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

Structure of John 5: 19-45

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 21 , Nov 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 21 , Nov 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 21 , Nov 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 21 , Nov 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 21 , Dec 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 21 , Dec 29, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.