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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: History of the Farewell Discourse

Expand Messages
  • Pete Phillips
    Steve said Plato s Socrates is not to be confused with the historical Socrates . ... Well, there is a debate! In both author s accounts of their heroes
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve said > Plato's Socrates is not to be confused with the "historical
      Socrates".
      > John's Jesus is not to be confused with the "historical Jesus".

      Well, there is a debate! In both author's accounts of their heroes lives
      there must be some historical kernel. How Platonic is Socrates is a battle
      waged elsewhere. How Johnannine is the Johannine Jesus is perhaps a battle
      still to be decided.

      Pete Phillips
    • kymhsm
      Pete, Similarly, I wrote this ten hours ago. In your response to Mike you said concerning my post:
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Pete,

        Similarly, I wrote this ten hours ago.

        In your response to Mike you said concerning my post:

        <<<Of course, this is still miles away from the apostles having a
        kind of symposium on the Gospel. I wonder whether we have any
        justification for that view from other ancient sources?>>>

        There are two very clear references to precisely such an event. The
        Muratorian Fragment/Canon (c. 190) says:
        "The fourth gospel is by John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-
        disciples and his bishops exhorted him he said, Today fast with me
        for three days, and then let us recount to each other whatever may be
        revealed to each of us. That same night it was revealed to Andrew,
        one of the apostles, that John should write down all things under his
        name, as they all called them to mind..."

        Secondly, Eusebius, quoting Clement of Alexandria, says,
        But John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to the body
        in the gospel of our Saviour, was sufficiently detailed, and being
        encouraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the Spirit, he wrote
        a spiritual gospel. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VI.14.7. )

        I should add here that I think Luke in 1:1 is referring to
        this 'council' where the 'many' corporately 'undertook' (aorist - see
        Luke's other uses of epecheiresan in Acts 9:29 and 19:13 for its
        corporate sense) to compile a (single) narrative.

        <<<Was this a common practice? I don't think the later Councils and
        Synods even attempted to create texts in this way. >>>

        The later Councils and Synods already had the four gospels (the whole
        canon) and had no need - nor apostles or eyewitnesses – to create a
        new, authoritative text.

        <<<I'm still happy with looking at the work of the final redactor who
        shaped the Gospel as we have it today. His/her work has caused us
        enough headaches to be getting on with!>>>

        This is, no doubt, true. But if we can get to the origin of the text,
        why not? Most scholars have a scenario in mind or they have adopted
        someone else's. I have my scheme which, as yet, has provided a
        satisfactory answer for anything that I have been able to put against
        it.

        Sincerely,

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
        khs@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.