Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[John_Lit] Re: Jesus and his disciples (John 6: 11)

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Dear John, 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, John E Staton wrote:

      > Yuri wrote:
      > > 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

      Dear John,

      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
      before.

      > (something I am not afraid to do, if I feel the evidence warrants it),
      > 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.

      One reason seems pretty obvious to me. Namely, to distance Jesus from his
      Jewish milieu -- from his disciples, as well as from the common people.

      > Indeed, the evidence seems to point in the other direction. Later
      > traditions appear to "whitewash", not only Jesus but also the
      > disciples.

      Can you provide an example here, citing some specific gospel manuscript?

      > Yuri, I have read not only the whole of this last post of yours, but
      > 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
      > it.

      I hope things aren't as bad as all that, John... :)

      > 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
      some corrections.

      All the best,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.