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

RE: [John_Lit] Chiasm

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Nov 23, 2006
      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 2 of 21 , Nov 24, 2006
        ----- 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 3 of 21 , Nov 24, 2006
          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 4 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
            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 5 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
              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 6 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
                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 7 of 21 , Nov 27, 2006
                  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 8 of 21 , Nov 27, 2006
                    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 9 of 21 , Nov 28, 2006
                      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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.