Re: [John_Lit] Re: History of the Farewell Discourse
- Steve said > Plato's Socrates is not to be confused with the "historical
> 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.
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