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

Re: [John_Lit] Chiasm

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    The name is (Albert Cardinal) Vanhoye, S.J. Is it not? ... From: bobmacdonald@shaw.ca To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:38 PM
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 23 7:27 AM
      The name is (Albert Cardinal) Vanhoye, S.J. Is it not?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: bobmacdonald@...
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:38 PM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Chiasm


      What a lovely word chiasm is - and circular, or concentric or inclusio -
      Such structures often give language meaning.

      Kym

      I think 6 years ago or so - but a long time anyway, it was reading your
      ideas that prompted me to explore such literary structures more completely.

      In the past year my information technology background and my interest in
      ancient texts flowed together using a new product for illustrating
      structure. I took my first diagrams based on the work of Albert van Hoye to
      the conference on the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in St Andrews
      this past summer. (The originals on the web are in pdf and too long for
      comfort so I have put out one in jpg format http://bmd.gx.ca/hebrews.jpg)

      What this illustrates is that you are not alone in examining chiastic
      structures in the NT. Hebrews is a tour de force in this area. Van Hoye's
      work "La structure littéraire de l'épitre aux Hébreux" is a good read.

      Your own work could be put into such a diagram - if you are interested,
      please contact me offlist at bobmacdonald at gx.ca - it would be best of
      course if the work were done in Greek. It is possible. I am currently doing
      structural analysis of the Psalms in Hebrew as I think I mentioned (I hope
      not too often :) ).

      Bob

      Bob MacDonald
      Victoria BC
      http://gx.ca
      http://bmd.gx.ca



      ________________________________________________________________________
      Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob MacDonald
      Yes Leonard - Vanhoye is one word - Scribal error - sorry Nice to hear from you Bob Bob MacDonald Victoria BC http://gx.ca http://bmd.gx.ca
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 23 8:16 AM
        Yes Leonard - Vanhoye is one word - Scribal error - sorry

        Nice to hear from you

        Bob

        Bob MacDonald
        Victoria BC
        http://gx.ca
        http://bmd.gx.ca
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: Tom Butler To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 24 10:18 AM
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:02 PM
          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions


          > Jack,
          > I understand that you are suggesting that the
          > Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de Adultera"
          > are contributions to the text of the Fourth Gospel
          > made by a redactor or redactors. If my understanding
          > of what I take as your suggestion (or theory commonly
          > supported by most Johannine scholars) is correct, it
          > seems to me that this would make a good thread for
          > discussion on this list.
          > Why do you think these are indications of the work
          > of a redactor or redactors?

          There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in the same manner as John
          21:1 suggesting, to me, that the same copyist/redactor did both. I think
          the original beginning of John was at 1:19. Going with my theory that ch 21
          was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to John, I
          also look at the Prologue and see no certain Aramaic origin. I do see Mark's
          use of PROS HMAS and this is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
          John. Mark is missing a conclusion. John has an extra conclusion. Mark
          anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 without
          the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first appearance.
          In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times. In John (21:15-17) Peter affirms
          his love three times. That completed another Markan bracket. In Mark, the
          shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
          the new shepherd..another Markan bracket. In Mark, the first words spoken
          to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST words spoken are "follow
          me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan bracket.

          If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
          ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
          restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
          I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support in this supported by
          Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few Johannine
          signature phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark
          and John with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find this in Mark's
          frequent use of the historic present resulting from Aramaic narrative
          participle also frequent in John and John 21. There is also a connection
          between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
          use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and
          12:2.

          My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an ongoing project but I see
          the pen..er..reed..of Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
          soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.




          > Why, for example, is it
          > more likely that these three units of scripture were
          > added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
          > the "original author or authors"?

          Why were the following redactions, editorial inserts and glosses added?
          Theology.

          1:22-25 added by redactor



          1:30 added by redactor



          1:32 added by redactor



          2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction



          2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss



          2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
          aorist

          to conform to Ps 69:9



          2:23-24 redaction from "signs"



          3:3 from older baptismal tradition



          3:5 "water" added by editor



          3:13 added



          3:16 added



          Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in PJ was 4, 6, 5, 7.



          4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss



          4:2 redaction, contradicts PJ 3:22



          4:46-54 from "signs"



          Ch 5 should follow chapter 6



          5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)



          5:25 redaction



          5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added



          5:28-29 redaction



          5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
          PJ's

          present realization



          6:1-15 redaction from "signs"



          6:23 gloss



          6:27 editor's "future" addition



          6:39-44 editor's



          6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist



          7:1 editor's



          7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in PJ



          7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in PJ



          7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
          Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.



          8:12-59 original PJ material but for:



          8:13 added



          8:14a added

          8:14b is original, also GThom 24



          8:15 added



          8:17a added

          8:17b original PJ from Deut. 19:15



          8:18 added



          8:19a added

          8:19b original PJ also in Q and Lk 10:22



          8:20a added

          8:20b original PJ..also Egerton



          8:21b "and shall dies in your sins" added

          8:21c "where I am going" original PJ..also Apoc James 2:23-27



          8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38



          8:23-24 added



          8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43



          8:26-28 added



          8:31a added

          8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19



          8:32 orig PJ



          8:33 added



          8:34a added

          8:34b orig PJ



          8:35 Orig. PJ



          8:36 added



          9:22 would have to have been edited after

          the Birkat ha-minim in 85CE



          9:35 "signs" redaction



          10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29



          10:19 goes with Ch 9.



          11:2 added



          11:45-50 "signs" redaction



          12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.



          13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here



          14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ



          Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ



          19:34 added



          20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics. PJ ended here



          Ch 21 editor's appendix





          Glosses:



          4:1 "the Lord Knew"

          4:2

          4:11b "Sir.....

          5:4

          5:27 "because he is the..

          5:40

          6:6*

          6:23

          6:27

          6:51-58

          6:71*



          8:21 "and shall die in your sins

          8:27*

          8:31a

          11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magd with a prostitute but at
          odds with Luke 7:36

          11:25-26

          12:33*

          12:47-48

          13:10 "not save to wash his feet

          13:11*

          14:30 "much"

          16:16 "because I go to the father

          18:9

          18:32*

          19:34-35






          > As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
          > Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
          > commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
          > commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
          > version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
          > various elements of the Jesus tradition. The purpose
          > of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
          > community from which these commentaries came) appears
          > to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
          > In other words I think these writers were
          > intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
          > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were "doing
          > theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
          > those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
          > Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
          > evidence that there is a second story line throughout
          > the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
          > from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
          > and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
          > ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
          > element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
          > festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
          > Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
          > important to this theory (or method of study), which I
          > have set forth in part in this space before. For that
          > reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
          > that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
          > (that is, some one or some group other than those
          > responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
          > text.)


          John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the Prologue
          does not. I think it was appended as an antiphonal hyms chanted between a
          lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
          1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
          "proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
          than the present Greek canonical John actually stimulated the composition of
          the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus. The Aramaic or translation Greek PJ was used,
          perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek version was
          composed around 90ish CE. It is easy to see how the Prologue, as happened
          elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached. The use of
          the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had a purpose
          of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence the "blend"
          of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the Gospel and
          observed by other scholars.





          > Would you or other listers be interested in a
          > dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
          > Redactor(s)]?


          That is what the list is for and we would be interested in good referencing
          and citations.




          > (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
          > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do you
          > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
          > Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I would
          > be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
          > debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
          > others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
          > and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
          > work of one or more redactors.)

          Such a dialogue is in keeping with the purpose of the list as long as
          standard canons of scholarship are involved.

          Shlama

          Jack

          Jack Kilmon
          San Antonio, Texas



          >
          > Yours in Christ's service,
          > Tom Butler
          >
          >
          > --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
          >
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
          >> To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          >> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
          >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
          >>
          >>
          >> > Jack,
          >> > I trust that your test, at least with reference
          >> > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
          >> > bouncing.
          >> > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
          >> > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
          >> has been placed on hold or has a different list > >
          > been created where the discussion continues?
          >> >
          >> > Tom Butler
          >> > Sparks, Nevada
          >>
          >> I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
          >> to start a thread combined with busy times. I, for
          >> one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
          >> critical opinions concerning the redactors of
          >> 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
          >> chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera. Perhaps
          >> some of our members have studied these.
          >>
          >> Jack Kilmon
          >> San Antonio, Texas
          >
          >
          >
          > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
          > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
          > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
          > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
          >
          >
          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Bob MacDonald
          Kym has sent me part of his structure. I can t send email to him from this address so I am letting him and the list know that I will try to confirm his detail
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 24 11:48 PM
            Kym has sent me part of his structure. I can't send email to him from this
            address so I am letting him and the list know that I will try to confirm his
            detail in a short passage and will publish the result later next week.

            Kym: Your pdf is readable - I will examine it when I have done some more
            detailed work.

            Bob

            Bob MacDonald
            Victoria BC
            http://gx.ca
            http://bmd.gx.ca
          • Bob MacDonald
            The structure is far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone. There are parallel structures as well and both wide and tight circles - but many
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 26 12:00 AM
              The structure is far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone.
              There are parallel structures as well and both wide and tight circles - but
              many complex themes in this short section. My thesis is that it is held
              together by the issue of belief - but the larger words and concepts
              [Father-Son, life from the dead, judgment, the four witnesses: John, the
              works of the Son, the word of the Father, Moses] seem to me must be used to
              justify any conclusion as to its poetic or rhetorical form.

              I have posted a very colourful rendition at http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg
              (357k). I have marked each word with different colours to highlight the
              usage patterns. It is not hard to mark with even more precision - if anyone
              is interested in helping, I can arrange for access to the tool I am using.

              I hope you can read it. The jpeg is a bit small, but if you bring it up with
              a picture manager, it expands reasonably well to a larger type. I have also
              put out a pdf - but it will be a larger download (2.5m).

              Bob MacDonald
              Victoria BC
              http://gx.ca
              http://bmd.gx.ca
            • Kym Smith
              Dear Bob, One of the `problems with John, as a number of commentators note, is its relatively short vocabulary. I suspect this is in part because of all the
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 26 6:44 PM
                Dear Bob,

                One of the `problems' with John, as a number of commentators note, is
                its relatively short vocabulary. I suspect this is in part because of
                all the paralleling of terms and themes within micro-chiasms as well
                as across macro-chiasms. It is this shortage of terms that makes the
                finding – or forcing – chiastic structures on the text relatively
                easy. I have had to review and refine many of the formations I have
                found. There would be ample scholars on this list who see the finding
                of chiastic structures as much too subjective to be reliable. Their
                caution is well placed. To deny them altogether, however, is to deny
                that typically Hebrew form of writing which has given beauty to much
                of the Scriptures – e.g. the parallelism of the Psalms – and to miss
                out on some of the most profound insights they offer.

                What I am saying is that where the highlighting of similar words may
                help pick up some structures. However, John's frequent repetition of
                words (e.g. `world' in ch. 17) and his pairing of words from different
                roots but with similar meanings (`fish' in ch. 21) – not to mention
                his paralleling of themes without necessarily matching words will make
                it hard for a computer program which is not likely to be looking much
                past similar words to pick up the more complex connections.

                I am not surprised that your program indicates that 'The structure is
                far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone'. But we must
                remeber that John did not use a computer to put the gospel together.

                As the file I sent to you shows, John 5 is not looked at as a whole
                but it contains four individual structures, a fourfold `sign' (1-9a)
                and three sevenfold formations (9b-18; 19-30; 31-47). But these only
                become clear in the context of the whole book and especially the 41
                structures of the two concentric macro-chiasms.

                Perhaps I should offer a copy of my book on the structure of John's
                gospel to someone on the list who is not anti-chiastic structures but
                who is also healthily skeptical of them. The proviso is that that
                person will, within a reasonable time – a few months, say – do a
                review for the list. If someone is willing to do so let me know
                off-list and we'll go from there. Perhaps then we might also avoid the
                deafening silence on the list each time I make a contribution to it.
                It would be reasonable for me also to advise the list of who it is to
                whom I've sent my book.

                Kym Smith
                Adelaide
                South Australia
                khs@...




                --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
                <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                >
                > The structure is far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone.
                > There are parallel structures as well and both wide and tight
                circles - but
                > many complex themes in this short section. My thesis is that it is held
                > together by the issue of belief - but the larger words and concepts
                > [Father-Son, life from the dead, judgment, the four witnesses: John, the
                > works of the Son, the word of the Father, Moses] seem to me must be
                used to
                > justify any conclusion as to its poetic or rhetorical form.
                >
                > I have posted a very colourful rendition at http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg
                > (357k). I have marked each word with different colours to highlight the
                > usage patterns. It is not hard to mark with even more precision - if
                anyone
                > is interested in helping, I can arrange for access to the tool I am
                using.
                >
                > I hope you can read it. The jpeg is a bit small, but if you bring it
                up with
                > a picture manager, it expands reasonably well to a larger type. I
                have also
                > put out a pdf - but it will be a larger download (2.5m).
                >
                > Bob MacDonald
                > Victoria BC
                > http://gx.ca
                > http://bmd.gx.ca
                >
              • Bob MacDonald
                Kym Here is a review of my thoughts on just one section of your work I began with my own bias in 19-45 -http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-1.jpg shows my first rough cut
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 26 10:52 PM
                  Kym

                  Here is a review of my thoughts on just one section of your work

                  I began with my own bias in 19-45 -http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-1.jpg shows my
                  first rough cut at what I think are two related structures: 19-30
                  highlighting belief and 31-47 highlighting unbelief. I was not satisfied
                  with the detail - there were 100s of unpaired and obviously important
                  concepts.

                  http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg expanded this to show how possibly the original
                  contrast is there but that the structures surrounding it are much more
                  complex.

                  I traced your 7 deep chiasm in http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-3.jpg. I realize you
                  are dealing only in black and white so it is harder to confirm structure or
                  to see it. There is certainly a whole thought in this section, confirmed
                  with a much more detailed view in http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-4.jpg .

                  The next step is to review the content and see if it matches your sevenfold
                  subdivision.

                  The whole section is about witness. This is your structure as in image 3:
                  a. witness to himself - which you balance with the last verse - how will you
                  believe my declarations.
                  b. you then have the 'other witness' which you balance against Moses.
                  c. you have John balanced against Moses
                  d. then you have not accepting witness from a man (semantically part of the
                  John section) balanced against receiving glory from one another
                  e. the section on John and rejoicing in his light balanced against the
                  acceptance of one who comes in his own name - I don't see how this can
                  balance against John
                  f. the section on the works - the next witness balanced against not
                  receiving glory from men
                  g. two inner sections

                  There are some matches in your scheme, but they are coincidental - e.g. the
                  phrase peri emon occurs several times - there is insufficient structural
                  reason to link a (v31) to a'(v47) using these words. It is more likely that
                  peri emon is just part of the main issue - that the current audience does
                  not believe in Jesus and he is summoning his witnesses - they all testify
                  concerning him.

                  If you look at my last image, you can see that I have matched almost all the
                  major word pairings and repetitions and the resulting structure reveals
                  matching semantic and rhetorical form.

                  In particular note two embedded paragraphs that are of the nature of a brief
                  excursus - one on John - the human witness; the other on the Father, the
                  unseen witness. These surround the key witness which is the works that Jesus
                  is to complete - using the keyword complete - which is picked up in the
                  final word of Jesus from the cross. Also the framing of the structure is
                  circular in many ways but it does not correspond well with what you have
                  proposed.

                  The final section is all about the Scriptures and Moses - and what the
                  people think of it and how they get glory from one another - no need to link
                  part of the excursus on John to this section. Though they are somewhat
                  related, I cannot see it as part of a significant structure.

                  It's late here so that's all I can do for now - I have taken 3 days away
                  from my psalm translations and I am having Hebrew withdrawal symptoms.

                  Bob

                  Bob MacDonald
                  Victoria BC
                  http://gx.ca
                  http://bmd.gx.ca
                • Fabbri Marco
                  Jack, I would raise two points about your reconstruction. 1) The beginning of 19:38 is META TAUTA. Isn t this a common expression? I would say that it is
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 27 2:28 AM
                    Jack,

                    I would raise two points about your reconstruction.

                    1) The beginning of 19:38 is META TAUTA.

                    Isn't this a common expression? I would say that it is hardly representative
                    of a style.

                    I find it in John 3:22; 5:1; 5:14; 6:1; 7:1; 13:7. Are all these text by the
                    same hand of John 21? That would be very hard to believe.

                    2) You suggest that the Gospel once began with 1:19.

                    However, 1:19 starts wtih the following words: KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH MARTURIA
                    TOU IWANNOU.

                    Both the conjunction KAI and the demonstrative hAUTH point back to something
                    that has already been mentioned. Most scholars think that the Gospel once
                    started with John 1:6-7, then it continued with John 1:19ff.

                    In this way the Gospel would begin so: EGENTO ANQRWPOS APESTALMENOS PARA
                    QEOU ONOMA AUTWi IWANNHS.

                    Thus we would understand why 1:19 speaks of hH MARTURIA as it were already
                    known to the reader.

                    We would also have a beginning close to the standards of Biblical narrative:
                    compare 1 Sam 1:1 in the OT and Luke 1:5 in the NT. It fits classical Hebrew
                    prose to begin a story saying: WAYHI 'ISH. Greek translators render it KAI
                    EGENETO ANQRWPOS. By the time the NT was written, such beginnings would be
                    well known.

                    The scholars who suggest an original form of the Gospel starting with 1:6-7;
                    1:19ff, suggest that when the prologue was added to the Gospel verses 1:8
                    and 1:15 were written. The function of 1:8 is to link the historical
                    character of John with the beginning of KOSMOS as told in the preceding
                    verses; the function of 1:15 would be that of providing a parallel to 1:6-8
                    within the circular structure of the prologue (or the chiastic structure,
                    though I am unwilling to use the word chiasm for a structure of more than 4
                    elements). So the redactor used the same words that already appeared in 1:29
                    and used them in 1:15.

                    I would like to know if you have objections to this reconstruction.

                    Marco

                    On 11/24/06, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > (�)
                    >
                    > There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in the same manner as John
                    >
                    > 21:1 suggesting, to me, that the same copyist/redactor did both. I think
                    > the original beginning of John was at 1:19. Going with my theory that ch
                    > 21
                    > was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to John,
                    > I
                    > also look at the Prologue and see no certain Aramaic origin. I do see
                    > Mark's
                    > use of PROS HMAS and this is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
                    > John. Mark is missing a conclusion. John has an extra conclusion. Mark
                    > anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 without
                    >
                    > the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first appearance.
                    >
                    > In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times. In John (21:15-17) Peter affirms
                    > his love three times. That completed another Markan bracket. In Mark, the
                    > shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
                    > the new shepherd..another Markan bracket. In Mark, the first words spoken
                    > to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST words spoken are
                    > "follow
                    > me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan bracket.
                    >
                    > If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
                    >
                    > ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
                    > restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
                    >
                    > I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support in this supported
                    > by
                    > Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few Johannine
                    > signature phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark
                    > and John with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find this in Mark's
                    > frequent use of the historic present resulting from Aramaic narrative
                    > participle also frequent in John and John 21. There is also a connection
                    > between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
                    >
                    > use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and
                    >
                    > 12:2.
                    >
                    > My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an ongoing project but I see
                    > the pen..er..reed..of Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
                    > soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.
                    >
                    > > Why, for example, is it
                    > > more likely that these three units of scripture were
                    > > added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
                    > > the "original author or authors"?
                    >
                    > Why were the following redactions, editorial inserts and glosses added?
                    > Theology.
                    >
                    > 1:22-25 added by redactor
                    >
                    > 1:30 added by redactor
                    >
                    > 1:32 added by redactor
                    >
                    > 2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction
                    >
                    > 2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss
                    >
                    > 2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
                    > aorist
                    >
                    > to conform to Ps 69:9
                    >
                    > 2:23-24 redaction from "signs"
                    >
                    > 3:3 from older baptismal tradition
                    >
                    > 3:5 "water" added by editor
                    >
                    > 3:13 added
                    >
                    > 3:16 added
                    >
                    > Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in PJ was 4, 6, 5, 7.
                    >
                    > 4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss
                    >
                    > 4:2 redaction, contradicts PJ 3:22
                    >
                    > 4:46-54 from "signs"
                    >
                    > Ch 5 should follow chapter 6
                    >
                    > 5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)
                    >
                    > 5:25 redaction
                    >
                    > 5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added
                    >
                    > 5:28-29 redaction
                    >
                    > 5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
                    >
                    > PJ's
                    >
                    > present realization
                    >
                    > 6:1-15 redaction from "signs"
                    >
                    > 6:23 gloss
                    >
                    > 6:27 editor's "future" addition
                    >
                    > 6:39-44 editor's
                    >
                    > 6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist
                    >
                    > 7:1 editor's
                    >
                    > 7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in PJ
                    >
                    > 7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in PJ
                    >
                    > 7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
                    > Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.
                    >
                    > 8:12-59 original PJ material but for:
                    >
                    > 8:13 added
                    >
                    > 8:14a added
                    >
                    > 8:14b is original, also GThom 24
                    >
                    > 8:15 added
                    >
                    > 8:17a added
                    >
                    > 8:17b original PJ from Deut. 19:15
                    >
                    > 8:18 added
                    >
                    > 8:19a added
                    >
                    > 8:19b original PJ also in Q and Lk 10:22
                    >
                    > 8:20a added
                    >
                    > 8:20b original PJ..also Egerton
                    >
                    > 8:21b "and shall dies in your sins" added
                    >
                    > 8:21c "where I am going" original PJ..also Apoc James 2:23-27
                    >
                    > 8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38
                    >
                    > 8:23-24 added
                    >
                    > 8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43
                    >
                    > 8:26-28 added
                    >
                    > 8:31a added
                    >
                    > 8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19
                    >
                    > 8:32 orig PJ
                    >
                    > 8:33 added
                    >
                    > 8:34a added
                    >
                    > 8:34b orig PJ
                    >
                    > 8:35 Orig. PJ
                    >
                    > 8:36 added
                    >
                    > 9:22 would have to have been edited after
                    >
                    > the Birkat ha-minim in 85CE
                    >
                    > 9:35 "signs" redaction
                    >
                    > 10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29
                    >
                    > 10:19 goes with Ch 9.
                    >
                    > 11:2 added
                    >
                    > 11:45-50 "signs" redaction
                    >
                    > 12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.
                    >
                    > 13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here
                    >
                    > 14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ
                    >
                    > Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ
                    >
                    > 19:34 added
                    >
                    > 20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics. PJ ended here
                    >
                    > Ch 21 editor's appendix
                    >
                    > Glosses:
                    >
                    > 4:1 "the Lord Knew"
                    >
                    > 4:2
                    >
                    > 4:11b "Sir.....
                    >
                    > 5:4
                    >
                    > 5:27 "because he is the..
                    >
                    > 5:40
                    >
                    > 6:6*
                    >
                    > 6:23
                    >
                    > 6:27
                    >
                    > 6:51-58
                    >
                    > 6:71*
                    >
                    > 8:21 "and shall die in your sins
                    >
                    > 8:27*
                    >
                    > 8:31a
                    >
                    > 11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magd with a prostitute but at
                    >
                    > odds with Luke 7:36
                    >
                    > 11:25-26
                    >
                    > 12:33*
                    >
                    > 12:47-48
                    >
                    > 13:10 "not save to wash his feet
                    >
                    > 13:11*
                    >
                    > 14:30 "much"
                    >
                    > 16:16 "because I go to the father
                    >
                    > 18:9
                    >
                    > 18:32*
                    >
                    > 19:34-35
                    >
                    >
                    > > As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
                    > > Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
                    > > commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
                    > > commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
                    > > version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
                    > > various elements of the Jesus tradition. The purpose
                    > > of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
                    > > community from which these commentaries came) appears
                    > > to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
                    > > In other words I think these writers were
                    > > intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
                    > > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were "doing
                    > > theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
                    > > those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
                    > > Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
                    > > evidence that there is a second story line throughout
                    > > the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
                    > > from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
                    > > and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
                    > > ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
                    > > element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
                    > > festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
                    > > Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
                    > > important to this theory (or method of study), which I
                    > > have set forth in part in this space before. For that
                    > > reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
                    > > that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
                    > > (that is, some one or some group other than those
                    > > responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
                    > > text.)
                    >
                    > John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the
                    > Prologue
                    > does not. I think it was appended as an antiphonal hyms chanted between a
                    > lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
                    > 1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
                    > "proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
                    > than the present Greek canonical John actually stimulated the composition
                    > of
                    > the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus. The Aramaic or translation Greek PJ was used,
                    > perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek version was
                    > composed around 90ish CE. It is easy to see how the Prologue, as happened
                    > elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached. The use of
                    > the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had a purpose
                    >
                    > of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence the
                    > "blend"
                    > of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the Gospel and
                    > observed by other scholars.
                    >
                    > > Would you or other listers be interested in a
                    > > dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
                    > > Redactor(s)]?
                    >
                    > That is what the list is for and we would be interested in good
                    > referencing
                    > and citations.
                    >
                    > > (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
                    > > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do you
                    > > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
                    > > Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I would
                    > > be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
                    > > debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
                    > > others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
                    > > and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
                    > > work of one or more redactors.)
                    >
                    > Such a dialogue is in keeping with the purpose of the list as long as
                    > standard canons of scholarship are involved.
                    >
                    > Shlama
                    >
                    > Jack
                    >
                    > Jack Kilmon
                    > San Antonio, Texas
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Yours in Christ's service,
                    > > Tom Butler
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@... <jkilmon%40historian.net>> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >>
                    > >> ----- Original Message -----
                    > >> From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@... <pastor_t%40pacbell.net>>
                    > >> To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > >
                    > >> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
                    > >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> > Jack,
                    > >> > I trust that your test, at least with reference
                    > >> > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
                    > >> > bouncing.
                    > >> > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
                    > >> > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
                    > >> has been placed on hold or has a different list > >
                    > > been created where the discussion continues?
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Tom Butler
                    > >> > Sparks, Nevada
                    > >>
                    > >> I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
                    > >> to start a thread combined with busy times. I, for
                    > >> one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
                    > >> critical opinions concerning the redactors of
                    > >> 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
                    > >> chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera. Perhaps
                    > >> some of our members have studied these.
                    > >>
                    > >> Jack Kilmon
                    > >> San Antonio, Texas
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
                    > > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                    > > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
                    > > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature-owner%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                    > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    _______________________________________
                    Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
                    Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
                    Pontificia Universit� della Santa Croce
                    Piazza S. Apollinare 49
                    I-00186 Roma
                    Italy

                    e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
                    fax: ++39-06-68164400


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Bob MacDonald
                    Kym I am trying to take your thesis seriously and I am doing a detailed response of this one small piece. You indicated to me that the section of John 5 is
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 27 5:19 PM
                      Kym

                      I am trying to take your thesis seriously and I am doing a detailed response
                      of this one small piece. You indicated to me that the section of John 5 is
                      part of the hand - one finger, I think. I have shrunk the image of the
                      structures and repeated it to see what fingers of two hands might look like
                      (see http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-6.jpg)

                      If one finger only, then 10 more similar structures must be found - that's a
                      lot of text and it doesn't fit: John is a little less than 20,000 words;
                      chapter 5 - this part is 650 words which I have fit into about 390 nodes;
                      That would make the fingers 6500/20000 or more than 25% of the text. You
                      must have meant something else.

                      Note also http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-5.jpg now includes the middle of chapter 5
                      showing some connections between the middle and end - all of these are
                      meaningful connections e.g. concerning glory and honour, the acts that the
                      Son has to finish, and the response of the people - belief or unbelief, whom
                      you accept, whom you are willing to glory in.

                      Though your thesis is extreme - specifically because it claims that the
                      Gospel does not do what text normally does, namely be heard or seen or
                      performed, but it purports to paint an image. It could be a radical act of
                      adoration and is therefore not ruled out of court like the modulo-19
                      arithmetic of some scholars in other traditions.

                      You are not alone in assuming that words can make an image. George Herbert
                      wrote a poem in the shape of an altar; and some artists have made images of
                      words with great complexity long before the use of computers.

                      In other words, your thesis does not deny the prime directive: that this
                      Gospel was written by human beings conscious of what they were doing. So the
                      images could then be imaged using the software that I have access to. With
                      millions of variations on skin colour, I could even give it some
                      verisimilitude.

                      For those who like to see the Chi in the chiasm, there are a couple that are
                      obvious in diagram 5 since I left them in the X form rather than indenting
                      them. Maybe we go overboard with concentric structures. :)

                      Bob

                      Bob MacDonald
                      Victoria BC
                      http://gx.ca
                      http://bmd.gx.ca
                    • Kym Smith
                      Bob, Thank you. Imagine vertical and horizontal axes, cross-shaped. From the top, the first six micro-chiasms (1:1-51) on the vertical axis represent the head
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 28 1:24 PM
                        Bob,

                        Thank you.

                        Imagine vertical and horizontal axes, cross-shaped. From the top, the
                        first six micro-chiasms (1:1-51) on the vertical axis represent the
                        head (the head of a man - cf. Rev 13:18).

                        Then, on the horizontal axis, are the the forty-one structures from
                        2:1 - 11:44. These make up the hands. There are thirteen various-sized
                        micro-structures in the Signs and Discourses Macro-chiasm which
                        provide the spacing between the 'fingers'. The first and last signs
                        act as inclusios for the whole (2:1-11 and 11:43-44), the central
                        structure (and, therefore, focal point for the whole gospel) is
                        11:48-51. Between the second and third fingers on each 'hand' are
                        consecutive signs and/or discourses which indicate that something
                        should be there. That something-nothing, as I describe it, represents
                        the nail-holes/wounds in the hands. Between the other signs and
                        discourses are the twenty-eight sevenfold formations of the Dialogue
                        Macro-chiasm. Let me try to show this pictorially, I will use numbers
                        to represent the Dialogue formations; imagine them each as small
                        vertical columns along the whole structure which is positioned
                        horizontally.

                        s-2-d-3-d-3-s-s-3-s-3-(d)-3-d-3-d-s-3-d-3-d-2-s

                        Note that the two 'thumbs' (two segments hence two micro-chiasms) are
                        on the outsides. Therefore the 'hands' are palms forward.

                        The next three micro-chiasms from 11:45-12:50 with the nine from the
                        Farewell Discourse (chs 11-17) are again on the vertical axis and
                        these represent the ribcage. The Greek in 18:1 (i.e. immediately below
                        the ribcage where the spear thrust would have been) is important,
                        especially 'valley' which is 'a winter torrent' (it was not winter but
                        there was a 'torrent' from Christ's side).

                        The rest of the micro-structures (ten till 20:29) continue on the
                        vertical axis There are no distinguishing features so these represent
                        the rest of Jesus' body and legs.

                        I described the 'feet' - two micro-chiasms separated by the unique
                        tripple tristich parallelism and all contianed between the inclusios
                        of 20:30,31 and 21:25,24 - to Marco earlier. The division between the
                        feet could not be a chiastsic structure because that would confuse the
                        'image' - there could only be two feet. This little complex is placed
                        horizontally but centred on the vertical axis.

                        "<=>"

                        " for inclusios, < and > for the chiasms/'feet' and = for the parallelism.

                        Remeber that this is not a photograph but a stylistic representation.
                        The central structure is very important, to feed on this gospel is to
                        feed on Christ.

                        I must respond to your previous to me but do not have the time at this
                        moment.

                        Kym




                        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
                        <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Kym
                        >
                        > I am trying to take your thesis seriously and I am doing a detailed
                        response
                        > of this one small piece. You indicated to me that the section of
                        John 5 is
                        > part of the hand - one finger, I think. I have shrunk the image of the
                        > structures and repeated it to see what fingers of two hands might
                        look like
                        > (see http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-6.jpg)
                        >
                        > If one finger only, then 10 more similar structures must be found -
                        that's a
                        > lot of text and it doesn't fit: John is a little less than 20,000 words;
                        > chapter 5 - this part is 650 words which I have fit into about 390
                        nodes;
                        > That would make the fingers 6500/20000 or more than 25% of the text.
                        You
                        > must have meant something else.
                        >
                        > Note also http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-5.jpg now includes the middle of
                        chapter 5
                        > showing some connections between the middle and end - all of these are
                        > meaningful connections e.g. concerning glory and honour, the acts
                        that the
                        > Son has to finish, and the response of the people - belief or
                        unbelief, whom
                        > you accept, whom you are willing to glory in.
                        >
                        > Though your thesis is extreme - specifically because it claims that the
                        > Gospel does not do what text normally does, namely be heard or seen or
                        > performed, but it purports to paint an image. It could be a radical
                        act of
                        > adoration and is therefore not ruled out of court like the modulo-19
                        > arithmetic of some scholars in other traditions.
                        >
                        > You are not alone in assuming that words can make an image. George
                        Herbert
                        > wrote a poem in the shape of an altar; and some artists have made
                        images of
                        > words with great complexity long before the use of computers.
                        >
                        > In other words, your thesis does not deny the prime directive: that this
                        > Gospel was written by human beings conscious of what they were
                        doing. So the
                        > images could then be imaged using the software that I have access
                        to. With
                        > millions of variations on skin colour, I could even give it some
                        > verisimilitude.
                        >
                        > For those who like to see the Chi in the chiasm, there are a couple
                        that are
                        > obvious in diagram 5 since I left them in the X form rather than
                        indenting
                        > them. Maybe we go overboard with concentric structures. :)
                        >
                        > Bob
                        >
                        > Bob MacDonald
                        > Victoria BC
                        > http://gx.ca
                        > http://bmd.gx.ca
                        >
                      • Tom Butler
                        Marco, At last I have some time to reply to your comments regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John. I very much appreciate this opportunity to
                        Message 11 of 21 , Dec 28, 2006
                          Marco,
                          At last I have some time to reply to your comments
                          regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
                          I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
                          your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
                          theory.
                          By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
                          text of your list of reasons.

                          --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

                          > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
                          > not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
                          >
                          > I find the following reasons:
                          >
                          > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
                          > conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
                          > that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless >
                          the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
                          as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
                          the Prologue or not).

                          Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
                          Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
                          the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
                          in Jn. 2-12. (I would argue that the Signs component
                          of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
                          Prolog) and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
                          the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
                          what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
                          differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
                          13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)

                          The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
                          suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
                          verses.

                          I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
                          forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
                          in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
                          the end of chapter 20. Why not at the end of chapter
                          12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?

                          If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
                          may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
                          at least two different endings) as, for example, a
                          struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
                          appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
                          not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
                          placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
                          that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
                          one or more redactors?

                          My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
                          stand alone. They may be placed where they are at the
                          end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
                          want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
                          proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
                          we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
                          part of the text.

                          Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
                          challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
                          text as we have it? I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
                          p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
                          Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
                          Edition, p. 25) on this. Each of these scholars has
                          theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
                          but none of them conclude that it is possible to
                          discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
                          of certainty.

                          The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
                          of the material may have been incorporated into the
                          Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
                          isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
                          it today from the rest of the material. These
                          theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
                          been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
                          the material BEFORE the study begins.
                          >
                          > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
                          > TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
                          to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
                          > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

                          I'm afraid I don't see your point. What you suggest
                          is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
                          that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
                          gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20. How do
                          you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
                          material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
                          material preceding it in Jn. 21?

                          As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
                          explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
                          my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
                          identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
                          I come, what is that to you?"

                          It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
                          parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
                          who is testifying to these things and has written
                          them). The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
                          statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
                          Gospel.

                          I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.
                          It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
                          source of this witness. 21: 24 is not necessarily
                          written BY that witness, but appears to have been
                          written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
                          discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
                          following.

                          This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
                          the composition of the Gospel. It seems right to me
                          that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
                          material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
                          influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
                          as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
                          that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
                          original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
                          later redacted by one or more other writers.
                          >
                          > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
                          > not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John >
                          1-20. I list them so:

                          I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
                          before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
                          Is that correct?
                          >
                          > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
                          > is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
                          ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
                          > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
                          > person: "he".

                          As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
                          same value. If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
                          hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
                          different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
                          If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
                          passion narrative?
                          >
                          > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
                          > author of John 1-20, he would be a person who >
                          testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says:
                          > "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
                          > be verified".

                          Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
                          legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
                          own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.") In
                          5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
                          as a witness, but says that he does not need human
                          testimony, because the works (that the Father had
                          given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
                          Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
                          behalf." In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
                          witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
                          legal charges against him.

                          If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
                          an important role, even a central role in the creation
                          of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
                          not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
                          behalf, because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
                          the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23 and the gospel
                          itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
                          the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
                          suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
                          Keep It pp 247-252). Thus the witness of the BD has
                          an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!
                          >
                          > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
                          > the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
                          word spread among the brothers. These verses make >
                          sense if they were written after the death of the >
                          beloved disciple: the author seems worried that >
                          some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
                          > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
                          > verses.

                          As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
                          authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
                          order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
                          the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
                          way that other material was woven into the Gospel. My
                          theory is that an entire community of scholars
                          (probably under the leadership, inspiration and
                          authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
                          the composition and refinement of the gospel. You
                          have found evidence that supports my theory. Thank
                          you.
                          >
                          > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
                          > 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
                          > ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
                          > The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not >
                          modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think >
                          that the author of John 21 didn't think he could >
                          change what was already written. This doesn't
                          > happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
                          > For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
                          > inserted within the text. The author of John 21 >
                          doesn't take the same liberty.

                          I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
                          redaction of an earlier text. Is there a manuscript
                          extant of this pericope that does not include what I
                          assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)? I'm
                          not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
                          are you?

                          Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
                          used by the original writer: a clarification for the
                          reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
                          Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
                          (namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
                          than John")?

                          The clarification is consistent with the theology of
                          the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
                          in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
                          bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
                          anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).

                          The verse above can be understood by readers of the
                          Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
                          baptizing more disciples than John," but it would not
                          be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
                          that fine theological point.

                          When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
                          people become disciples, Christ abides in them. When
                          they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
                          that baptizes. That's confusing if not explained.

                          This of course is meaning that the reader of the
                          gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
                          entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
                          hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
                          meaning. The writer is helping the reader distinguish
                          between what the words appear to mean to the
                          uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
                          have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
                          text and upon the gospel as a whole.
                          >
                          > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
                          > named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is >
                          striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
                          > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
                          > 21 was written.
                          >
                          You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
                          list twelve names to identify the disciples. The
                          names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
                          of John specifically. Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
                          Nathaniel are mentioned more than once. The fact that
                          the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
                          does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
                          redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
                          the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
                          were written. Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
                          Should we consider that reference an indication that
                          the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
                          the work of a redactor?

                          > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
                          > are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in >
                          chapter 6 fish is OPSARION. ICQUS is never
                          > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
                          > the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
                          John 1-20.

                          Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words. 147 of those
                          words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20. Again,
                          you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
                          a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.
                          Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
                          product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
                          by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
                          of Jesus. Some differences are to be expected as the
                          work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
                          perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
                          BD and others).
                          >
                          > I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
                          > give me certainty. I recognise that the following >
                          reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
                          > they make it more likely that the author is
                          > different. All together, they make a strong case >
                          against identity of author.

                          They make a case against the identity of a single
                          author having written the entire Gospel. I would
                          argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
                          would illustrate that same point.

                          Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
                          authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
                          appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
                          of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
                          parables in The Gospel According to Luke. This is the
                          only parable in which Jesus names a character. (Does
                          that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
                          According to Luke?)

                          The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
                          writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
                          (but then the farewell discourse material is different
                          from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
                          seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
                          any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)

                          In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
                          If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
                          separate the work of one author from that of others, I
                          suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
                          though we can see that there are differences. Those
                          differences are woven into a single fabric which
                          cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
                          the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
                          >
                          > I would be very interested to read a refutation of
                          > any of the given reasons.
                          >
                          Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
                          stimulating exercise. I look forward to your response
                          to my refutations and the continuation of our
                          dialogue. I hope others on the list will contribute
                          to the dialogue as well.

                          Yours in Christ's service,
                          Tom Butler

                          <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                          <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                        • Marco V. Fabbri
                          Tom, thank you for your reply. You promised it, and you kept your promise. I will write a short anwer, first, because there was some misunderstanding. I am not
                          Message 12 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                            Tom,

                            thank you for your reply. You promised it, and you kept your promise.

                            I will write a short anwer, first, because there was some misunderstanding.
                            I am not trying to divide the Gospel into a number of preexisting
                            documents. I am just trying to understand the Gospel as we have it. There
                            is no need to persuade me of the shortcomings of documentary theories,
                            because I am already persuaded.

                            When I teach John, I start by studying the Gospel as a whole, in order to
                            find its structure. Only when I know the structure, I am able to recognize
                            some part of the text as not belonging to the structure.

                            The man that opens his watch and separates his components can learn
                            something about how it works. However, if he wants the watch to work, he
                            needs to know how to put the pieces together again. If he thinks that some
                            pieces have no purpose, it doesn't mean that they haven't, but that he
                            doesn't know what their purpose is. And if he is not prepared to learn that,
                            his watch wont't ever work as it was meant to work, or it won't work at all.

                            When I look at John 20,30-31, and notice that it speaks about signs, and
                            look for the signs in the Gospel, and noticed that they are confined to John
                            2-12, I am not saying that the rest does not belong to the original Gospel.
                            I am trying to understand the Gospel as it stands, and I as a legitimate
                            question: why are there no "signs" in John 13-20? What is the function of
                            those chapters? Here I accept the contributions from Dodd, who noticed the
                            importance of the coming of the "hour" of Jesus, and from Brown, who
                            recognizes the importance of "glory" in those chapters, and calls them "the
                            book of glory".

                            That being my stance, I think that whoever affirms that a part of the
                            Gospel, whether it be a verse or a chapter, has been added later, he takes
                            on himself the burden of proof. If he also maintains that the added part has
                            been written by a different author, he takes on himself an additional burden
                            of proof. This is why I took pains to prove a later origin of John 21. We
                            can discuss my reasons, but I think that we agree that I need to prove my
                            point. If I can't, then I have to admit that John 21 is by the same hand as
                            the rest of the Gospel, until somebody else can prove the point.

                            As to the content of the reasons, you say that you refuted them. On my part,
                            I don't agree, and I still think that the point is proved, as do the
                            commentaries that you quote. But there are no discussions that are closed on
                            the authority of anybody. Therefore, I wont' try to defend my option and
                            pass judgement at the same time. Maybe I will engage in discussion later.

                            Before that, I will raise a more general point. I think we agree that
                            whoever affirms that different authors are at work has to prove that. If so,
                            how can you assume that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a plurality of
                            authors? It seems to me that you take on yourself a heavy burden of proof.

                            Since the time I wrote the text you are answering to, I wrote on this same
                            list that I don't believe that written texts in the antiquity were written
                            by many people at the same time. There was no way that a text could be
                            shared by many unless it was first written by one, then copied, then
                            distributed, then read. And again, any intervention by others wouldn't be
                            known unless it was copied by hand, then distributed, then read.

                            Mind me, I don't deny that an author can draw from oral tradition, of from
                            the decisions of a council, or whatever else. I maintain, however, that
                            writing was a job that was done by one person at a time. This is why,
                            whenever a scholar affirms joint authorship, he has to prove it. He can't
                            assume it. So, I believe that I am right when I assume that John has been
                            written by an individual, until the contrary is proven. I never read a proof
                            that a group wrote the Gospel. I read some proofs that a different author
                            wrote chapter 21, as is maintains by most modern scholars.

                            Marco Fabbri

                            On 12/29/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Marco,

                            > At last I have some time to reply to your comments
                            > regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
                            > I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
                            > your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
                            > theory.
                            > By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
                            > text of your list of reasons.
                            >
                            > --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
                            >
                            > > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
                            > > not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
                            > >
                            > > I find the following reasons:
                            > >
                            > > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
                            > > conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
                            > > that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless >
                            > the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
                            > as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
                            > the Prologue or not).
                            >
                            > Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
                            > Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
                            > the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
                            > in Jn. 2-12. (I would argue that the Signs component
                            > of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
                            > Prolog) and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
                            > the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
                            > what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
                            > differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
                            > 13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)
                            >
                            > The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
                            > suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
                            > verses.
                            >
                            > I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
                            > forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
                            > in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
                            > the end of chapter 20. Why not at the end of chapter
                            > 12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?
                            >


                            If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
                            > may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
                            > at least two different endings) as, for example, a
                            > struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
                            > appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
                            > not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
                            > placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
                            > that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
                            > one or more redactors?
                            >
                            > My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
                            > stand alone. They may be placed where they are at the
                            > end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
                            > want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
                            > proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
                            > we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
                            > part of the text.
                            >
                            > Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
                            > challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
                            > text as we have it? I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
                            > p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
                            > Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
                            > Edition, p. 25) on this. Each of these scholars has
                            > theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
                            > but none of them conclude that it is possible to
                            > discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
                            > of certainty.
                            >
                            > The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
                            > of the material may have been incorporated into the
                            > Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
                            > isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
                            > it today from the rest of the material. These
                            > theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
                            > been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
                            > the material BEFORE the study begins.
                            > >
                            > > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
                            > > TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
                            > to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
                            > > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.
                            >
                            > I'm afraid I don't see your point. What you suggest
                            > is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
                            > that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
                            > gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20. How do
                            > you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
                            > material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
                            > material preceding it in Jn. 21?
                            >
                            > As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
                            > explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
                            > my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
                            > identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
                            > I come, what is that to you?"
                            >
                            > It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
                            > parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
                            > who is testifying to these things and has written
                            > them). The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
                            > statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
                            > Gospel.
                            >
                            > I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.
                            > It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
                            > source of this witness. 21: 24 is not necessarily
                            > written BY that witness, but appears to have been
                            > written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
                            > discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
                            > following.
                            >
                            > This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
                            > the composition of the Gospel. It seems right to me
                            > that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
                            > material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
                            > influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
                            > as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
                            > that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
                            > original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
                            > later redacted by one or more other writers.
                            > >
                            > > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
                            > > not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John >
                            > 1-20. I list them so:
                            >
                            > I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
                            > before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
                            > Is that correct?
                            > >
                            > > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
                            > > is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
                            > ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
                            > > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
                            > > person: "he".
                            >
                            > As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
                            > same value. If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
                            > hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
                            > different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
                            > If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
                            > passion narrative?
                            > >
                            > > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
                            > > author of John 1-20, he would be a person who >
                            > testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says:
                            > > "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
                            > > be verified".
                            >
                            > Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
                            > legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
                            > own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.") In
                            > 5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
                            > as a witness, but says that he does not need human
                            > testimony, because the works (that the Father had
                            > given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
                            > Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
                            > behalf." In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
                            > witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
                            > legal charges against him.
                            >
                            > If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
                            > an important role, even a central role in the creation
                            > of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
                            > not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
                            > behalf, because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
                            > the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23 and the gospel
                            > itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
                            > the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
                            > suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
                            > Keep It pp 247-252). Thus the witness of the BD has
                            > an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!
                            > >
                            > > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
                            > > the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
                            > word spread among the brothers. These verses make >
                            > sense if they were written after the death of the >
                            > beloved disciple: the author seems worried that >
                            > some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
                            > > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
                            > > verses.
                            >
                            > As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
                            > authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
                            > order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
                            > the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
                            > way that other material was woven into the Gospel. My
                            > theory is that an entire community of scholars
                            > (probably under the leadership, inspiration and
                            > authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
                            > the composition and refinement of the gospel. You
                            > have found evidence that supports my theory. Thank
                            > you.
                            > >
                            > > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
                            > > 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
                            > > ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
                            > > The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not >
                            > modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think >
                            > that the author of John 21 didn't think he could >
                            > change what was already written. This doesn't
                            > > happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
                            > > For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
                            > > inserted within the text. The author of John 21 >
                            > doesn't take the same liberty.
                            >
                            > I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
                            > redaction of an earlier text. Is there a manuscript
                            > extant of this pericope that does not include what I
                            > assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)? I'm
                            > not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
                            > are you?
                            >
                            > Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
                            > used by the original writer: a clarification for the
                            > reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
                            > Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
                            > (namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
                            > than John")?
                            >
                            > The clarification is consistent with the theology of
                            > the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
                            > in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
                            > bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
                            > anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).
                            >
                            > The verse above can be understood by readers of the
                            > Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
                            > baptizing more disciples than John," but it would not
                            > be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
                            > that fine theological point.
                            >
                            > When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
                            > people become disciples, Christ abides in them. When
                            > they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
                            > that baptizes. That's confusing if not explained.
                            >
                            > This of course is meaning that the reader of the
                            > gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
                            > entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
                            > hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
                            > meaning. The writer is helping the reader distinguish
                            > between what the words appear to mean to the
                            > uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
                            > have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
                            > text and upon the gospel as a whole.
                            > >
                            > > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
                            > > named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is >
                            > striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
                            > > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
                            > > 21 was written.
                            > >
                            > You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
                            > list twelve names to identify the disciples. The
                            > names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
                            > of John specifically. Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
                            > Nathaniel are mentioned more than once. The fact that
                            > the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
                            > does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
                            > redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
                            > the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
                            > were written. Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
                            > Should we consider that reference an indication that
                            > the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
                            > the work of a redactor?
                            >
                            > > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
                            > > are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in >
                            > chapter 6 fish is OPSARION. ICQUS is never
                            > > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
                            > > the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
                            > John 1-20.
                            >
                            > Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words. 147 of those
                            > words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20. Again,
                            > you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
                            > a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.
                            > Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
                            > product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
                            > by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
                            > of Jesus. Some differences are to be expected as the
                            > work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
                            > perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
                            > BD and others).
                            > >
                            > > I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
                            > > give me certainty. I recognise that the following >
                            > reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
                            > > they make it more likely that the author is
                            > > different. All together, they make a strong case >
                            > against identity of author.
                            >
                            > They make a case against the identity of a single
                            > author having written the entire Gospel. I would
                            > argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
                            > would illustrate that same point.
                            >
                            > Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
                            > authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
                            > appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
                            > of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
                            > parables in The Gospel According to Luke. This is the
                            > only parable in which Jesus names a character. (Does
                            > that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
                            > According to Luke?)
                            >
                            > The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
                            > writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
                            > (but then the farewell discourse material is different
                            > from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
                            > seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
                            > any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)
                            >
                            > In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
                            > If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
                            > separate the work of one author from that of others, I
                            > suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
                            > though we can see that there are differences. Those
                            > differences are woven into a single fabric which
                            > cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
                            > the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
                            > >
                            > > I would be very interested to read a refutation of
                            > > any of the given reasons.
                            > >
                            > Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
                            > stimulating exercise. I look forward to your response
                            > to my refutations and the continuation of our
                            > dialogue. I hope others on the list will contribute
                            > to the dialogue as well.
                            >
                            > Yours in Christ's service,
                            > Tom Butler
                            >
                            > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
                            > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                            > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
                            > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                            >
                            >



                            --
                            _______________________________________
                            Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
                            Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
                            Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
                            Piazza S. Apollinare 49
                            I-00186 Roma
                            Italy

                            e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
                            fax: ++39-06-68164400


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Marco V. Fabbri
                            Tom, I had to interrupt quite abruptly my answer before I had time to discuss properly your remarks. I thank you for you work, and for the opportunity that we
                            Message 13 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                              Tom,

                              I had to interrupt quite abruptly my answer before I had time to discuss
                              properly your remarks. I thank you for you work, and for the opportunity
                              that we are now sharing to check the soundness of our ideas.

                              My previous post coped with general issues, this one will be dedicated to
                              particular points. My answer will be interspersed.

                              On 12/29/06, Tom Butler <<mailto:pastor_t@...>pastor_t@...>
                              wrote:

                              Marco,
                              At last I have some time to reply to your comments
                              regarding the redaction theory of the Gospel of John.
                              I very much appreciate this opportunity to reply to
                              your list of reasons for supporting the redaction
                              theory.
                              By way of dialogue, I'll weave my replies into the
                              text of your list of reasons.

                              --- Fabbri Marco <<mailto:mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

                              > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is
                              > not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.
                              >
                              > I find the following reasons:
                              >
                              > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged
                              > conclusion, that refers back to the SHMEIA (signs),
                              > that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless >
                              the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 >
                              as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include >
                              the Prologue or not).

                              Marco, the logic of your argument suggests to me that
                              Jn. 20: 30-31 should be considered the conclusion of
                              the Gospel of Signs, which as you indicated is found
                              in Jn. 2-12.

                              Not so. I am not trying to separate from the rest of Gospel a so-called
                              "source of signs" or Semeiaquelle. I am taking the Gospel as it stands, and
                              assuming that it is consistent, until the contrary is proven.

                              I am just observing that John 20,30-31 is a conclusion, and that it speaks
                              about the "signs" that are written in the book (the book that we call the
                              Gsopel). I search for the signs, and see that they are concentrated in
                              chapters 2-12. This means that if the Gospel has a structure, at this point
                              I still need to understand the function of chapter 1, and the function of
                              chapters 13-20. It is all too easy to wipe away those parts of the Gospel
                              whose function is not understood at first glance. If I did that, I would be
                              a reader that is not prepared to learn anything that he doesn't know
                              already. A bad reader indeed.

                              (I would argue that the Signs component
                              of the Fourth Gospel begins at Jn. 1: 19 (after the
                              Prolog)

                              The Gospel as it stands declares at 2,11 that the sign of Cana is the
                              beginning of the signs. The sign itself is narrated in John 2,1-11. I don't
                              dare to say that John 1 tells any sign: I am unwilling to pretend that I
                              know better than the Evangelist.

                              This doesn't mean that a so-called original Gospel started at 2,1. I agree
                              that there never was a Gospel that didn't include chapter 1. It would be
                              absurd indeed: what could the reader make of the "third day" mentioned in
                              2,1?

                              Rather, the art of telling a tale requires an introduction. The reader needs
                              to be drawn into the story. I believe that this is the function of John 1.

                              and ends at Jn. 13: 20 (with the account of
                              the footwashing and before the Farewell Discourse or
                              what Brown calls the Book of Glory begins - though I
                              differ with Brown as to when that book begins: at Jn.
                              13: 21, not at Jn. 13: 1, but that's another issue.)

                              I agree that this is another issue. Most scholars think that the second part
                              of the Gospel begins with chapter 13. Some think that chapters 10-12 are
                              transitional.

                              If we prefer to draw on the point that have already been made, I think that
                              we can't ignore that the last mention of the signs is at 12:37, where it
                              says: TOSAUTA DE AUTOU SHMEIA PEPOIHKOTOS EMPOSQEN AUTWN OUK EPISTEUON EIS
                              AUTON.

                              Here it is: the signs should lead to faith, but they dind't win the faith of
                              the many. There are many who believe, but then they relinquish Jesus. Then
                              the people disappear from the account: the twelve remain. It seems to me
                              that it is impossible to divide the meal told in John 13 between the two
                              parts of the Gospel. The character are the same along chapters 13-17, and
                              they are the sole witness of the revelation of the AGAPH.

                              The rationale for such a conclusion being, as you
                              suggested, the reference to signs in those concluding
                              verses.

                              I see no reason to assume, if we are going to put
                              forth a theory that the work of a redactor is evident
                              in the Fourth Gospel, that Jn. 20: 30-31 belongs at
                              the end of chapter 20. Why not at the end of chapter
                              12 (or as I have suggested after 13: 20)?

                              Simply because it is at the end of chapter 20. But I think this objection
                              dependes on the misunderstanding that I tried to to solve in my previous
                              posting.


                              If the redaction theory is related in any way to what
                              may be observed in the Gospel of Mark (where there are
                              at least two different endings) as, for example, a
                              struggle by first century Gospel writers to provide an
                              appropriate ending for the Gospel story, then might it
                              not be appropriate to suggest that 20: 30-31 could be
                              placed at the end of chapter 19, supporting the idea
                              that the resurrection narratives are all the work of
                              one or more redactors?

                              The ending of Mark is a different problem. From start there is a problem of
                              text criticism: the best manuscripts end at Mark 16,8. So a problem arises:
                              16,8 is an abrupt ending. Could Gospel end saying that the women told
                              nothing, EFOBOUNTO GAR? We miss a conclusion. Was this intentional?

                              And yet we know for certain that the Gospel once existed without Mark
                              16,9-20. Later Mark 16,9-20 was written, and also another alternate ending.

                              Then there is also a literary problem, which is a difference of style in
                              Mark 16,9-20, and, more importantly, the fact that Mark 16,9-20 knows about
                              waht is told in John 20, Matthew 28 and Luke 24.

                              But this a list devoted to Johannine Literature, and I will refrain from
                              pressing an interpretation of Mark. I rather want to point to the fact that
                              when studying Mark and John we face opposite problems: the oldest
                              manuscripts of John witness to a Gospel with two endings; the oldest
                              manuscripts of Mark witness to a Gospel that lacks an ending.

                              My point is that those two verses (Jn. 20: 30-31) can
                              stand alone.

                              I would disagree to this particular point. As a rule, a conclusion can never
                              stand alone: it needs a text before it.

                              This particular conclusion states that it is a conclusion to a book, and
                              that the book tells signs made by Jesus. Therefore it is the conclusion to a
                              narration.

                              They may be placed where they are at the
                              end of chapter 20 or virtually anywhere else we might
                              want to suggest is the "earliest ending" of the
                              proto-gospel or first draft of the Gospel or whatever
                              we end up calling what we believe to be the oldest
                              part of the text.

                              To this I hearthily agree. I think it is now clear that I am not interested
                              in proto-gospels.

                              Is it not more sound from a scholarly point of view to
                              challenge the redaction theory than to challenge the
                              text as we have it? I stand with Culpepper (Anatomy,
                              p. 49), Brown (Introduction p. 86) and Barrett (citing
                              Lindars in The Gospel According to John Second
                              Edition, p. 25) on this. Each of these scholars has
                              theories about how the Gospel may have been redacted,
                              but none of them conclude that it is possible to
                              discern the earliest form of the text with any degree
                              of certainty.

                              I agree with your last sentence and with the scholars that you quote, Brown
                              among them.

                              I would like to note that I say a different thing when I say that chapter 21
                              is a later addition. I can't think that any scholar would say that John 1-20
                              is "the earliest form of the gospel". According to the scholars that you
                              quote, we don't know with certainty about the earliest form of the Gospel.

                              We know with certainty about the latest form, that is all of the Gospel. And
                              I think that we can go back one step from that, to a Gospel that ended at
                              John 20,31.

                              Please note that Brown agrees with that, even if doubts that the earliest
                              Gospel can be reconstructed.


                              The redactor theories serve to explain how or why some
                              of the material may have been incorporated into the
                              Gospel, but they remain theories and cannot be used to
                              isolate some of the material in the Gospel as we have
                              it today from the rest of the material. These
                              theories, therefore, are best used AFTER the text has
                              been studied as a whole, not as a way of organizing
                              the material BEFORE the study begins.

                              I agree. My students first here about the process of redaction of the Gospel
                              after some 12 classes about the structure of the Gospel as it stands.

                              >
                              > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
                              > TAUTA. It is reasonable to think that TAUTA refers >
                              to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
                              > whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

                              I'm afraid I don't see your point. What you suggest
                              is that the use of TAUTA makes it reasonable to say
                              that this verse is the conclusion to the entire
                              gospel, which you say ends with chapter 20.

                              I don't say that the Gospel that we now have ends at chapter 20.

                              I rather say that there is a conclusion at the end of chapter 20, and that
                              we have to explain why the Gospel has two conclusions. Even more, John 21,25
                              repeats that Jesus did more than what is told. From this I draw that John
                              21,24 know John 20,30-31. This is true whether we hold that the same author
                              wrote all of John or a different author wrote John 21.

                              How do
                              you conclude that TAUTA in 21: 24 refers to the
                              material that ends at 20: 30-31 but not to the
                              material preceding it in Jn. 21?

                              There are reasons for that I presented as my points 3.1 to 3.6.

                              As I see it Jn. 21: 24 is referring to Jn. 21: 23c,
                              explaining that when Jesus is quoted saying, "If it is
                              my will that he (IE: the disciple whom Jesus loved
                              identified in 21: 20) remain (continue to abide) until
                              I come, what is that to you?"

                              It is as though the author(s) has (have) placed
                              parentheses around the phrase (this is the disciple
                              who is testifying to these things and has written
                              them).

                              I can't see the parenthesis. Would could that mean, if not that you suggest
                              that 21,25 is by the same hand that writes 21,23? You may suggest it, but I
                              see no reason to separate 21,24 from 21,25. According to the methodological
                              reasons staed in my previous post, whoever affirms that part of a text
                              belongs to a different author has to prove that. It is not enough to speak
                              figuratively of parenthesis. I need a prove that 21,24 is from a different
                              author than 21,25.

                              Until a proof is given, I won't separate 21, from 21,25. And this lead to
                              another strong reason to recognize that TAUTA refers to John 1-20 and not to
                              21,23c. It is impossible to conceive that John ever ended in 21,23. We
                              started with a Gospel with two conclusions, we can't go all the way to a
                              Gospel that ends without a conclusion. This is why I think that we need to
                              think of John 21 a unit that stands together. It comes after the first
                              conclusion, and it ends with the second conclusion.

                              The TAUTA, in other words, refers to Jesus'
                              statement in 21: 23c, not necessarily to the entire
                              Gospel.

                              My position is not that it refers to the entire Gospel, but rather to John
                              1-20. I already noted that John 20,30-31 refers to Joh 1-20 as "this book"
                              that contains "signs". The signs are called TAUTA in 20,31. If, as noted
                              above, John 21,25 knows John 20,30-31, it is consistent to interpret the
                              reference to TAUTA as to the same things that are named TAUTA in 20,31.

                              I see 21: 24 as the kind of language found at 19: 35.

                              The two passages have similaritites, I concede that. If you can prove that
                              they are from the same hand, then I will have to accept that they are an
                              insertion from the author of John 21. But please note that 19,35 make no use
                              of the first person plural, as John 21 does. I find in the use of the first
                              person plural a reason to distinguish the author of John 21 from the author
                              of John 1-20. That reason does not stand for 19,35.

                              It is an assertion that the Beloved Disciple is the
                              source of this witness. 21: 24 is not necessarily
                              written BY that witness, but appears to have been
                              written ABOUT the witness, who is the subject of a
                              discussion between Peter and Judas in Jn. 21: 20 and
                              following.

                              You say that is not necessary that 21,24 is written BY that witness. I say
                              it is impossible. If my statement is true, then it follows logically that
                              also your statement is. It is impossible to hold my statement and deny your
                              statement. I accept it.

                              On the contrary, it is possible to maintain your statement and reject mine.
                              This is why I took pains to prove that it is impossible that 21,24 could be
                              written by that witness. See my 3.1-3.2.

                              This goes to the theory as to the role of the BD in
                              the composition of the Gospel. It seems right to me
                              that the BD may have been the SOURCE of much of the
                              material or could have been the AUTHORITY that
                              influenced an entire community to develop the Gospel
                              as we now have it, but that does not necessarily mean
                              that a single author, the BD or anyone else, wrote the
                              original manuscript or even the proto-gospel which was
                              later redacted by one or more other writers.

                              John 21,24 says indeed that the BD is the witness, and therefore the source
                              of the account, in our language. But it goes on and says that he is the one
                              who wrote these things: hO GRAPSAS TAUTA. I can't see how you could take at
                              face value the the BD is the witness, and not that he is the writer. I
                              understand that you have in mind a theory according to which the Gospel is
                              written by many people. But I suggest that you should recognize that John 21
                              doesn't share that theory. He could have said that HE witnessed and WE
                              wrote. But he didn't.

                              Of course, the "we" that speaks in chapter 21 also writes something,
                              otherwise we couldn't read it. It writes chapter 21. I think my view is
                              proved consistent. Whatever view we have if the BD and of the WE that write
                              chapter 21, they are different voices. For "US" the BD is HE. The BD is
                              dead, and WE are alive when writing. Yet the BD wrote, WE say. He wrote
                              while he was still alive, of course.

                              I'm assuming that you DO think that the material
                              before Chapter 21 WAS written by the beloved disciple.
                              Is that correct?
                              >
                              > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
                              > is true". The verb is in first plural, so that who->
                              ever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
                              > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
                              > person: "he".

                              In my reasoning, there would still be room for maintaining that the BD did
                              not write materially 1-20, as long as hO GRAPSAS is accounted for. One
                              should prove that the subject of the verb GRAFW could be the person who
                              dictated a text, as Paul used to do, or the person that had it written, even
                              if he didn't write that himself.

                              The advocates of this position quote Pilate in John 19,22: hO GEGRAFA
                              GEGRAFA. Now, Pilate would hardly write the titulus crucis himself. He would
                              order somebody to write it.

                              Is it likely that this happened with John 1-20? Whatever stance we take,
                              what I staed above does not depend on it.

                              This said, I would note that in John 19,22 or in the Pauline letters, the
                              person who orders the text to be written is contemporary to the person that
                              put the order into effect. Therefore I wouldn't subscribe to a theory that
                              the redactor of the Gospel is later than the BD.

                              And I wouldn't subscribe to any theory of a collective writer. Whatever
                              secretary helped Paul, or whatever clerk or soldier wrote the inscription on
                              the cross, he was not a group.

                              As I've just pointed out, Jn. 19: 35 can be given that
                              same value. If 21: 24 is evidence that a different
                              hand wrote Chapter 21, is 19: 35 evidence that a
                              different hand wrote Chapter 19 or Chapters 18 AND 19?
                              If so, should we consider that a redactor wrote the
                              passion narrative?

                              Not so.

                              First: John 19,35 makes no use of the WE that is the mark of chapter 21, and
                              that distinguishes the author of chapter 21 from the BD, who is referred to
                              as HE.

                              Second, I tried to prove that 21,24 is NOT a parenthesis.

                              It is still possible to maintain, as some scholars do, that John 19,35 is an
                              insertion in the passion narrative. In my opinion, the solution to this
                              depends on how tightly 19,35 is connected to what comes before and after it.
                              I am still uncertain. I miss the WE form to be sure. Its absence makes it
                              possible to maintain that 19,35 belongs to the texture of chapter 19.

                              >
                              > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
                              > author of John 1-20, he would be a person who >
                              testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says:
                              > "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot
                              > be verified".


                              Jn. 5: 30-38 presents Jesus' own defense against the
                              legal charge of blasphemy (Jn. 5: 18 "calling God his
                              own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.") In
                              5: 30-38 Jesus points his accusers to John the Baptist
                              as a witness, but says that he does not need human
                              testimony, because the works (that the Father had
                              given Him to complete) testify on his behalf and the
                              Father who sent Him "has himself testified on my
                              behalf." In other words, Jesus sites two unassailable
                              witnesses as required by Hebrew law to refute the
                              legal charges against him.

                              This doesn't change the need for two witnesses. Rather, the whole argument
                              implies that two witnesses are needed, as one cannot bear witness to
                              himself.

                              Those who understand Jesus can see from his answer that the Father and Jesus
                              are two persons.

                              Those who do not understand Jesus have the witness of John the Baptist,
                              which is stressed in John 1,19-34, and then again later.

                              Therefore, until now, my point stands.

                              If we understand that the beloved disciple has played
                              an important role, even a central role in the creation
                              of the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that the BD does
                              not fall into the trap of testifying on his/her own
                              behalf,

                              He doesn't indeed. It's the author of John 21 that says that WE know that
                              his witness his true, so that even after the BD is dead the readers of
                              Gospel can hear two witnesses.

                              because Jesus affirms the BD's testimony, even
                              the BD's abiding presence in 21: 23

                              Here I don't understand: do you mean that the discussion about the opinion
                              spread among the disciples that the BD wouldn't die is written before or
                              after he died?

                              and the gospel
                              itself is evidence of that disciple's faithfulness to
                              the task entrusted to him (or her - as I have
                              suggested in an exegesis of Jn. 12: 7 - See Let Her
                              Keep It pp 247-252). Thus the witness of the BD has
                              an authority similar to that of Jesus Himself!

                              Raymond Brown did not think that we could know who the BD was. But the year
                              he died I listened to a conference he gave in Rome, and he said that he
                              didn't believe that, according to the Gospel, the BD could be a woman,
                              because of John 19,26. Anyway, I am ready to recognize that this has no
                              bearing on the discussion on the redaction of the Gospel. It is one thing to
                              see in the BD the writer of the Gospel, hO GRAPSAS TAUTA, and another to
                              pretend to know who the BD was.

                              >
                              > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
                              > the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the >
                              word spread among the brothers. These verses make >
                              sense if they were written after the death of the >
                              beloved disciple: the author seems worried that >
                              some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
                              > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't write these
                              > verses.

                              As indicated above, I don't think one must attribute
                              authorship of chapter 21 to the beloved disciple in
                              order to consider chapter 21 to have been woven into
                              the entire Gospel in a manner similar to the skillful
                              way that other material was woven into the Gospel.

                              Does this mean that you agree that the BD didn't write John 21?

                              As to the similar way, it all depends on what you mean by similar. If you
                              mean that the author of John 21 draws on John 1-20 and take some expressions
                              from it, I agree.

                              If you mean that the relationship is the same, then it is already apparent
                              that I disagree.

                              My
                              theory is that an entire community of scholars
                              (probably under the leadership, inspiration and
                              authority of the beloved disciple) were involved in
                              the composition and refinement of the gospel. You
                              have found evidence that supports my theory. Thank
                              you.

                              I can't see that evidence. Even more, I can't see that books in the
                              antiquity were written by a community. A text has an author, until the
                              contrary is proven. I took pains to prove that John 21 is written by
                              somebody else, and you find iut hard to believe. How can you believe that
                              the authors are not only two, but rather an entire community?

                              > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
                              > 20,30-31 make it plausible that once the Gospel
                              > ended there, and chapter 21 was added subsequently.
                              > The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not >
                              modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think >
                              that the author of John 21 didn't think he could >
                              change what was already written. This doesn't
                              > happen in John 1-20, whenever the test is modified.
                              > For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is
                              > inserted within the text. The author of John 21 >
                              doesn't take the same liberty.

                              I understand you to be asserting that Jn. 4:2 is a
                              redaction of an earlier text. Is there a manuscript
                              extant of this pericope that does not include what I
                              assume you see as the inserted phrase (vs. 2)? I'm
                              not aware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one);
                              are you?

                              Absent such a manuscript, why couldn't this be a style
                              used by the original writer: a clarification for the
                              reader offered to prevent any confusion caused by what
                              Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, a rumor
                              (namely: "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples
                              than John")?

                              I never wrote that I maintain that John 4,2 is by a different author. I
                              won't believe it is by another hand until that is proven.

                              The text is a correction, granted. I take it as a prove that John 1-20
                              underwent a process of redaction. Nothing more than that.

                              We are familiar with such correction in dissertations: the authors feels the
                              need to clarify what he had previously written, and add a corrections
                              instead of rewriting entirely his paragraph. He should do, because he has a
                              computer. Even so, I don't accuse the author of having somebody else write
                              his dissertation.

                              As for the ancient authors, we can hardly blame for adding some expalantory
                              notes to their own text. They couldn't rewrite entirely their text without
                              wasting much time and much money.

                              The clarification is consistent with the theology of
                              the gospel, namely that as the disciples were abiding
                              in Jesus, as he was abiding in them, they were able to
                              bear fruit. Otherwise they were not able to do
                              anything (Jn. 15: 4-5).

                              The verse above can be understood by readers of the
                              Gospel to mean "The Disciples of Jesus are making and
                              baptizing more disciples than John," but it would not
                              be expected that the Pharisees would have understood
                              that fine theological point.

                              When the disciples bring people to Jesus and those
                              people become disciples, Christ abides in them. When
                              they baptize others, it is the Christ abiding in them
                              that baptizes. That's confusing if not explained.

                              I agree with that.

                              This of course is meaning that the reader of the
                              gospel gains after contemplating the meaning of the
                              entire text; it would not be expected that a Pharisee,
                              hearing the rumor, would have been able to "see" this
                              meaning. The writer is helping the reader distinguish
                              between what the words appear to mean to the
                              uninitiated reader and what they can mean to those who
                              have expounded upon the meaning of each part of the
                              text and upon the gospel as a whole.

                              My first language is Italian, and I am uncertain as to your meaning. Do you
                              mean "expounded" or "expanded"?

                              For the rest, it poses no problem to me, and can be maintained whether the
                              author is one or many.

                              >
                              > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never
                              > named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is >
                              striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
                              > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
                              > 21 was written.
                              >
                              You may have noted that the Gospel of John does not
                              list twelve names to identify the disciples. The
                              names of James and John are not listed in the Gospel
                              of John specifically. Only Peter, Thomas, Judas and
                              Nathaniel are mentioned more than once. The fact that
                              the Sons of Zebedee are mentioned only in Chapter 21
                              does not suggest that chapter 21 was written by a
                              redactor or that this chapter was necessarily added to
                              the corpus of the text after all of the other chapters
                              were written. Philip is only mentioned in Jn. 1: 45.
                              Should we consider that reference an indication that
                              the pericope in which he is named (Jn. 1: 43-51) is
                              the work of a redactor?

                              Not indeed. I can't follow you here. Philip is mentioned in John 1:43; 1:44;
                              1:45; 1:46; 1:48; 6:5; 6:7; 12:21; 12:22; 14:8; 14:9.

                              But let us suppose a character is named only in chapter 1, as Nathanael is.
                              We have agreed to take the Gospel as it stands. If so, the reader starts in
                              chapter 1, and is acquainted with Nathanael since the beginning. The
                              exchange between Jesus and Nathanael leads directly into the signs, and
                              announces them. Jesus says to Nathanael: MEIZW TOUTWN OPSHi. The following
                              scene has Nathanael see the first sign together with the other disciples. So
                              Nathanael is woven into the narrative and can't be taken away from it.

                              On the other hand, when the reader reaches the conclusion in 20,30-31, he
                              still hasn't heard of the sons of Zebedee. Either they are unimportant to
                              the writer and he forgets about them, or he avoids them on purpose, or both.
                              Depending on your answer, you will have to recognize that either they are
                              important to the writer of John 21, or he mentions them on purpose, or both.


                              > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them
                              > are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in >
                              chapter 6 fish is OPSARION. ICQUS is never
                              > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
                              > the author of John 21 is the same as the author of >
                              John 1-20.

                              Chapter 21, you say, uses 174 words. 147 of those
                              words (nearly 98%)are also used in John 1-20.

                              My mathematics is different. To me, 147 is 75-76% of 174. This means that
                              24-25% of the words of John 21 are not used in John 1-20.

                              An example of what these words are can be significant: fish is called in
                              John 6 OPSARION. ICQUS is never used in John 1-20. John 21 quotes the same
                              word OPSARION, but also adds the word ICQUS, that in the meanwhile has
                              become significant for Christians.

                              Again,
                              you are assuming that the entire Gospel was written by
                              a single hand and is the witness of a single soul.

                              I assume this, because it is correct to assume this until the contrary is
                              proven.

                              I understand that your hypothesis is dear to you, and I don't want to
                              inflict pain, but isn't it possible that you grew accustomed to look at the
                              Gospel from that standpoint, and take it for granted?

                              Consider the possibility that the Gospel is the
                              product of a community of faithful scholars inspired
                              by the witness and authority of one beloved disciple
                              of Jesus. Some differences are to be expected as the
                              work of separate scholars is woven into the text,
                              perhaps by the leader or leaders of the community (the
                              BD and others).

                              In my opinion, you need to make a choice.

                              If there is one redactor, or another natural number of redactors (whose
                              existence you will need to prove), then as long as he writes (or n redactors
                              write), what he writes will reflect his idiolect and his style.

                              If there is no finite number of redactor, than not only some differences are
                              to be expected, but no idiolect or style can be recognized at all. If you
                              take this position, then whatever inconsistency arises can be solved saying
                              that this depends on the multiple authors. And you can't avoid a paradox:
                              whether you like it or not, your interpretation will fall into subjectivism,
                              just as those scholars that split the Gospel into hypotethical sources.

                              One example: did Jesus baptize or not? Some of your author thought he did.
                              Some thought he didn't. Both group wove their opinion into the Gospel. Who
                              are we to say who's right? Because if somebody corrected somebody else, then
                              we can accept the first opinion as well as the second.

                              >
                              > I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
                              > give me certainty. I recognise that the following >
                              reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
                              > they make it more likely that the author is
                              > different. All together, they make a strong case >
                              against identity of author.

                              They make a case against the identity of a single
                              author having written the entire Gospel. I would
                              argue that there are several parts of the Gospel that
                              would illustrate that same point.

                              Barrett, for example, has wondered about the
                              authorship of chapters 11 and 12 in which Lazarus
                              appears, though he appears nowhere else in the Gospel
                              of John or in any other Gospel except in one of Jesus'
                              parables in The Gospel According to Luke. This is the
                              only parable in which Jesus names a character. (Does
                              that suggest that a redactor added it to the Gospel
                              According to Luke?)

                              The Prologue is widely accepted as a different kind of
                              writing than is found in other parts of the Gospel
                              (but then the farewell discourse material is different
                              from the Gospel of signs and the passion narrative
                              seems to have more in common with the Synoptics than
                              any other part of the Fourth Gospel.)

                              In short, the Gospel of John defies categorization.
                              If we are looking for a single author, or hoping to
                              separate the work of one author from that of others, I
                              suspect the effort will be largely fruitless, even
                              though we can see that there are differences. Those
                              differences are woven into a single fabric which
                              cannot be unraveled without harming or even destroying
                              the tapestry that proclaims our faith so powerfully.
                              >
                              > I would be very interested to read a refutation of
                              > any of the given reasons.
                              >
                              Marco, I have found responding to your reasons to be a
                              stimulating exercise. I look forward to your response
                              to my refutations and the continuation of our
                              dialogue. I hope others on the list will contribute
                              to the dialogue as well.

                              Yours in Christ's service,
                              Tom Butler

                              I thank you, too, for this opportunity. It very interesting to challenge our
                              own assumption, and try to reason them.

                              Yours in Christ

                              Marco Fabbri


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Tom Butler
                              Marco, Thank you for your eloquent and rapid reply to my response to your list of reasons for asserting that Jn. 21 was written by a redactor. Like you, I
                              Message 14 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                                Marco,

                                Thank you for your eloquent and rapid reply to my
                                response to your list of reasons for asserting that
                                Jn. 21 was written by a redactor. Like you, I will
                                respond with a brief note, perhaps to be followed by a
                                more careful and systematic defense of my assertions
                                when time allows.

                                Thank you for clarifying your intention and
                                understanding of the role that source criticism plays
                                in the study of the Gospel of John. I appreciate your
                                watch analogy very much. It works well as a defense
                                against the fairly common assumption or practice that
                                disassembling the Fourth Gospel is a necessary first
                                step toward understanding it.

                                Your analogy of the watch gives rise in my mind to
                                the effort made by physicians to understand how the
                                human body works by studying cadavers. While being
                                able to describe the relationship between the organs
                                and pose theories about how each one functions,
                                physicians have long been frustrated in trying to
                                describe what it is that makes the whole organism
                                live.

                                I suspect much more will be learned as the study of
                                the human body continues into the future by those who
                                have developed ways to see the live organs
                                functioning, even down to the cellular level.
                                Studying the Gospel of John as a whole and living
                                document is much more satisfying than trying to reduce
                                it to a skeleton, then replacing its parts as their
                                function becomes clear or as a theory develops that
                                offers an explanation of why each part is where it is
                                in the body of the text as we have it.

                                A brief word of explanation is due regarding my
                                contention that multiple authors have contributed to
                                The Fourth Gospel. I am fascinated by Culpepper's
                                theory that the Gospel emerged as a work in progress
                                from a school. The most likely first century school,
                                in my opinion, from which such a product as the Fourth
                                Gospel could have emerged is a rabbinical school using
                                the Midrash method.

                                I begin from the assertion that the first generation
                                of Christians were almost entirely Jewish, and that
                                the first Christian theologians were most likely
                                trained in rabbinical schools, using the method most
                                popularly used to develop the ability of student
                                rabbis to expound upon the meaning of the Hebrew
                                Scriptures: the Midrash method, which I define simply
                                as the challenge of expounding on the meaning of
                                scripture by using the language of scripture.

                                The source material most often used in this method
                                is the Torah. I suspect, given that the Gospel is
                                written in Greek, that the Septuagint version of the
                                Torah was the primary source.

                                The challenge to the school would have been to
                                expound upon the meaning of the Jesus tradition using
                                the (Greek version) language of the Torah. That is
                                where the signs originate.

                                My burden of proof, as you have reminded me, is to
                                show that numerous different authors have contributed
                                to the content of the Fourth Gospel. I believe that
                                the "different hands" that can be identified in the
                                text are not necessarily the work of a final redactor,
                                but simply indicators that multiple authors
                                contributed to the document we now have. (In other
                                words, I am moving in a direction opposite to the one
                                being taken by those who are trying to identify the
                                hand of the redactor in order to "see" the "original"
                                text, assuming that this "original" text was a whole
                                organism before the redactor began tinkering with it.
                                My starting point is the assumption that the various
                                components of the text were separate units, originally
                                composed by different authors before being linked
                                together as one Gospel.)
                                The Jesus tradition was, at the end of the first and
                                beginning of the second century CE, both written and
                                oral. I can imagine that the Midrash reflections upon
                                that tradition began as oral commentaries (like oral
                                finals in a modern graduate school), but that they
                                were written as the community, under the inspired
                                leadership of the Beloved Disciple, recognized the
                                profound level of truth being revealed in them. These
                                written components would have been carefully guarded,
                                studied and used by the community of scholars as they
                                worked together to refine each component before
                                writing that edited component, tentatively, into the
                                body of the emerging text, a role most likely
                                carefully overseen by, if not actually composed by the
                                small number of key leaders of the community,
                                including the Beloved Disciple and an Elder of the
                                community. The emerging text then became the basic
                                tool used to train students in what we would now call
                                theological reflection.

                                The easiest place to begin to offer the proof for
                                this theory is with the Lazarus story, recognizing
                                that its inspiration most likely comes from the
                                parable told by Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke.
                                The Johannine Lazarus story, of course, is an
                                elaboration that goes far beyond the parable, while
                                still addressing the basic themes of death and
                                resurrection. In the Fourth Gospel this story plays a
                                pivotal role as a sort of denuement, making the
                                transition from the Book of Signs to the Book of
                                Glory.

                                You ask why there are no signs in the Book of
                                Glory. I believe there are signs in the Book of
                                Glory, but they are not as obviously placed as in the
                                Book of Signs. Essentially the Book of Signs is a
                                primer for the community, designed to train students
                                to find the signs, understand the context from which
                                they were taken (usually the Torah, but occasionally
                                from other parts of the Septuagint) and then apply
                                their meaning to the Johannine context in order to
                                offer a theological reflection on the meaning of that
                                part of the Jesus tradition.

                                The Book of Glory requires that the students have
                                already completed that basic course in expounding upon
                                the meaning of the tradition themselves, so that their
                                minds and souls can receive the reflections offered by
                                Jesus (according to the witness of the Beloved
                                Disciple?) to His own (followers) on the meaning of
                                His ministry and passion.

                                I have done some work on the use of the word "hour"
                                in the text of the Gospel. I believe that the 24
                                places where that word is used constitute markers at
                                the end of portions of the material where readers were
                                encouraged to contemplate the material they had just
                                read in order to discern the signs therein and
                                therefore to delve more deeply into the meaning of
                                what they had read. With some trepidation I find
                                myself disagreeing with Brown, who contends that there
                                is no reason to believe that the use of "hour" (ora)
                                is a component in the structure of the Gospel!

                                My study will be called "A Day with Jesus," because
                                I believe the 24 "hours" constitute one mystical day
                                in which those who seek to abide with Jesus may come
                                to know that Christ abides within them.

                                Well, I said I would be brief. Apparently my
                                intention to be brief has failed. Obviously defending
                                my thesis will require much more detail and scholarly
                                effort. I appreciate your challenge to bear the
                                burden of proof. A critical ear is an essential tool
                                to the shaping of any theory. Your time and attention
                                are extremely valuable to me. Thank you for offering
                                what you have offered so far. If you choose to
                                continue the dialogue, I pray that we will both grow
                                through the exchange, and that others may choose to
                                engage in the discussion with us.

                                Yours in Christ's service,
                                Tom Butler

                                --- "Marco V. Fabbri" <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:

                                > Tom,
                                >
                                > thank you for your reply. You promised it, and you
                                > kept your promise.
                                >
                                > I will write a short anwer, first, because there was
                                > some misunderstanding.
                                > I am not trying to divide the Gospel into a number
                                > of preexisting
                                > documents. I am just trying to understand the
                                > Gospel as we have it. There
                                > is no need to persuade me of the shortcomings of
                                > documentary theories,
                                > because I am already persuaded.
                                >
                                > When I teach John, I start by studying the Gospel as
                                > a whole, in order to
                                > find its structure. Only when I know the structure,
                                > I am able to recognize
                                > some part of the text as not belonging to the
                                > structure.
                                >
                                > The man that opens his watch and separates his
                                > components can learn
                                > something about how it works. However, if he wants
                                > the watch to work, he
                                > needs to know how to put the pieces together again.
                                > If he thinks that some
                                > pieces have no purpose, it doesn't mean that they
                                > haven't, but that he
                                > doesn't know what their purpose is. And if he is not
                                > prepared to learn that,
                                > his watch wont't ever work as it was meant to work,
                                > or it won't work at all.
                                >
                                > When I look at John 20,30-31, and notice that it
                                > speaks about signs, and
                                > look for the signs in the Gospel, and noticed that
                                > they are confined to John
                                > 2-12, I am not saying that the rest does not belong
                                > to the original Gospel.
                                > I am trying to understand the Gospel as it stands,
                                > and I as a legitimate
                                > question: why are there no "signs" in John 13-20?
                                > What is the function of
                                > those chapters? Here I accept the contributions from
                                > Dodd, who noticed the
                                > importance of the coming of the "hour" of Jesus, and
                                > from Brown, who
                                > recognizes the importance of "glory" in those
                                > chapters, and calls them "the
                                > book of glory".
                                >
                                > That being my stance, I think that whoever affirms
                                > that a part of the
                                > Gospel, whether it be a verse or a chapter, has been
                                > added later, he takes
                                > on himself the burden of proof. If he also maintains
                                > that the added part has
                                > been written by a different author, he takes on
                                > himself an additional burden
                                > of proof. This is why I took pains to prove a later
                                > origin of John 21. We
                                > can discuss my reasons, but I think that we agree
                                > that I need to prove my
                                > point. If I can't, then I have to admit that John 21
                                > is by the same hand as
                                > the rest of the Gospel, until somebody else can
                                > prove the point.
                                >
                                > As to the content of the reasons, you say that you
                                > refuted them. On my part,
                                > I don't agree, and I still think that the point is
                                > proved, as do the
                                > commentaries that you quote. But there are no
                                > discussions that are closed on
                                > the authority of anybody. Therefore, I wont' try to
                                > defend my option and
                                > pass judgement at the same time. Maybe I will engage
                                > in discussion later.
                                >
                                > Before that, I will raise a more general point. I
                                > think we agree that
                                > whoever affirms that different authors are at work
                                > has to prove that. If so,
                                > how can you assume that the Fourth Gospel is the
                                > work of a plurality of
                                > authors? It seems to me that you take on yourself a
                                > heavy burden of proof.
                                >
                                > Since the time I wrote the text you are answering
                                > to, I wrote on this same
                                > list that I don't believe that written texts in the
                                > antiquity were written
                                > by many people at the same time. There was no way
                                > that a text could be
                                > shared by many unless it was first written by one,
                                > then copied, then
                                > distributed, then read. And again, any intervention
                                > by others wouldn't be
                                > known unless it was copied by hand, then
                                > distributed, then read.
                                >
                                > Mind me, I don't deny that an author can draw from
                                > oral tradition, of from
                                > the decisions of a council, or whatever else. I
                                > maintain, however, that
                                > writing was a job that was done by one person at a
                                > time. This is why,
                                > whenever a scholar affirms joint authorship, he has
                                > to prove it. He can't
                                > assume it. So, I believe that I am right when I
                                > assume that John has been
                                > written by an individual, until the contrary is
                                > proven. I never read a proof
                                > that a group wrote the Gospel. I read some proofs
                                > that a different author
                                > wrote chapter 21, as is maintains by most modern
                                > scholars.
                                >
                                > Marco Fabbri

                                <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                                <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.