of plausible Johannine-Markan
familiarity, lifted from the Answerability essay, which relate directly to our
conversation (developed differently in Part III of The Fourth Gospel and the
Quest for Jesus and elsewhere). Here are some of the examples of associative
similarities, which might suggest multidimentional features of intertextual
engagement (others include: 1) Bi-Optic Developments of Pre-Markan and Early
Johannine Traditions; 3) The Compiling and Circulation of Mark: The Preservation
of Apostolic Ministry; 5) Continued Preaching of the Beloved Disciple and the
Finalization of John; and 6) Mark’s Second Ending and Intertextual Echoes of
Johannine Material).

Of course, all of this hinges upon the critical insufficiency of evidence
regarding theories of John’s derivative character (as laid out in my two
books, 1996 and 2006). If the Johannine tradition is an autonomous Jesus
tradition, which develops in its own individuated way, relations between other
traditions merit a fresh reconsideration. That being the case, here are two sets
of inferences regarding Johannine-Markan engagement. I don’t know that all of
the examples are equally compelling, but the similar-yet-different character of
the possible contacts suggests something like the following.

***

2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan and Early
Johannine Traditions. During the oral developments of these two traditions,
there indeed may have been some contact between them. C. K. Barrett and other
scholars have noticed the contacts between John and Mark on the level of many
linguistic similarities, and yet none of them are entirely identical. The most
feasible conjecture from these similarities is to infer contact during the oral
stages of their respective traditions, and this being the case, influence could
have traveled in both directions; hence "interfluence" as a critical
consideration. At the very least, we probably have two preachers who are
familiar with how the other tells stories of Jesus’ ministry. Buzz words,
memorable phrases, and graphic details characterize these contacts, and these
are precisely the sorts of features that Matthew and Luke leave out of their
redactions of Mark. Of course, it is also possible that these contacts simply
reflect parallel renderings of recollected events and details in the ministry of
Jesus, but some of them reflect later impressions or reflections. For instance,
the introduction of Isaiah 40:3 and 6:9-10 serve interpretive functions, and
sometimes they allude to later events in the life of the church, such as
Jesus’ baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Another possibility is the fact that
details may have been passed on from, and received by, a multiplicity of oral
sources, but these possibilities would still locate the contacts within the
developing oral pre-Markan and early Johannine traditions. This being the case,
several examples of likely interfluential contacts are as follows:

 Scripture references – Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of John the
Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:23);
Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn.
12:39-40).

 John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus – he is not worthy to untie the
sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as a dove (Mk. 1:10;
Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit
(Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as the Son of God (a voice from heaven,
Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn. 1:34); the bridegroom deserves special
attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

 Graphic, illustrative detail – 200 denarii is the value of the bread (Mk.
6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn. 6:9); the grass is
described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn. 6:10); the loaves are
blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12 baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:);
there were 5,000 men present (Mk. 6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a
blind man’s eyes (Mk. 8:23; Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event
(Mk. 10:1; Jn. 1:28; 10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3;
Jn. 12:3); Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13;
11:55); money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk. 11:15; Jn.
2:14-16); the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii (Mk. 14:5; Jn.
11:5); Peter warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn. 18:18); Jesus is dressed
with a crown of thorns and a purple robe (Mk. 15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is
crucified with two others (Mk. 15:27; Jn. 19:18); the place of the crucifixion
is Golgatha – place of the skull (Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for
Jesus’ garments (Mk. 15:24; Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to
Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn. 19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of
Jesus (Mk. 15:43; Jn. 19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and
others) found that the stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1);
post-resurrection female witnesses report to Peter and the disciples (Mk.16:7;
Jn. 20:2, 18).

 Memorable sayings – (some of the following are slightly paraphrased) rise,
take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is not without honor except
in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is called "the Holy One of God" (Mk.
1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn. 6:20;
8:58); Jesus invites disciples to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus refers
to a dead person as being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus is to
receive the one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus entry to
Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus will restore in
three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you have with you always, but
not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the threefold denial of Jesus is predicted
before the crowing of the cock (Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who
Jesus dips in the dish is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says,
"Rise, let us depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that
he has taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is
asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33); and after
his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a sign on the cross
declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).

Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain the
particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John and Mark, but
it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential contact between these
traditions during the formative stages of their development accounts for the
contacts. Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the
similarities, and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of their
respective traditions seems the most plausible inference. Interestingly, this
particular sort of detail is often omitted in Matthew’s and Luke’s
redactions of Mark, and given the fact that John and Mark share another striking
distinctive between them – they translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek
– they betray not only traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings
of the ministry of Jesus which are translated and explained for later,
Greek-speaking audiences. Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between
traditions, and hearsay impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct
contacts between preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life
speaks to art and art speaks to life, and they have their integration within the
life of the person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or her own story to
tell, being confronted with other renderings of similar events evokes a
dialectical process that is internal as well as external: how does one
incorporate or reject alternative renderings within one’s own reality? In the
above examples, contact may be inferred, and interfluence of detail may be
inferred to have accompanied the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work
within these early Gospel traditions.

***

(Here, then, is section 4 of the Answerability essay, which suggests five
features of Johannine familiarity with written Mark, evoking a similar project,
while augmenting, correcting, and complementing Mark in providing an alternative
narrative. Again, if the first edition of John was the Second Gospel, there
would have been no problem with a three-against-one perception of Synoptic
majority. Those impressions are based on later reflections and would not have
hindered a complementing-while-at-the-same-time-setting-the-record-straight
augmentation of Mark. This is what I believe is understood to be alluded to in
Jn. 20:30 — especially if Mark were circulated by the time the first issue of
John was rendered. So, I’m agreeing with the essential observations by
Windisch, and also by Gardner-Smith — that if John knew Mark John’s
differences ought to cause us to ask why the differences — but there is much
in John that can be seen as complementary, not simply deconstructive. Then
again, Papias mentions Mark’s getting Peter’s preaching down adequately, but
in the wrong order, citing the Johannine Elder (who I believe was the redactor
and author of the Epistles) as the source of this opinion. That would explain
Johannine distinctives as a direct factor of familiarity with at least some of
Mark. Now, back to the Answerability argument.)

***

4) The First Edition of John: A Bi-Optic Alternative to Mark. Not only does the
Johannine tradition reflect an autonomous perspective on the ministry of Jesus,
but the preparation of the first edition of John (probably around 80-85 CE)
appears to have been crafted – at least to some degree – with Mark in mind.
This is not a new view, but its development deserves attention in the light of
the larger set of intertextual interests. Coming to his views independently from
my own, Richard Bauckham recently wrote an essay on the Johannine/Markan
relationship that is rife with implications. In raising the question of John’s
being rendered for readers of Mark, he thrust onto the platform for discussion
the likelihood that inter-Gospel dialogism was built into the very fabric of
John’s design and circulation. In that sense, it is argued that John was
crafted as public document rather than an intramural one. While other texts bear
similar potential for exploration, Bauckham worked primarily with two
parenthetical explanations suggestive of John’s intentional complementarity to
Mark. John 3:24 ("For John had not yet been thrown in to prison.") is thought to
correct Mark 1:14, where Jesus’ ministry is presented as beginning only after
John had been imprisoned; and John 11:2 (Mary is identified as the person who
anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair) makes the
connection with the anointing of Jesus by an unnamed woman who did similar
anointing in Mark 14:3-9. Certainly, this approach to an intertextual
complementarity fits the facts of the texts better than strict dependence or
source-critical approaches. And yet, this relationship deserves to be developed
further.

At least five features can be observed in the apparent relation of the first
edition of John when considered with Mark in mind: following several patterns in
Mark, augmenting Mark’s narrative with additional material, considered
omissions, correctives in terms of order and sequence, and dialectical
presentations in terms of theology and emphasis. Of course, every similarity and
dissimilarity need not imply traditional contact, and given the earlier history
of the Johannine tradition, the relationship could have moved from John to Mark
at places, but the following outline seeks to make sense of the textual facts in
the most plausible way possible. Hence the extensive background developed above
and the following similarities and differences suggest several ways that John
builds around Mark.

A) Following Markan Patterns – respecting the larger features of Markan
priority. While it cannot be assumed with certainty that John followed
particulars of Mark’s Gospel narrative, John does follow within the genre that
Mark created. While considerable differences exist, the following similarities
make one suspect that the first edition of John respects Markan patterns and
that these may have provided something of a pattern for the Fourth Evangelist.
Consider these similarities between Mark and John:

 Similar beginnings – "the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mk.
1:1; Jn. 1:1, 14, 17-18).
 Similar endings and Passion narratives – many features of John’s Passion
narrative are similar to Mark’s including ending with post-resurrection
appearances.
 Similar beginnings with the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way
for Jesus (Mk. 1:2-11; Jn. 1:19-34).
 Similar callings of Peter and Andrew and two other disciples (Mk. 1:16-20;
Jn. 1:35-42).
 Similar presentations of Jesus as a teacher and a healer within the Jewish
prophetic traditions.
 Similar presentations of Jesus as Son of Man (his self-designated reference)
and Son of God (his ascribed reference).
 Similar intensifications of conflict over Sabbath laws and Jewish concerns
regarding blasphemy.
 The initial movement from Judah into Galilee and the final movement back to
Jerusalem.
 The way of the cross is emphasized as normative for followers of Jesus.

B) Augmentations of Mark – John apparently seeks to add to the Markan witness
in ways that lead the reader to faith (Jn. 20:30-31). When the first edition of
John is considered on its own, it becomes apparent that the five miracles
therein presented are all non-duplicative additions to the miracles in Mark.
Likewise, the major I-AM sayings of John’s Jesus are notably missing from
Mark, and other material seems to have filled out the Markan presentation of the
Gospel. Especially at John’s first two miracles do we see an explicit mention
of the attempt to include earlier material than what was used to introduce
Jesus’ ministry in Mark, and John fills out Judean aspects of Jesus’
ministry in ways that suggest an augmentive complementarity:

 The first two signs done by Jesus in Cana of Galilee are mentioned so as to
fill out the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Jn. 2:11; 4:54).
 Three Judean signs are added to the rest of the collection, emphasizing the
broader ministry of Jesus, including a more realistic presentation of his going
to and from Jerusalem (Jn. 5, 9, 11), with a ministry that spanned more than one
Passover.
 Material about John the Baptist is added to fill out that connection,
especially emphasizing that John was not the Messiah.
 I-AM sayings are added as means of clarifying Jesus role as the Revealer,
sent from the Father.
 Debates with Jewish leaders, accompanied by Jesus authentification as the
agent of the divine sender, function to evoke belief in Jesus as the Messiah,
especially for Jewish audiences.

C) Considered Omissions – These are the sorts of things left out if one has
one’s own story to tell. Deducing anything from silence is always a risky
business. The Johannine Evangelist, however, must have left out some important
material if he knew Mark. Certainly, he makes the point at times that something
did not happen (despite the apparent emergence of teachings to the contrary), as
it is emphasized in John 4:2 that Jesus himself did not baptize; only his
followers did. Likewise, he clarifies that it is not Judas Iscariot he was
speaking about, but the other Judas (Jn. 14:22). An awareness of the likely
critique that he has left out some of the material familiar to readers/hearers
of Mark is suggested by the proleptic gloss in John 20:30: "Jesus did many other
signs…which are not recorded in this book…." Put otherwise, "Yes, I know
Mark wrote about those things in his Gospel, but my intention was not to
duplicate Mark; rather, I have written these things that you might believe that
Jesus is the Messiah/Christ…." While the Passion events are covered fully in
the Johannine rendering, the Johannine evangelist apparently built around Mark,
omitting much of Mark’s middle section, a likely factor of intentional,
non-duplicative complementarity. Consider the following apparent omissions:

 The Kingdom Parables and other teachings of Jesus are missing from John, and
this is may appear to be a problematic fact unless an adequate motive –
probably a non-duplicative one – can be inferred.
 The calling of the twelve and other disciple-oriented material is missing,
including narratives highlighting the roles of Peter, James, and John (such as
the Transfiguration and details from the Gethsemene scene), and here,
non-duplication seems to have been an interest.
 The Markan Apocalypse (Mk. 13) is totally missing from the Gospel of John.
 Exorcisms are completely missing from John (note that the particular
disciple who objects to another person performing exorcisms in Mark 9:38 was
John).
 The institution of the Eucharist is completely missing from the Johannine
last-supper narrative, and likewise the narration of Jesus’ baptism is not
found in John.
 Markan miracles are completely missing from this first edition of John, and
the evangelist’s proleptic gloss in John 20:30 clarifies for those familiar
with Mark what his intention clearly was – and was not. His collection was
selective, and at least somewhat non-duplicative in its intentionality.

D) Corrected Orderings and Presentations of Events – The Johannine evangelist
seeks to restore proper order to Mark’s compilation of Jesus material. Such an
opinion is attributed to the Johannine Elder by Eusebius, and the following
correctives may reflect what he had in mind. Indeed, the presentation of some of
these features in John is more realistic than the Synoptic renderings, and such
considerations should give us pause before ascribing John to "theology" and the
Synoptics to "history" categorically. Mark and John are historical, theological,
and literary compositions, and in the light of intertextual considerations,
John’s striking differences with Mark on matters of order and presentation
deserve special attention:

 The ministry of Jesus develops alongside that of John the Baptist rather
than being initiated only after his imprisonment (Mk. 1:14; Jn. 3:24).
 The first two miracles were neither an exorcism nor the healing of Simon
Peter’s mother-in-law, but a celebrative miracle at a wedding feast and the
healing of an official’s son from afar (Mk. 1:21-31; Jn. 2:1-11; 4:46-54).
 The Temple-cleansing was placed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather
than at the end (Mk. 11:12-19; Jn. 2:13-22).
 The anointing of Jesus is presented as a foot anointing rather than a head
anointing (Mk. 14:1-10; Jn. 12:1-8).
 The date of the last supper is presented differently in John – a day
earlier than in Mark.

E) Dialectical Presentations of Content and Theology – John poses an
alternative view to some of Mark’s theological points. Interpretations of
Jesus’ provocative words and deeds continued to progress dialectically from
the moment of an event’s occurrence to the time and setting of the
discussants. At times these dual presentations of theological perspective are
quite insignificant and easy to overlook, but otherwise, some of them are far
more striking. Consider these dialogical presentations:

 The roles of Elijah and Moses are fulfilled by Jesus rather than John the
Baptist (John denies being either, contrary to his presentation in Mark), and
contrary to the appearance of these figures on the Mount of Transfiguration,
their typologies are fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus.
 Parables of the Kingdom are replaced with two teachings on what the Kingdom
of God is and is not like (Jn. 3:3-8; 18.36-37).
 The Messianic Secret is reversed in John, as Jesus’ otherwise hidden
identity is disclosed by a Jesus who reveals his identity openly.
 The miracles of Jesus are revelatory signs, not acts of thaumaturgic wonder;
therefore, they lead people to belief, expose blindness, and lead people to
everlasting life. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe (Jn.
20:29).
 Apostolicity is broadened to include a plurality of leaders, including
women, Samaritans, and those who are not members of the twelve (Jn. 1:43-51;
4:4-42; 11:27; 12:1-8; 13:6-17; 20:21-23).

While any number of the above inferences may be debated, the overall effort to
assess the particular character of Markan-Johannine contacts yields considerable
fruit. What simple source analyses and dependence theories cannot produce, an
intertextual analysis of a multiplicity of conversations between these two
traditions – on several composition levels – offers a much fuller range of
possibilities regarding their cross-traditional engagement. It also is not the
case that John’s engagement with Mark was itself monological: either
corrective or imitative only. The Johannine response to the Markan written
project was more polyvalent than that, reflecting both dialogue and ambivalence
(to use Bakhtin’s polarities), and while wanting to further the good work Mark
had done, the Johannine Evangelist sought also to set the record straight on
several matters. Some of the Johannine additions were intended to augment and
bolster the Markan narrative – filling it out and including alternative
material – and some of the Johannine contribution appears to have intended to
rectify particular aspects of the Markan compilation. This is what Papias’
citation of the Johannine Elder’s opinion suggests, and it is borne out when
regarding John’s first edition as having been in dialogue with Mark: Peter’s
witness was preserved accurately by Mark, but the ordering was somewhat flawed.
Whereas Luke, Matthew, and the later Markan interpolator all felt the need to
add to Mark by building upon it, John does so by building around it, thus
offering a bi-optic alternative.

***

Okay, here’s some of the basis for such views, let me know what you think. Two
disclaimers: first, many of MacKay’s connections are not listed here; these
are just some of the ones that seemed to me to be most compelling. Second, a
general familiarity (if there was such) does not imply specific familiarity with
all of Mark—or even memory of it, so things left out or things that are
different may not imply intentionality. For the purposes of considering the
larger implications, these examples are listed. Note also that selectivity is
declared at the end of chs. 20 and 21, so both the evangelist and the editor
claim to be contributing a partial witness, not a final one. That's a modified
Windisch approach.

Thanks!

Paul Anderson

Paul:
Let me begin by breaking down your last post to a bit more manageable response.
And gives me time to digest your paper while I am trying to do my final end of
semester grading.  But in order to keep the conversation alive, let me respond a
bit below, here are some comments/reactions on your first post:

2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan and Early
Johannine Traditions. <snip>

?       Scripture references - Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of John the
Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:23);
Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn.
12:39-40).

?       John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus - he is not worthy to untie
the sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as a dove (Mk.
1:10; Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy
Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as the Son of God (a voice from
heaven, Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn. 1:34); the bridegroom deserves special
attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

Granted that these are all very specific issues which might be explained by some
textual relationship.  But the wording in John is significantly different than
in Mark. So the question is (as you discuss below) what is the relationship?  I
guess I see these kinds of "tags" between the early JB material, and the early
baptism material, are what might get caught up in early oral tradition.  For
this to be reliant on Mark (or vice-versa), we would need to imagine that these
items were the invention of the evangelist, not part of the developing oral
tradition.

Is, for instance, the use of Isaiah 40 Markan?  or is it Jesus?  If the use is
not obviously literary, then is it derivative.  Mark's quotation, given as the
narrator's external comment in a third person observation: phonh bowntos en thi
erhmwi, `etoimasate thn `odon kuriou eutheias poiete tas tribous autou.  John,
on the other hand, has JB saying with reference to himself: egw phwnh bowntos en
thi erhmwi, euthunate thn `odon kuriou.  Quite a different quote, cast in a very
different context.  So did John know of this from Mark?  Or was this passage
somehow part of the oral tradition (perhaps in Aramaic, rather than Greek, hence
the variation in quotation)?

?       Graphic, illustrative detail - 200 denarii is the value of the bread
(Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn. 6:9); the grass
is described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn. 6:10); the loaves are
blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12 baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:);
there were 5,000 men present (Mk. 6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a
blind man's eyes (Mk. 8:23; Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event (Mk.
10:1; Jn. 1:28; 10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3; Jn.
12:3); Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13; 11:55);
money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk. 11:15; Jn. 2:14-16);
the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii (Mk. 14:5; Jn. 11:5); Peter
warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn. 18:18); Jesus is dressed with a crown
of thorns and a purple robe (Mk. 15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is crucified with two
others (Mk. 15:27; Jn. 19:18); the place of the crucifixion is Golgatha - place
of the skull (Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for Jesus' garments (Mk.
15:24; Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn.
19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mk. 15:43; Jn.
19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and others) found that the
stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1); post-resurrection female
witnesses report to Peter and the disciples (Mk.16:7; Jn. 20:2, 18).


Well, there is a variety of material here.  Many, (such as the 200 denarii, or
the five loaves and two fishes, or 5,000 present) are precisely the kind of
specific details that I would imagine being remembered in oral tradition. Some
are simply natural (wasn't' Jerusalem usually considered "up"?).  But let's take
an interesting example:  The anointing in Bethany.  In most ways, the two
anointing is very different. What similarities do we have? It is in Bethany, and
the ointment is worth 300 denarii.  But the context and story is totally
different:  Mark has in Simon the leper's house, John in Lazarus' house; a woman
anoints in Mark, Mary anoints in John; the questioning about value is by "some"
in Mark, by Judas in John; the anointing is of the head in Mark, the anointing
is the feet in John.  So how do we explain these vastly different stories with a
couple of "tag" points?  I would suggest in the developing oral tradition some
specifics became attached to anointing stories. But he anointing stories
themselves developed very radically different.  But need we see such minor
points as being influenced by Mark?  To think that, again we would need to see
Mark as the creative agent behind such details, as opposed to them being
connected to oral stories that were circulating.


?       Memorable sayings - (some of the following are slightly paraphrased)
rise, take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is not without honor
except in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is called "the Holy One of
God" (Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn.
6:20; 8:58); Jesus invites disciples to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus
refers to a dead person as being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus
is to receive the one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is
he who comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus entry
to Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus will restore in
three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you have with you always, but
not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the threefold denial of Jesus is predicted
before the crowing of the cock (Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who
Jesus dips in the dish is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says,
"Rise, let us depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that
he has taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is
asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33); and after
his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a sign on the cross
declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).


Again, we may need to deal with each one.  I think there is substantial
variation in this list.  Let me focus on one: the ego eimi saying. In general i
don't find much similarity in most of these sayings. Ego eimi occurs in many
forms in John. In Mark it is rare, and two of the occasions cited above are
almost expected (12:26 - a quote about God; 14:62 - an affirmative response by
Jesus to a sharp question).  But the issue with the walking on water is
different (Mk 6:50; Jn 6:20).  Here the term "ego eimi; mh phobeisthe" in
response to the disciples is striking. There is obviously some strong
relationship.  But does stem from some use by John of Mark, even if mediated
through some "intertextual" form?  Again, that would presume that this would not
be a part of the circulating stories rather than a term coined by Mark that has
made its way back into the oral material.


Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain the
particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John and Mark, but
it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential contact between these
traditions during the formative stages of their development accounts for the
contacts.

I am ok with this, depending on how we define "interfluential."  If we are
talking about "traditions" in their formative stages, I think that is probable. 
But do we need to see Mark influencing John, or John influencing Mark?  Why not
simply two sets of slightly variant traditions that have been somewhere in
contact, hence the little points of contact.?

Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the similarities,
and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of their respective
traditions seems the most plausible inference. Interestingly, this particular
sort of detail is often omitted in Matthew's and Luke's redactions of Mark, and
given the fact that John and Mark share another striking distinctive between
them - they translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek - they betray not
only traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings of the ministry of
Jesus which are translated and explained for later, Greek-speaking audiences.

Agreed. (emphasis above mine)  And of course that mostly shows that Mt and Lk
made editorial corrections.

Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between traditions, and hearsay
impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct contacts between
preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life speaks to art and
art speaks to life, and they have their integration within the life of the
person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or her own story to tell, being
confronted with other renderings of similar events evokes a dialectical process
that is internal as well as external: how does one incorporate or reject
alternative renderings within one's own reality? In the above examples, contact
may be inferred, and interfluence of detail may be inferred to have accompanied
the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work within these early Gospel
traditions.

Well, contact may be inferred.  And "interfluence of detail" may be inferred
(again depending the defintion of interfluence). But is there answerability?
Perhaps, but I am not convinced that there is a lot of evidence here for
answerability.  That would require evidence of more direct contact, and some
sense of directionality (after all, who answered whom?)  These seem to be absent
or unknowable in the instances cited above....   I just think we have pushed up
against some common material, but I don't see evidence of reliance or influence
or exposure to a text called Mark.

Mark A. Matson
Academic Dean
Milligan College



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Mark!  I'll introduce my comments after yours with "PA," marking
yours with "MM" (# denotes material from my earlier posting, to clarify
the voice). Yes, I'll need to get back to grading papers soon...,
meantime, some comments.

Before I go on, though, it strikes me that you have completely missed
the point that I am making in this section: I am NOT arguing in section
2 for Johannine dependence upon, or even familiarity with, written Mark,
or any other text. The evidence (and here you and I concur entirely, I
think) goes against that. I wonder if you might have skipped over the
introductory paragraph (which I hope is clear enough...maybe not,
though), which I'm attaching here again. I believe you might concur with
it, so let me know if that alters your response any. Note the emphasis
on the "Oral Stages" of the respective traditions, for instance.

From the Answerability essay,

2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan
and Early Johannine Traditions. During the oral developments of these
two traditions, there indeed may have been some contact between them. C.
K. Barrett and other scholars have noticed the contacts between John and
Mark on the level of many linguistic similarities, and yet none of them
are entirely identical. The most feasible conjecture from these
similarities is to infer contact during the oral stages of their
respective traditions, and this being the case, influence could have
traveled in both directions; hence "interfluence" as a critical
consideration. At the very least, we probably have two preachers who are
familiar with how the other tells stories of Jesus' ministry. Buzz
words, memorable phrases, and graphic details characterize these
contacts, and these are precisely the sorts of features that Matthew and
Luke leave out of their redactions of Mark. Of course, it is also
possible that these contacts simply reflect parallel renderings of
recollected events and details in the ministry of Jesus, but some of
them reflect later impressions or reflections. For instance, the
introduction of Isaiah 40:3 and 6:9-10 serve interpretive functions, and
sometimes they allude to later events in the life of the church, such as
Jesus' baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Another possibility is the fact
that details may have been passed on from, and received by, a
multiplicity of oral sources, but these possibilities would still locate
the contacts within the developing oral pre-Markan and early Johannine
traditions.

-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark
(Academic)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:56 PM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

MM Paul:
Let me begin by breaking down your last post to a bit more manageable
response. And gives me time to digest your paper while I am trying to do
my final end of semester grading.  But in order to keep the conversation
alive, let me respond a bit below, here are some comments/reactions on
your first post:

# 2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan
and Early Johannine Traditions. <snip>

#       Scripture references - Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of
John the Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk.
1:1-2; Jn. 1:23); Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of
Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn. 12:39-40).

#       John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus - he is not worthy to
untie the sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as
a dove (Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will
baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as
the Son of God (a voice from heaven, Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn.
1:34); the bridegroom deserves special attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

MM  Granted that these are all very specific issues which might be
explained by some textual relationship.  But the wording in John is
significantly different than in Mark. So the question is (as you discuss
below) what is the relationship?  I guess I see these kinds of "tags"
between the early JB material, and the early baptism material, are what
might get caught up in early oral tradition.  For this to be reliant on
Mark (or vice-versa), we would need to imagine that these items were the
invention of the evangelist, not part of the developing oral tradition.

PA Right. That's what I'm arguing: we here have evidence of a set
of contacts during the ORAL (NOT written) stages of the pre-Markan
tradition and the early Johannine tradition. The contact appears to be
not even with the Markan evangelist as a gatherer of tradition, but
Mark's traditional source or sources (whether they be Peter's preaching
or the spoken ministries of others). That's why I do not opt for the
term "intertextuality;" I prefer "interfluentiality" because the contact
is less formal than literary standardization would suggest. Then again,
"fluency" could include textual factors; it just is not confined to
them. So, I don't see why you're taking issue, other than to point out
that you concur. My contention with MacKay, Barrett, Lincoln, Brodie,
and others is that they do not allow for this sort of pre-formal,
oral-traditional contact between preachers within these traditions,
which I think accounts better for the evidentiary character of the
contact, if there was such. Here I am arguing against John's reliance on
Mark, proper (see detailed argumentation in my treatment of Mark 6 and 8
and John 6 in Christology).


MM Is, for instance, the use of Isaiah 40 Markan?  or is it Jesus?
If the use is not obviously literary, then is it derivative.  Mark's
quotation, given as the narrator's external comment in a third person
observation: phonh bowntos en thi erhmwi, `etoimasate thn `odon kuriou
eutheias poiete tas tribous autou.  John, on the other hand, has JB
saying with reference to himself: egw phwnh bowntos en thi erhmwi,
euthunate thn `odon kuriou.  Quite a different quote, cast in a very
different context.  So did John know of this from Mark?  Or was this
passage somehow part of the oral tradition (perhaps in Aramaic, rather
than Greek, hence the variation in quotation)?

PA  Right again (on your opinion, not your question). I'm arguing
that the similar-though-different use of Isaiah in Mark and John might
reflect the use of these texts in the preaching about JB and Jesus. I
think Isaiah 40 might even have gone back to JB himself (not Jesus,
though, since it is about JB and attributed to him in John), so these
contacts might also reflect proximity to the actual ministries of JB and
Jesus, although that is a more extended inference. They AT LEAST reflect
contact in the emerging traditions about JB (the meaning of his mission)
and Jesus (an explanation of his rejection). Again, I am arguing that
this is NOT a factor of derivation from Mark's tradition (nor John's)
because of the differences; I connect the similarities with contact
between the preaching stages of their traditions, and that being the
case, the Johannine might have influenced the pre-Markan. They also
could reflect factors of extended (primary, secondary, tertiary?)
orality.


#       Graphic, illustrative detail - 200 denarii is the value of the
bread (Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn.
6:9); the grass is described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn.
6:10); the loaves are blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12
baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:); there were 5,000 men present (Mk.
6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a blind man's eyes (Mk. 8:23;
Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 1:28;
10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3; Jn. 12:3);
Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13;
11:55); money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk.
11:15; Jn. 2:14-16); the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii
(Mk. 14:5; Jn. 11:5); Peter warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn.
18:18); Jesus is dressed with a crown of thorns and a purple robe (Mk.
15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is crucified with two others (Mk. 15:27; Jn.
19:18); the place of the crucifixion is Golgatha - place of the skull
(Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for Jesus' garments (Mk. 15:24;
Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn.
19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mk.
15:43; Jn. 19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and others)
found that the stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1);
post-resurrection female witnesses report to Peter and the disciples
(Mk.16:7; Jn. 20:2, 18).


MM Well, there is a variety of material here.  Many, (such as the
200 denarii, or the five loaves and two fishes, or 5,000 present) are
precisely the kind of specific details that I would imagine being
remembered in oral tradition. Some are simply natural (wasn't' Jerusalem
usually considered "up"?).  But let's take an interesting example:  The
anointing in Bethany.  In most ways, the two anointing is very
different. What similarities do we have? It is in Bethany, and the
ointment is worth 300 denarii.  But the context and story is totally
different:  Mark has in Simon the leper's house, John in Lazarus' house;
a woman anoints in Mark, Mary anoints in John; the questioning about
value is by "some" in Mark, by Judas in John; the anointing is of the
head in Mark, the anointing is the feet in John.  So how do we explain
these vastly different stories with a couple of "tag" points?  I would
suggest in the developing oral tradition some specifics became attached
to anointing stories. But he anointing stories themselves developed very
radically different.  But need we see such minor points as being
influenced by Mark?  To think that, again we would need to see Mark as
the creative agent behind such details, as opposed to them being
connected to oral stories that were circulating.

PA  Okay, Mark, you're disagreeing with precisely what I am NOT
saying. So, you've missed my thesis here and are arguing against the
position I am countering. (I have developed this comparative analysis
extensively in chapters 5-8 in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, as
well as Parts II and III in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus,
in case any would like to consider the more detailed argumentation.) My
thesis is that the developing oral traditions are the most likely places
for these similar-yet-different details to have been connected, if there
were such connections.


#       Memorable sayings - (some of the following are slightly
paraphrased) rise, take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is
not without honor except in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is
called "the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO
EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn. 6:20; 8:58); Jesus invites disciples
to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus refers to a dead person as
being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus is to receive the
one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus
entry to Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus
will restore in three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you
have with you always, but not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the
threefold denial of Jesus is predicted before the crowing of the cock
(Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who Jesus dips in the dish
is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says, "Rise, let us
depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that he has
taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is
asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33);
and after his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a
sign on the cross declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).

MM Again, we may need to deal with each one.  I think there is
substantial variation in this list.  Let me focus on one: the ego eimi
saying. In general i don't find much similarity in most of these
sayings. Ego eimi occurs in many forms in John. In Mark it is rare, and
two of the occasions cited above are almost expected (12:26 - a quote
about God; 14:62 - an affirmative response by Jesus to a sharp
question).  But the issue with the walking on water is different (Mk
6:50; Jn 6:20).  Here the term "ego eimi; mh phobeisthe" in response to
the disciples is striking. There is obviously some strong relationship.
But does stem from some use by John of Mark, even if mediated through
some "intertextual" form?  Again, that would presume that this would not
be a part of the circulating stories rather than a term coined by Mark
that has made its way back into the oral material.

PA Now Mark, this is not a personal comment, but it is intended to
clarify the larger argument. I can tell that your familiarity with The
Christology of the Fourth Gospel is lacking here, because in my
extensive analysis of the Johannine and Markan sea-crossing accounts I
list five features of a foundationally different set of "first
impressions" and their independent development between the pre-Markan
and early Johannine traditions. There I put the point (that I think you
might agree with) even more strongly: there NEVER WAS a time when there
was only one traditional impression or memory (on this traditional
feature, and probably most of the others) where apostles or others had a
singular impression of something Jesus said or did. (This is laid out in
chapter 8 of Christology, and it is also developed more fully in a
Cognitive-Critical essay, published recently in Ellens/Rollins, eds.
"The Cognitive Origins of John's Unitive and Disunitive Christology"
vol. 3.) So, some of this could also have gone back to Jesus, although
the developing memories and their deliveries may also have had some
contact.


# Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain
the particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John
and Mark, but it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential
contact between these traditions during the formative stages of their
development accounts for the contacts.

MM I am ok with this, depending on how we define "interfluential."
If we are talking about "traditions" in their formative stages, I think
that is probable.  But do we need to see Mark influencing John, or John
influencing Mark?  Why not simply two sets of slightly variant
traditions that have been somewhere in contact, hence the little points
of contact.?

PA  Yes, Mark, that's what I'm saying. Again, let me quote the first
sentence of my introductory paragraph above: "During the oral
developments of these two traditions, there indeed may have been some
contact between them."


# Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the
similarities, and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of
their respective traditions seems the most plausible inference.
Interestingly, this particular sort of detail is often omitted in
Matthew's and Luke's redactions of Mark, and given the fact that John
and Mark share another striking distinctive between them - they
translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek - they betray not only
traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings of the ministry
of Jesus which are translated and explained for later, Greek-speaking
audiences.

MM Agreed. (emphasis above mine)  And of course that mostly shows
that Mt and Lk made editorial corrections.

PA  Right. What bolsters the oral-tradition contact theory is the
fact that many of these features are precisely what Matthew and/or Luke
leave out of their redactions of Mark. Contrary to what recent critics
have argued, rather than INTRODUCING details, names, places, distances,
times, topographical/archaeological references, and relationships, these
are the very things Matthew and Luke tend to omit from written Mark.
Therefore, to infer that "similar to contemporary practice" these
features are "added by the Johannine evangelist" is a flawed inference.
It may have been so, but the two closest narratives, in terms of genre,
subject, and setting, obviate against such a move. Given also the
complete dearth of evidence for alien sources underlying John (see chs.
1-7 in Christology), and given John's non-derivative relation to Mark,
we have in John an independent Jesus tradition, which poses an
alternative perspective (a bi-optic one, at that) to Mark.


# Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between traditions, and
hearsay impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct contacts
between preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life
speaks to art and art speaks to life, and they have their integration
within the life of the person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or
her own story to tell, being confronted with other renderings of similar
events evokes a dialectical process that is internal as well as
external: how does one incorporate or reject alternative renderings
within one's own reality? In the above examples, contact may be
inferred, and interfluence of detail may be inferred to have accompanied
the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work within these early
Gospel traditions.

MM Well, contact may be inferred.  And "interfluence of detail" may
be inferred (again depending the defintion of interfluence). But is
there answerability? Perhaps, but I am not convinced that there is a lot
of evidence here for answerability.  That would require evidence of more
direct contact, and some sense of directionality (after all, who
answered whom?)  These seem to be absent or unknowable in the instances
cited above....   I just think we have pushed up against some common
material, but I don't see evidence of reliance or influence or exposure
to a text called Mark.

Mark A. Matson
Academic Dean
Milligan College

PA  That's fine, such is not the argument of section 2. I think the
earlier development of the Johannine tradition spanned a 50-year period
at least, so there's room for variation and inter-traditional engagement
there. The "answerability" part comes in the next attached section of
the essay (number 4), where some features do seem to bear echoes of the
Markan project as an organized narration. Here's where MacKay and
Bauckham caused me to consider a set of later engagements with the
performance of Mark as a text, or at least with Mark's influence as a
formative-but-not-final narrative. Where my work may be provocative--and
yet realistic--is that I am not afraid to suggest that Johannine
differences might be direct factors of familiarity. Aren't all
historical projects like that (and hence the answerability discussion)?
"Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are
not written in THIS book (I know Mark's out there, stop bugging me for
leaving things out and for adding new material and perspective); but
THESE are written that you might believe..." That's where I pick up in
The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, seeing John as an
intentional, alternative narration, posing a story of "Jesus in Bi-Optic
Perspective" (Part IV).

Thanks for your engagements, Mark! What should be clear by now is that I
am arguing two very different sorts of relationships in numbers 2 and 4
or my Answerability posting. Unfortunately, your impression of number 4
seems to have "influenced" your understanding of number 2 (and wrongly
so), so I hope you don't mind my repeated clarification of my present
thesis. In that sense, on the evidence suggested in number 2 above, I
think we LARGELY AGREE. Read again the introductory paragraph and see if
that doesn't help my argument make a bit better sense. The valued point,
though, is illustrative of the challenges we face in our investigations.
More nuanced arguments cannot be reduced to a monological utterance,
although we indeed try to describe our views tersely. What behooves us
all is to weigh the larger arguments and sets of evidence we engage.
Only having understood an argument well, then, can we make valid claims
about its soundness, complexity, and value.

Take care, Mark, and again, thanks for pushing toward clarification on
these important issues!

Paul Anderson

Marco,
   At last I have some time to reply to your comments
regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
theory.
   By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
text of your list of reasons.

--- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

> I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
>
> I find the following reasons:
>
> 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
> that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless  >
the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
the Prologue or not).

Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
in Jn. 2-12.  (I would argue that the Signs component
of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
Prolog) and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)

The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
verses.

I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
the end of chapter 20.  Why not at the end of chapter
12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?

If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
at least two different endings) as, for example, a
struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
one or more redactors?

My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
stand alone.  They may be placed where they are at the
end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
part of the text.

Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
text as we have it?  I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
Edition, p. 25) on this.  Each of these scholars has
theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
but none of them conclude that it is possible to
discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
of certainty.

The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
of the material may have been incorporated into the
Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
it today from the rest of the material.  These
theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
the material BEFORE the study begins.
>
> 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
> whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

I'm afraid I don't see your point.  What you suggest
is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20.  How do
you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
material preceding it in Jn. 21?

As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
I come, what is that to you?"

It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
who is testifying to these things and has written
them).  The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
Gospel.

I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.
It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
source of this witness.  21: 24 is not necessarily
written BY that witness, but appears to have been
written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
following.

This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
the composition of the Gospel.  It seems right to me
that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
later redacted by one or more other writers.
>
> 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John >
1-20. I list them so:

I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
  Is that correct?
>
> 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
> the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> person: "he".

As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
same value.  If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
  If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
passion narrative?
>
> 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> author of John 1-20, he would be a person who      >
testifies on his own behalf.  As John 5,31 says:
> "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
> be verified".

Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.")  In
5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
as a witness, but says that he does not need human
testimony, because the works (that the Father had
given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
behalf."  In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
legal charges against him.

If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
an important role, even a central role in the creation
of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
behalf, because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23 and the gospel
itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
Keep It pp 247-252).  Thus the witness of the BD has
an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!
>
> 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
word spread among the brothers. These verses make  >
sense if they were written after the death of the  >
beloved disciple: the author seems worried that    >
some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
> Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
> verses.

As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
way that other material was woven into the Gospel.  My
theory is that an entire community of scholars
(probably under the leadership, inspiration and
authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
the composition and refinement of the gospel.  You
have found evidence that supports my theory.  Thank
you.
>
> 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
> ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
> The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not    >
modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think   >
that the author of John 21 didn't think he could   >
change what was already written. This doesn't
> happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
> For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
> inserted within the text. The author of John 21    >
doesn't take the same liberty.

I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
redaction of an earlier text.  Is there a manuscript
extant of this pericope that does not include what I
assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)?  I'm
not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
are you?

Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
used by the original writer: a clarification for the
reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
(namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
than John")?

The clarification is consistent with the theology of
the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).

The verse above can be understood by readers of the
Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
baptizing more disciples than John,"  but it would not
be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
that fine theological point.

When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
people become disciples, Christ abides in them.  When
they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
that baptizes.  That's confusing if not explained.

This of course is meaning that the reader of the
gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
meaning.  The writer is helping the reader distinguish
between what the words appear to mean to the
uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
text and upon the gospel as a whole.
>
> 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is  >
striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
> Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> 21 was written.
>
You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
list twelve names to identify the disciples.  The
names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
of John specifically.  Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
Nathaniel are mentioned more than once.  The fact that
the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
were written.  Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
Should we consider that reference an indication that
the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
the work of a redactor?

> 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in    >
chapter 6 fish is OPSARION.  ICQUS is never
> used.  Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
John 1-20.

Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words.  147 of those
words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20.  Again,
you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.
Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
of Jesus.  Some differences are to be expected as the
work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
BD and others).
>
> I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> give me certainty. I recognise that the following  >
reasons are indiciary.  If consiered separately,
> they make it more likely that the author is
> different. All together, they make a strong case   >
against identity of author.

They make a case against the identity of a single
author having written the entire Gospel.  I would
argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
would illustrate that same point.

Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
parables in The Gospel According to Luke.  This is the
only parable in which Jesus names a character.  (Does
that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
According to Luke?)

The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
(but then the farewell discourse material is different
from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)

In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
separate the work of one author from that of others, I
suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
though we can see that there are differences.  Those
differences are woven into a single fabric which
cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
>
> I would be very interested to read a refutation of
> any of the given reasons.
>
Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
stimulating exercise.  I look forward to your response
to my refutations and the continuation of our
dialogue.  I hope others on the list will contribute
to the dialogue as well.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

Tom,

thank you for your reply. You promised it, and you kept your promise.

I will write a short anwer, first, because there was some misunderstanding.
I am not trying to divide the Gospel into a number of preexisting
documents.  I am just trying to understand the Gospel as we have it. There
is no need to persuade me of the shortcomings of documentary theories,
because I am already persuaded.

When I teach John, I start by studying the Gospel as a whole, in order to
find its structure. Only when I know the structure, I am able to recognize
some part of the text as not belonging to the structure.

The man that opens his watch and separates his components can learn
something about how it works. However, if he wants the watch to work, he
needs to know how to put the pieces together again. If he thinks that some
pieces have no purpose, it doesn't mean that they haven't, but that he
doesn't know what their purpose is. And if he is not prepared to learn that,
his watch wont't ever work as it was meant to work, or it won't work at all.

When I look at John 20,30-31, and notice that it speaks about signs, and
look for the signs in the Gospel, and noticed that they are confined to John
2-12, I am not saying that the rest does not belong to the original Gospel.
I am trying to understand the Gospel as it stands, and I as a legitimate
question: why are there no "signs" in John 13-20? What is the function of
those chapters? Here I accept the contributions from Dodd, who noticed the
importance of the coming of the "hour" of Jesus, and from Brown, who
recognizes the importance of "glory" in those chapters, and calls them "the
book of glory".

That being my stance, I think that whoever affirms that a part of the
Gospel, whether it be a verse or a chapter, has been added later, he takes
on himself the burden of proof. If he also maintains that the added part has
been written by a different author, he takes on himself an additional burden
of proof. This is why I took pains to prove a later origin of John 21. We
can discuss my reasons, but I think that we agree that I need to prove my
point. If I can't, then I have to admit that John 21 is by the same hand as
the rest of the Gospel, until somebody else can prove the point.

As to the content of the reasons, you say that you refuted them. On my part,
I don't agree, and I still think that the point is proved, as do the
commentaries that you quote. But there are no discussions that are closed on
the authority of anybody. Therefore, I wont' try to defend my option and
pass judgement at the same time. Maybe I will engage in discussion later.

Before that, I will raise a more general point. I think we agree that
whoever affirms that different authors are at work has to prove that. If so,
how can you assume that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a plurality of
authors? It seems to me that you take on yourself a heavy burden of proof.

Since the time I wrote the text you are answering to, I wrote on this same
list that I don't believe that written texts in the antiquity were written
by many people at the same time.  There was no way that a text could be
shared by many unless it was first written by one, then copied, then
distributed, then read. And again, any intervention by others wouldn't be
known unless it was copied by hand, then distributed, then read.

Mind me, I don't deny that an author can draw from oral tradition, of from
the decisions of a council, or whatever else. I maintain, however, that
writing was a job that was done by one person at a time. This is why,
whenever a scholar affirms joint authorship, he has to prove it. He can't
assume it. So, I believe that I am right when I assume that John has been
written by an individual, until the contrary is proven. I never read a proof
that a group wrote the Gospel. I read some proofs that a different author
wrote chapter 21, as is maintains by most modern scholars.

Marco Fabbri

On 12/29/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
>
>   Marco,

> At last I have some time to reply to your comments
> regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
> I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
> your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
> theory.
> By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
> text of your list of reasons.
>
> --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> > not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
> >
> > I find the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> > conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
> > that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless >
> the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
> as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
> the Prologue or not).
>
> Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
> Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
> the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
> in Jn. 2-12. (I would argue that the Signs component
> of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
> Prolog) and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
> the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
> what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
> differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
> 13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)
>
> The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
> suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
> verses.
>
> I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
> forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
> in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
> the end of chapter 20. Why not at the end of chapter
> 12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?
>


If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
> may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
> at least two different endings) as, for example, a
> struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
> appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
> not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
> placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
> that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
> one or more redactors?
>
> My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
> stand alone. They may be placed where they are at the
> end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
> want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
> proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
> we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
> part of the text.
>
> Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
> challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
> text as we have it? I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
> p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
> Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
> Edition, p. 25) on this. Each of these scholars has
> theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
> but none of them conclude that it is possible to
> discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
> of certainty.
>
> The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
> of the material may have been incorporated into the
> Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
> isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
> it today from the rest of the material. These
> theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
> been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
> the material BEFORE the study begins.
> >
> > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> > TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
> to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
> > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see your point. What you suggest
> is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
> that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
> gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20. How do
> you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
> material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
> material preceding it in Jn. 21?
>
> As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
> explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
> my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
> identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
> I come, what is that to you?"
>
> It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
> parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
> who is testifying to these things and has written
> them). The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
> statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
> Gospel.
>
> I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.
> It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
> source of this witness. 21: 24 is not necessarily
> written BY that witness, but appears to have been
> written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
> discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
> following.
>
> This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
> the composition of the Gospel. It seems right to me
> that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
> material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
> influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
> as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
> that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
> original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
> later redacted by one or more other writers.
> >
> > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> > not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John >
> 1-20. I list them so:
>
> I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
> before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
> Is that correct?
> >
> > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> > is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
> ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
> > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> > person: "he".
>
> As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
> same value. If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
> hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
> different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
> If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
> passion narrative?
> >
> > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> > author of John 1-20, he would be a person who >
> testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says:
> > "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
> > be verified".
>
> Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
> legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
> own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.") In
> 5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
> as a witness, but says that he does not need human
> testimony, because the works (that the Father had
> given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
> Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
> behalf." In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
> witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
> legal charges against him.
>
> If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
> an important role, even a central role in the creation
> of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
> not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
> behalf, because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
> the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23 and the gospel
> itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
> the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
> suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
> Keep It pp 247-252). Thus the witness of the BD has
> an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!
> >
> > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> > the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
> word spread among the brothers. These verses make >
> sense if they were written after the death of the >
> beloved disciple: the author seems worried that >
> some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
> > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
> > verses.
>
> As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
> authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
> order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
> the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
> way that other material was woven into the Gospel. My
> theory is that an entire community of scholars
> (probably under the leadership, inspiration and
> authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
> the composition and refinement of the gospel. You
> have found evidence that supports my theory. Thank
> you.
> >
> > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> > 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
> > ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
> > The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not >
> modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think >
> that the author of John 21 didn't think he could >
> change what was already written. This doesn't
> > happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
> > For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
> > inserted within the text. The author of John 21 >
> doesn't take the same liberty.
>
> I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
> redaction of an earlier text. Is there a manuscript
> extant of this pericope that does not include what I
> assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)? I'm
> not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
> are you?
>
> Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
> used by the original writer: a clarification for the
> reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
> Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
> (namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
> than John")?
>
> The clarification is consistent with the theology of
> the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
> in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
> bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
> anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).
>
> The verse above can be understood by readers of the
> Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
> baptizing more disciples than John," but it would not
> be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
> that fine theological point.
>
> When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
> people become disciples, Christ abides in them. When
> they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
> that baptizes. That's confusing if not explained.
>
> This of course is meaning that the reader of the
> gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
> entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
> hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
> meaning. The writer is helping the reader distinguish
> between what the words appear to mean to the
> uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
> have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
> text and upon the gospel as a whole.
> >
> > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> > named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is >
> striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
> > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> > 21 was written.
> >
> You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
> list twelve names to identify the disciples. The
> names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
> of John specifically. Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
> Nathaniel are mentioned more than once. The fact that
> the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
> does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
> redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
> the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
> were written. Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
> Should we consider that reference an indication that
> the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
> the work of a redactor?
>
> > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> > are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in >
> chapter 6 fish is OPSARION. ICQUS is never
> > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> > the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
> John 1-20.
>
> Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words. 147 of those
> words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20. Again,
> you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
> a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.
> Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
> product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
> by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
> of Jesus. Some differences are to be expected as the
> work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
> perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
> BD and others).
> >
> > I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> > give me certainty. I recognise that the following >
> reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
> > they make it more likely that the author is
> > different. All together, they make a strong case >
> against identity of author.
>
> They make a case against the identity of a single
> author having written the entire Gospel. I would
> argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
> would illustrate that same point.
>
> Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
> authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
> appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
> of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
> parables in The Gospel According to Luke. This is the
> only parable in which Jesus names a character. (Does
> that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
> According to Luke?)
>
> The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
> writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
> (but then the farewell discourse material is different
> from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
> seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
> any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)
>
> In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
> If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
> separate the work of one author from that of others, I
> suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
> though we can see that there are differences. Those
> differences are woven into a single fabric which
> cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
> the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
> >
> > I would be very interested to read a refutation of
> > any of the given reasons.
> >
> Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
> stimulating exercise. I look forward to your response
> to my refutations and the continuation of our
> dialogue. I hope others on the list will contribute
> to the dialogue as well.
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

I had to interrupt quite abruptly my answer before I had time to discuss
properly your remarks. I thank you for you work, and for the opportunity
that we are now sharing to check the soundness of our ideas.

My previous post coped with general issues, this one will be dedicated to
particular points. My answer will be interspersed.

On 12/29/06, Tom Butler <<mailto:pastor_t@...>pastor_t@...>
wrote:

Marco,
At last I have some time to reply to your comments
regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
theory.
By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
text of your list of reasons.

--- Fabbri Marco <<mailto:mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

> I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
> not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
>
> I find the following reasons:
>
> 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
> conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
> that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless >
the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
the Prologue or not).

Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
in Jn. 2-12.

Not so. I am not trying to separate from the rest of Gospel a so-called
"source of signs" or Semeiaquelle. I am taking the Gospel as it stands, and
assuming that it is consistent, until the contrary is proven.

I am just observing that John 20,30-31 is a conclusion, and that it speaks
about the "signs" that are written in the book (the book that we call the
Gsopel). I search for the signs, and see that they are concentrated in
chapters 2-12. This means that if the Gospel has a structure, at this point
I still need to understand the function of chapter 1, and the function of
chapters 13-20. It is all too easy to wipe away those parts of the Gospel
whose function is not understood at first glance. If I did that, I would be
a reader that is not prepared to learn anything that he doesn't know
already. A bad reader indeed.

(I would argue that the Signs component
of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
Prolog)

The Gospel as it stands declares at 2,11 that the sign of Cana is the
beginning of the signs. The sign itself is narrated in John 2,1-11. I don't
dare to say that John 1 tells any sign: I am unwilling to pretend that I
know better than the Evangelist.

This doesn't mean that a so-called original Gospel started at 2,1. I agree
that there never was a Gospel that didn't include chapter 1. It would be
absurd indeed: what could the reader make of the "third day" mentioned in
2,1?

Rather, the art of telling a tale requires an introduction. The reader needs
to be drawn into the story. I believe that this is the function of John 1.

and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)

I agree that this is another issue. Most scholars think that the second part
of the Gospel begins with chapter 13. Some think that chapters 10-12 are
transitional.

If we prefer to draw on the point that have already been made, I think that
we can't ignore that the last mention of the signs is at 12:37, where it
says: TOSAUTA DE AUTOU SHMEIA PEPOIHKOTOS EMPOSQEN AUTWN OUK EPISTEUON EIS
AUTON.

Here it is: the signs should lead to faith, but they dind't win the faith of
the many. There are many who believe, but then they relinquish Jesus. Then
the people disappear from the account: the twelve remain. It seems to me
that it is impossible to divide the meal told in John 13 between the two
parts of the Gospel. The character are the same along chapters 13-17, and
they are the sole witness of the revelation of the AGAPH.

The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
verses.

I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
the end of chapter 20. Why not at the end of chapter
12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?

Simply because it is at the end of chapter 20. But I think this objection
dependes on the misunderstanding that I tried to to solve in my previous
posting.


If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
at least two different endings) as, for example, a
struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
one or more redactors?

The ending of Mark is a different problem. From start there is a problem of
text criticism: the best manuscripts end at Mark 16,8. So a problem arises:
16,8 is an abrupt ending. Could Gospel end saying that the women told
nothing, EFOBOUNTO GAR? We miss a conclusion. Was this intentional?

And yet we know for certain that the Gospel once existed without Mark
16,9-20. Later Mark 16,9-20 was written, and also another alternate ending.

Then there is also a literary problem, which is a difference of style in
Mark 16,9-20, and, more importantly, the fact that Mark 16,9-20 knows about
waht is told in John 20, Matthew 28 and Luke 24.

But this a list devoted to Johannine Literature, and I will refrain from
pressing an interpretation of Mark. I rather want to point to the fact that
when studying Mark and John we face opposite problems: the oldest
manuscripts of John witness to a Gospel with two endings; the oldest
manuscripts of Mark witness to a Gospel that lacks an ending.

My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
stand alone.

I would disagree to this particular point. As a rule, a conclusion can never
stand alone: it needs a text before it.

This particular conclusion states that it is a conclusion to a book, and
that the book tells signs made by Jesus. Therefore it is the conclusion to a
narration.

They may be placed where they are at the
end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
part of the text.

To this I hearthily agree. I think it is now clear that I am not interested
in proto-gospels.

Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
text as we have it? I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
Edition, p. 25) on this. Each of these scholars has
theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
but none of them conclude that it is possible to
discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
of certainty.

I agree with your last sentence and with the scholars that you quote, Brown
among them.

I would like to note that I say a different thing when I say that chapter 21
is a later addition. I can't think that any scholar would say that John 1-20
is "the earliest form of the gospel". According to the scholars that you
quote, we don't know with certainty about the earliest form of the Gospel.

We know with certainty about the latest form, that is all of the Gospel. And
I think that we can go back one step from that, to a Gospel that ended at
John 20,31.

Please note that Brown agrees with that, even if doubts that the earliest
Gospel can be reconstructed.


The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
of the material may have been incorporated into the
Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
it today from the rest of the material. These
theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
the material BEFORE the study begins.

I agree. My students first here about the process of redaction of the Gospel
after some 12 classes about the structure of the Gospel as it stands.

>
> 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
> whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

I'm afraid I don't see your point. What you suggest
is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20.

I don't say that the Gospel that we now have ends at chapter 20.

I rather say that there is a conclusion at the end of chapter 20, and that
we have to explain why the Gospel has two conclusions. Even more, John 21,25
repeats that Jesus did more than what is told. From this I draw that John
21,24 know John 20,30-31. This is true whether we hold that the same author
wrote all of John or a different author wrote John 21.

How do
you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
material preceding it in Jn. 21?

There are reasons for that I presented as my points 3.1 to 3.6.

As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
I come, what is that to you?"

It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
who is testifying to these things and has written
them).

I can't see the parenthesis. Would could that mean, if not that you suggest
that 21,25 is by the same hand that writes 21,23? You may suggest it, but I
see no reason to separate 21,24 from 21,25. According to the methodological
reasons staed in my previous post, whoever affirms that part of a text
belongs to a different author has to prove that. It is not enough to speak
figuratively of parenthesis. I need a prove that 21,24 is from a different
author than 21,25.

Until a proof is given, I won't separate 21, from 21,25. And this lead to
another strong reason to recognize that TAUTA refers to John 1-20 and not to
21,23c. It is impossible to conceive that John ever ended in 21,23. We
started with a Gospel with two conclusions, we can't go all the way to a
Gospel that ends without a conclusion. This is why I think that we need to
think of John 21 a unit that stands together. It comes after the first
conclusion, and it ends with the second conclusion.

The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
Gospel.

My position is not that it refers to the entire Gospel, but rather to John
1-20. I already noted that John 20,30-31 refers to Joh 1-20 as "this book"
that contains "signs". The signs are called TAUTA in 20,31. If, as noted
above, John 21,25 knows John 20,30-31, it is consistent to interpret the
reference to TAUTA as to the same things that are named TAUTA in 20,31.

I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.

The two passages have similaritites, I concede that. If you can prove that
they are from the same hand, then I will have to accept that they are an
insertion from the author of John 21. But please note that 19,35 make no use
of the first person plural, as John 21 does. I find in the use of the first
person plural a reason to distinguish the author of John 21 from the author
of John 1-20. That reason does not stand for 19,35.

It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
source of this witness. 21: 24 is not necessarily
written BY that witness, but appears to have been
written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
following.

You say that is not necessary that 21,24 is written BY that witness. I say
it is impossible. If my statement is true, then it follows logically that
also your statement is. It is impossible to hold my statement and deny your
statement. I accept it.

On the contrary, it is possible to maintain your statement and reject mine.
This is why I took pains to prove that it is impossible that 21,24 could be
written by that witness. See my 3.1-3.2.

This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
the composition of the Gospel. It seems right to me
that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
later redacted by one or more other writers.

John 21,24 says indeed that the BD is the witness, and therefore the source
of the account, in our language. But it goes on and says that he is the one
who wrote these things: hO GRAPSAS TAUTA. I can't see how you could take at
face value the the BD is the witness, and not that he is the writer. I
understand that you have in mind a theory according to which the Gospel is
written by many people. But I suggest that you should recognize that John 21
doesn't share that theory. He could have said that HE witnessed and WE
wrote. But he didn't.

Of course, the "we" that speaks in chapter 21 also writes something,
otherwise we couldn't read it. It writes chapter 21. I think my view is
proved consistent. Whatever view we have if the BD and of the WE that write
chapter 21, they are different voices. For "US" the BD is HE. The BD is
dead, and WE are alive when writing. Yet the BD wrote, WE say. He wrote
while he was still alive, of course.

I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
Is that correct?
>
> 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
> is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
> the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> person: "he".

In my reasoning, there would still be room for maintaining that the BD did
not write materially 1-20, as long as hO GRAPSAS is accounted for. One
should prove that the subject of the verb GRAFW could be the person who
dictated a text, as Paul used to do, or the person that had it written, even
if he didn't write that himself.

The advocates of this position quote Pilate in John 19,22: hO GEGRAFA
GEGRAFA. Now, Pilate would hardly write the titulus crucis himself. He would
order somebody to write it.

Is it likely that this happened with John 1-20? Whatever stance we take,
what I staed above does not depend on it.

This said, I would note that in John 19,22 or in the Pauline letters, the
person who orders the text to be written is contemporary to the person that
put the order into effect. Therefore I wouldn't subscribe to a theory that
the redactor of the Gospel is later than the BD.

And I wouldn't subscribe to any theory of a collective writer. Whatever
secretary helped Paul, or whatever clerk or soldier wrote the inscription on
the cross, he was not a group.

As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
same value. If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
passion narrative?

Not so.

First: John 19,35 makes no use of the WE that is the mark of chapter 21, and
that distinguishes the author of chapter 21 from the BD, who is referred to
as HE.

Second, I tried to prove that 21,24 is NOT a parenthesis.

It is still possible to maintain, as some scholars do, that John 19,35 is an
insertion in the passion narrative. In my opinion, the solution to this
depends on how tightly 19,35 is connected to what comes before and after it.
I am still uncertain. I miss the WE form to be sure. Its absence makes it
possible to maintain that 19,35 belongs to the texture of chapter 19.

>
> 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> author of John 1-20, he would be a person who >
testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says:
> "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
> be verified".


Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.") In
5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
as a witness, but says that he does not need human
testimony, because the works (that the Father had
given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
behalf." In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
legal charges against him.

This doesn't change the need for two witnesses. Rather, the whole argument
implies that two witnesses are needed, as one cannot bear witness to
himself.

Those who understand Jesus can see from his answer that the Father and Jesus
are two persons.

Those who do not understand Jesus have the witness of John the Baptist,
which is stressed in John 1,19-34, and then again later.

Therefore, until now, my point stands.

If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
an important role, even a central role in the creation
of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
behalf,

He doesn't indeed. It's the author of John 21 that says that WE know that
his witness his true, so that even after the BD is dead the readers of
Gospel can hear two witnesses.

because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23

Here I don't understand: do you mean that the discussion about the opinion
spread among the disciples that the BD wouldn't die is written before or
after he died?

and the gospel
itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
Keep It pp 247-252). Thus the witness of the BD has
an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!

Raymond Brown did not think that we could know who the BD was. But the year
he died I listened to a conference he gave in Rome, and he said that he
didn't believe that, according to the Gospel, the BD could be a woman,
because of John 19,26. Anyway, I am ready to recognize that this has no
bearing on the discussion on the redaction of the Gospel. It is one thing to
see in the BD the writer of the Gospel, hO GRAPSAS TAUTA, and another to
pretend to know who the BD was.

>
> 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
word spread among the brothers. These verses make >
sense if they were written after the death of the >
beloved disciple: the author seems worried that >
some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
> Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
> verses.

As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
way that other material was woven into the Gospel.

Does this mean that you agree that the BD didn't write John 21?

As to the similar way, it all depends on what you mean by similar. If you
mean that the author of John 21 draws on John 1-20 and take some expressions
from it, I agree.

If you mean that the relationship is the same, then it is already apparent
that I disagree.

  My
theory is that an entire community of scholars
(probably under the leadership, inspiration and
authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
the composition and refinement of the gospel. You
have found evidence that supports my theory. Thank
you.

I can't see that evidence. Even more, I can't see that books in the
antiquity were written by a community. A text has an author, until the
contrary is proven. I took pains to prove that John 21 is written by
somebody else, and you find iut hard to believe. How can you believe that
the authors are not only two, but rather an entire community?

> 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
> ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
> The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not >
modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think >
that the author of John 21 didn't think he could >
change what was already written. This doesn't
> happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
> For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
> inserted within the text. The author of John 21 >
doesn't take the same liberty.

I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
redaction of an earlier text. Is there a manuscript
extant of this pericope that does not include what I
assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)? I'm
not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
are you?

Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
used by the original writer: a clarification for the
reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
(namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
than John")?

I never wrote that I maintain that John 4,2 is by a different author. I
won't believe it is by another hand until that is proven.

The text is a correction, granted. I take it as a prove that John 1-20
underwent a process of redaction. Nothing more than that.

We are familiar with such correction in dissertations: the authors feels the
need to clarify what he had previously written, and add a corrections
instead of rewriting entirely his paragraph. He should do, because he has a
computer. Even so, I don't accuse the author of having somebody else write
his dissertation.

As for the ancient authors, we can hardly blame for adding some expalantory
notes to their own text. They couldn't rewrite entirely their text without
wasting much time and much money.

The clarification is consistent with the theology of
the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).

The verse above can be understood by readers of the
Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
baptizing more disciples than John," but it would not
be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
that fine theological point.

When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
people become disciples, Christ abides in them. When
they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
that baptizes. That's confusing if not explained.

I agree with that.

This of course is meaning that the reader of the
gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
meaning. The writer is helping the reader distinguish
between what the words appear to mean to the
uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
text and upon the gospel as a whole.

My first language is Italian, and I am uncertain as to your meaning. Do you
mean "expounded" or "expanded"?

For the rest, it poses no problem to me, and can be maintained whether the
author is one or many.

>
> 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
> named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is >
striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
> Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> 21 was written.
>
You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
list twelve names to identify the disciples. The
names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
of John specifically. Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
Nathaniel are mentioned more than once. The fact that
the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
were written. Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
Should we consider that reference an indication that
the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
the work of a redactor?

Not indeed. I can't follow you here. Philip is mentioned in John 1:43; 1:44;
1:45; 1:46; 1:48; 6:5; 6:7; 12:21; 12:22; 14:8; 14:9.

But let us suppose a character is named only in chapter 1, as Nathanael is.
We have agreed to take the Gospel as it stands. If so, the reader starts in
chapter 1, and is acquainted with Nathanael since the beginning. The
exchange between Jesus and Nathanael leads directly into the signs, and
announces them. Jesus says to Nathanael: MEIZW TOUTWN OPSHi. The following
scene has Nathanael see the first sign together with the other disciples. So
Nathanael is woven into the narrative and can't be taken away from it.

On the other hand, when the reader reaches the conclusion in 20,30-31, he
still hasn't heard of the sons of Zebedee. Either they are unimportant to
the writer and he forgets about them, or he avoids them on purpose, or both.
Depending on your answer, you will have to recognize that either they are
important to the writer of John 21, or he mentions them on purpose, or both.


> 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
> are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in >
chapter 6 fish is OPSARION. ICQUS is never
> used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
John 1-20.

Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words. 147 of those
words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20.

My mathematics is different. To me, 147 is 75-76% of 174. This means that
24-25% of the words of John 21 are not used in John 1-20.

An example of what these words are can be significant: fish is called in
John 6 OPSARION. ICQUS is never used in John 1-20. John 21 quotes the same
word OPSARION, but also adds the word ICQUS, that in the meanwhile has
become significant for Christians.

Again,
you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.

I assume this, because it is correct to assume this until the contrary is
proven.

I understand that your hypothesis is dear to you, and I don't want to
inflict pain, but isn't it possible that you grew accustomed to look at the
Gospel from that standpoint, and take it for granted?

Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
of Jesus. Some differences are to be expected as the
work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
BD and others).

In my opinion, you need to make a choice.

If there is one redactor, or another natural number of redactors (whose
existence you will need to prove), then as long as he writes (or n redactors
write), what he writes will reflect his idiolect and his style.

If there is no finite number of redactor, than not only some differences are
to be expected, but no idiolect or style can be recognized at all. If you
take this position, then whatever inconsistency arises can be solved saying
that this depends on the multiple authors. And you can't avoid a paradox:
whether you like it or not, your interpretation will fall into subjectivism,
just as those scholars that split the Gospel into hypotethical sources.

One example: did Jesus baptize or not? Some of your author thought he did.
Some thought he didn't. Both group wove their opinion into the Gospel. Who
are we to say who's right? Because if somebody corrected somebody else, then
we can accept the first opinion as well as the second.

>
> I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> give me certainty. I recognise that the following >
reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
> they make it more likely that the author is
> different. All together, they make a strong case >
against identity of author.

They make a case against the identity of a single
author having written the entire Gospel. I would
argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
would illustrate that same point.

Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
parables in The Gospel According to Luke. This is the
only parable in which Jesus names a character. (Does
that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
According to Luke?)

The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
(but then the farewell discourse material is different
from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)

In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
separate the work of one author from that of others, I
suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
though we can see that there are differences. Those
differences are woven into a single fabric which
cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
>
> I would be very interested to read a refutation of
> any of the given reasons.
>
Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
stimulating exercise. I look forward to your response
to my refutations and the continuation of our
dialogue. I hope others on the list will contribute
to the dialogue as well.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

I thank you, too, for this opportunity. It very interesting to challenge our
own assumption, and try to reason them.

Yours in Christ

Marco Fabbri


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]