2724Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [WSW] opinions about accretion
- Apr 30, 2010Bruce,
This'll have to do as my last contribution on this thread; thanks for the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:33 AM, E Bruce Brooks
>Nonsense. We have evidence that John circulated without the P.A., which
> I say again, this argument applies not only to the case of John 21,
> but to the Pericope Adulterae.
stands apart from the rest of the Gospel narratively and stylistically. If
John 21 were comparable in those respects, Minear would have written a very
different article about it.
JEFF: . . . and suggesting that we shouldn't accept the conclusions of
> critical biblical scholarship in a reverent manner.The answer to your question is yes. On 21, I recommend Bauckham's essay "The
> BRUCE: Well said, and no one could disagree with that formulation.
> Nothing in science should be accepted in a reverent matter. Criticism,
> openness to further evidence, doubt as to one's own first impressions,
> all that is definitional for the scientific approach. The conclusions
> of critical Biblical (sic; this adjective is derived from the proper
> noun Bible) scholarship should be received like any other critical
> conclusion or working hypothesis: critically.
> Now that we have that straight, what are the evidences for or against
> the originality of John 21? One I mentioned is the satisfactory
> finality of Jn 20 as the end of the Gospel. This Paul denies. He
> argues that the last two verses of Jn 20 are meant only to conclude
> that chapter, not the whole Gospel, and that Jn 21 is needed as the
> end of the whole Gospel. That is ingenious enough. But does anyone
> actually buy it?
Beloved Disciple as the Ideal Witness" (in his collection *The Testimony of
the Beloved Disciple*) and his further treatment of the subject in *Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses*, pp. 364ff. I referenced the latter in my first post
because Bauckham does better with some aspects of the text than Minear,
including on some points you note (e.g., the reference of the signs in
20:30�31). He's also quite convincing (in part following Hengel in *The
Johannine Question*) that 21 does not represent the author as John the son
of Zebedee, but as one of the two unnamed disciples in 21:2.
All the best,
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>