Re: Redating gospel of John/Berger
- --- frides lameris wrote:
> In order to show that Bergers approach to an earlyI think you do the early-daters no favor by citing this "innocent
> dating of John is not just ONLY an intellectual exercise,
> but that very much he also recognises that the whole
> early dating approach has its roots in a very innocent
> perception, (which I share) I offer in this post a translation
> of the final remark Klaus Berger is adding (p.302) to his
> stimulating book 'Im Anfang war Johannes, Datierung
> und Theologie des vierten Evangeliums':
perception" (as below):
> It is not a doctrine about something at all, but the impressionThese are your words, I assume - not Berger's. In any case, even if
> that a man makes, who is completely transparent for the divine
> presence in his own existence. That is an event (or: a happening)
> that, in this sense, is new.
Jesus was perceived as you say, he would certainly not have been the
first (or last) person in history whom some acquaintances believed
to have exhibited "the divine presence in his own existence". There
is no new (or unique) "event" here.
> And now Berger adds himself words for which I askAlthough I'm not opposed to early dating for (the first edition of)
> your special attention:
> 'Because the Gospel of John paints this primary impression
> of Jesus so uncomparably intensive, it stands by
> content ('sachlich') and temporarily at the beginning.'
GJn, this is not a particularly good argument for it, as stated.
Do you mean to say that no one writing at a date later than the
synoptics could possibly have crafted such a picture? What are the
grounds for such an assertion? How would you rule out that this was
not in fact the author's "impression" from first-hand acquaintance,
but rather was simply the picture he wanted to paint?
Mt. Clemens, MI