[John_Lit] Re: Jesus and his disciples (John 6: 11)
- On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, John E Staton wrote:
> Yuri wrote:Dear John,
> > I'm proposing that that there's a certain primitive layer in the early
> > gospel texts where Jesus is portrayed as a lot nicer and kinder to the
> > people around him than in the canonical texts. While, in the canonical
> > texts, Jesus is often portrayed as rather imperious and arrogant, in these
> > earlier texts he seems to emerge as very warm, kind, and human. This is
> > what may be described as the image of "a Gentle Jesus".
> This runs contrary, not only to majority scholarly opinion
How does my view run contrary to majority scholarly opinion? In fact, as
yet, I'm not aware on any scholar who said anything on this subject
before. That's why I've asked if any scholar has ever expressed this view
> (something I am not afraid to do, if I feel the evidence warrants it),One reason seems pretty obvious to me. Namely, to distance Jesus from his
> but also to common sense. Why should anyone want to alter a picture of
> a Gentle Jesus to an aggressive and not very nice Jesus.
Jewish milieu -- from his disciples, as well as from the common people.
> Indeed, the evidence seems to point in the other direction. LaterCan you provide an example here, citing some specific gospel manuscript?
> traditions appear to "whitewash", not only Jesus but also the
> Yuri, I have read not only the whole of this last post of yours, butI hope things aren't as bad as all that, John... :)
> all the others going bak some considerable time. I have not posted
> before, because others appeared to be saying what I might have said,
> and saying it better. But I have found your arguments unconvincing in
> the extreme. There are others on this list who are going out on a limb
> (a common scholarly position), but you are in danger of falling off
> The late final date you propose laks credibility,Well, the facts seem to be as follows. The letter of Polycarp to the
Philippians, generally thought to date ca 135, never quotes from Jn, and
never even alludes to it. And yet other NT writings are quoted abundantly
in this letter. (Polycarp is generally thought to be the teacher of
Irenaeus, a well known later proponent of Jn.)
Justin Martyr, who is writing probably in the 150s, never seems to quote
from Jn. And yet he quotes abundantly from the Synoptic texts (some early
versions of them).
And then Irenaeus quotes abundantly from Jn.
So, on the surface of things, it does look like Jn, in its present shape,
became widely known in the Church sometime between Justin and Irenaeus. Of
course, there probably were earlier versions, it's just that we don't have
any particulars about them.
So what I'm doing is simply following the evidence.
> as does your reliance on late manuscripts and translations.The Old Syriac Aramaic versions of Jn are not "late manuscripts". They are
as early as any other manuscripts. They are written in the language that
is very close to what the Historical Jesus was believed to speak. So why
do you think their evidence should be disregarded?
> I doubt you have convinced many people.Maybe not, but the evidence I've posted still needs to be considered on
its own merits. If there are any problems with it, I'd be grateful for
All the best,
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian