Jn 2:1-11, PD and other texts
- Dear friends,
I wrote in a mail to Peter Hofrichter (16-04-02):
> In my vision (as I interpret GJ) Jesus is present at the Cana marriageJack wrote to me (off list):
>as a spiritual teacher and about to reveal him self for the first time
> 'publicly' as Messiah (I take information in John 1 to be based on
> He is in control of his own mission and destiny and speaking a
> little bit cryptically but bpolitely to Mary, his mother, (speaking
> according to the custom around Nazareth - Lorber Gospel) he keeps the
> decison how to act next to himself.
Lorber Gospel" is not a subject for John-L any more than alien
abductees and Elvis working in a car wash in Seattle. Sorry. We must
stick to the primary and serious literature.
>I told Jack I would send my answer not only to him but also to the list for
> Jack Kilmon
So here is my (serious) answer to Jack:
This may be the right time to be more explicit about my graduate thesis at
the Theological Department, State University, Groningen, Holland, november
1998, on the temple cleansing . I have referred to it in earlier mails but
have not given details earlier.
The full title of it is: A comparative study into the interpretation of the
temple cleansing (John 2:13-22 and synoptic parallels) in the works of
J.A.T. Robinson, E.P. Sanders and the Great Gospel of John of Jakob Lorber,
seen in the light of the thesis of the (historical) priority of the gospel
of John (157 pages + appendix). Text is in Dutch.
In my thesis chapter 1 I discuss and summarize Robinsons work on John,
starting with his famous 1957 lecture on the 'New Look of the Fourth
Gospel', in which he gives five fundamentals of the 'old look' (posteriority
thesis) for John and 5 for the 'new look'. The last item he works out in his
monograph The Priority of John into a priority thesis for the whole of
In chapter 2 I discuss a test case pericope for Robinsons thesis - the
cleansing of the temple.
I chose this pericope out of personal interest but also because I was
inspired to do so by reading
about Jesus' temple act in a curious 19th century apocryphal gospel called
"The Great Gospel of John" ,
written by an Austrian musician, named Jakob Lorber (1800-1864).
For my purpose I have gathered every scratch in Robinsons work relating to
the cleansing pericope and have made it up into a kind of priority thesis
for John's version.
Note: A communication by letter to me from one
of Robinsons pupils Mr. J.A.F. Coakly was encouraging , because he wrote to
me he had the plan to make a chapter in a future book, working out the same
thesis for the temple cleansing pericope(s)!
In chapter 3 I deal with E.P Sanders' interpretation of Jesus' temple act as
mainly given in his 'Jesus and Judaism' and 'The historical figure of
Jesus'(1992). I show Sanders to be greatly lacking in his application of
(several) historical presuppositions in relation to important themes in the
In chapter four I compare all the arguments for a early or late
dating of the cleansing found in Robinsons and Sanders work(s).Conclude
Robinsons early dating for the event (=John) to be superior on
Chapter 5 analyses 'The scale of the temple cleansing in the light of
In Ch 6 I discuss the literary independence of Jn 2:13-17 against Mc
11:15-17, Mt 21:12,13 and Lk 19:45,46. I also falsify the 5 presuspossitions
of the Old Look, as tested out on the temple cleansing pericope.
In Ch 7 I discuss the priority of the Johannine temple cleansing in the
light of (the above mentioned) Lorber text of the Great Gospel of John.
In this chapter I have taken some remaining aporias in the cleansing texts
and have looked for suggestions in the Lorber text(s) concerning their
possible solution. I found many interesting and sometimes astonishing
I could of course not claim any historical value for these suggestions,
because Lorbers Gospel Harmony, or however we want to name the documents,
has no such status as is required by the present criteria of the historical
There is of course much more to say about the subject. I will provide more
details on request.
I end to say that I got a good note for my thesis and my main guide Prof.
Gerard Luttikhuizen praised my work as being innovative for the study of
Hope my work will not be put on JohLit List index of censured literature.