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

Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors

Expand Messages
  • Fabbri Marco
    Tom, I had realized that were problmes with the delivery of messages. I suspeect it might be a problem for several subscribers. Due to a deadline a must meet,
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom,

      I had realized that were problmes with the delivery of messages. I suspeect
      it might be a problem for several subscribers.

      Due to a deadline a must meet, I will need a couple of days to answer you.

      Oh, and my name is Marco. The problem is with my e-mail settings, that
      reverse the order of name and surname.

      Marco

      that is, Marco V. Fabbri

      On 11/28/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
      >
      > Fabbri,
      >
      > Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing with
      > "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
      > written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
      >
      > I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
      > bit differently than you do. He has set forth a
      > theory that a redactor's work can be detected
      > throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
      > prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
      > adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the work
      > of that redactor. (It will be interesting to see if
      > he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
      >
      > I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
      > that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
      > scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
      > except for what can be identified as redactions made
      > by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
      > refutable.
      >
      > If approached from the point of view that the Gospel
      > is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
      > leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple), then
      > one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
      > or writing style throughout the text (other than, as I
      > have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance on
      > semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
      > of the Pentateuch).
      >
      > To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
      > consider whether the work of that whole community of
      > scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or more
      > collaborating hands. In that case, the aforementioned
      > evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
      > the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
      > produced the consistency, and therefore should not be
      > removed from the text for the purposes of study. It
      > could also be possible that the materials that don't
      > reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be components
      > that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
      > edit, but which had been selected to be included in
      > the text as a whole.
      >
      > The Prologue is a good case in point for this
      > consideration. What value would there have been for
      > the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
      > Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
      > hymn? It would seem to be more important to include
      > it in the text without editing it than the other way
      > around.
      >
      > I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett and
      > RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes to
      > us, rather than by trying to detect editorial changes
      > before studying it's content and structure.
      >
      > My reasons for taking this position, however, are
      > somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's. As I
      > have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see a
      > consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
      > consistency that is disturbed when either the prologue
      > or chapter 21 is removed.
      >
      > I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on the
      > list will join me in this, for the idea that
      > uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
      > Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
      > mining its wealth of meaning. Only after that step
      > has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
      > determine if any of the material that seems not to
      > fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
      > meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
      >
      > Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
      > scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
      > gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
      > editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
      > believes that such a change would have been made by
      > the hand of a redactor.
      >
      > I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
      > were intentionally writing scripture. If that was
      > known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
      > would expect to be able to discern a reason for adding
      > gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that would
      > make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in the
      > first century Christian community than it would have
      > been without the changes. Why else would such changes
      > be made?
      >
      > I have found significant meaning even in what is
      > often described as "transitional material" in this
      > gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
      > analysis). I fear that loosing such parts of the text
      > may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
      >
      > I may be in a minority on this. Perhaps those
      > favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
      > error in my rationale before we begin dealing with the
      > detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
      > their theory/ theories.
      >
      > I will do my best (still working on Jack's detailed
      > list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
      > point out why removal of the material identified as
      > redactions does more damage to the text and to our
      > ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
      > to clarify its structure or meaning.
      >
      > That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
      > debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up. Is
      > there another, a better way to describe where we are
      > on this thread?
      >
      > Yours in Christ's service,
      > Tom Butler
      >
      > P.S. Since first writing this, I've become aware that
      > all of the messages sent to the list have not been
      > arriving at my computer. I hope to catch up to the
      > conversation soon. It is not my intention to ignore
      > anyone else's contributions.
      >
      > --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
      >
      > > Tom,
      > >
      > > 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).
      > >
      > > 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.
      > >
      > > 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:
      > >
      > > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
      > > is true". The verb is in
      > > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
      > > easily distinguished from
      > > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
      > > person: "he".
      > >
      > > 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".
      > >
      > > 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 wrote these
      > > verses.
      > >
      > > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
      > > 20,30-31 make it plausible
      > > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was
      > > added subesequently. 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 doens'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.
      > >
      > > 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.
      > >
      > > 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 auothr of John 21 is
      > > the same as the author of John 1-20.
      > >
      > > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
      > > give me certainty. I
      > > recognis 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.
      > >
      > > If would be very interested to read a refutation of
      > > any of the given
      > > reasons.
      > >
      > > Marco
      > >
      >
      > <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]
    • Paul Anderson
      Dear Colleagues, Thanks for the good discussions of John s structure and composition. The aporias in the text do call for critical thought as to how the Gospel
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Colleagues,

        Thanks for the good discussions of John's structure and composition. The aporias in the text do call for critical thought as to how the Gospel of John came together, especially as the final editor claims to be preparing the work of another, whose "testimony is true." In addition, the language and style of the Prologue appears more similar to 1 John 1 than it does to the rest of the narrative, so a synchronicity of tradition is likely to have been accompanied by a diachronicity of composition.

        Here are my two outlines of John's composition and history of the Johannine situation that are found at the end of my new book on the Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, that came out last month with T&T Clark (just a reminder, the 60% discount lasts through Nov. 30th, tomorrow, and here is the e-mail address of Emma Cook [emma@...] in case it was missed the special offer at the SBL meetings).

        On the first posting on the subject of John 21, just a clarification that opsarion does indeed occur in ch 21 as well as ch 6, which I think bolsters their both having been added as later, supplementary material, along with the prologue, chs. 15-17 and some other passages as well.

        Responses are welcome!

        Paul Anderson

        ***
        In Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus; Modern Foundations Reconsidered LNTS 321, Library of Historical Jesus Studies (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 193-95, 196-99).

        APPENDIX I
        A Two-Edition Theory of Johannine Composition

        While a theory of composition works necessarily from earlier to later, the strongest evidence will often be a factor of identifying first the apparent later material that was added to earlier material. Therefore, the following elements of this two-edition theory of Johannine composition ascend in order of certainty as well as chronology.

        A) The Formation of the Johannine Tradition (30�85 CE)

        � The Johannine tradition develops in its own way as an independent Jesus tradition.
        � Material is formed in its own patterns, perhaps developing with Am�n Am�n sayings, eg� eimi sayings, signs narrations, dialogues, and Scripture references.
        � The Johannine Passion narrative develops in its own distinctive way.
        � Connections between signs and discourses emerge with signs being expanded in the discourses.
        � Some interfluentiality between the pre-Markan and early Johannine tradition emerges, especially involving graphic detail and some points of content.
        � John�s oral-traditional material becomes a source for Luke/Acts, and possibly the Q tradition.
        � Some material may have been produced in written form, and duplicate sections may have been gathered together.

        B) The First Edition of the Johannine Gospel (John A) is written by the Johannine Evangelist (80�85 CE)

        � In desiring to augment, complement and correct Mark, the first edition of John was written as (chronologically) the second Gospel.
        � Beginning with the ministry of the Baptist, John A contains five signs designed to convince Jewish family and friends that Jesus was the Messiah. These signs are the five that are not in Mark (chs 2, 4, 5, 9, 11) or any of the other Synoptic traditions.

        (Page 193)


        � Most prevalent are the intense dialogues with Jewish leaders, seeking to show that Jesus was indeed the authentic prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15-22).
        � The first two signs fill out the early part of Jesus� ministry, and the latter three signs fill out the Judean ministry of Jesus, building around Mark.
        � The Johannine gospel is written that the reader might believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (Jn 20.31).

        C) The Johannine Epistles are written by the Johannine Elder (85�95 CE)

        � 1 John was written as a circular to various Johannine churches exhorting them to love one another and to maintain solidarity with Jesus and his community of faith, following at least one schism.
        � 2 John was written to a church exhorting its leadership not to receive docetic preachers.
        � 3 John was written to a church leader, Gaius, suffering the inhospitality of Diotrephes, plausibly a hierarchical aspirant rejecting Johannine Christians and any who take them in.

        D) Interim Period between the Two Editions of the Johannine Gospel (85�100 CE)

        � The Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach (and perhaps write) locally or more extensively.
        � Emphases upon antidocetic correctives (costly discipleship) emerge in the Johannine teaching as a factor of Gentile believers desiring to assimilate under Roman demands of emperor worship.
        � Some dialogue emerges between Johannine and Matthean Christianity (or its purveyors) regarding aspects of church leadership and organizational development.
        � The Beloved Disciple dies, leaving his final witness to be gathered and distributed by another.

        E) The Johannine Elder compiles and finalizes the Johannine Gospel (John B) and sends it off as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, whose �witness is true� (100 CE)

        � The Prologue (Jn 1.1-18) is added as an engaging introduction to the Johannine narrative.
        � Chapter 6 is inserted between chs 5 and 7 (following �Moses wrote of me,� at the end of ch. 5; the unit fits well after the second healing sign mentioned at the beginning of ch. 6; ch. 5 originally continued into ch. 7). The editor added v. 71 to take the focus off of Peter.

        Page 194


        � Chapters 15�17 are inserted between chs 14 and 18 (14.31 originally flowed into 18.1).
        � Chapter 21 is added as a second ending, and the final two verses were crafted to imitate the original ending of ch. 20.
        � The editor/compiler also adds �Beloved Disciple� and �eyewitness� passages to affirm the Gospel�s authority.
        � He then sends it off to the churches as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, whose testimony is true � a distinctively ideological claim, seeking to affirm how Christ desired to lead and unify the churches through the work of the Holy Spirit (at least partially as a corrective to Diotrephes and his kin).
        � In this later material most of John�s incarnational (anti-docetic) material and ecclesial emphases can be found.

        F) Post-Johannine Influences continue into the second century CE

        � The spurned Johannine docetists took with them at least some portions of the Johannine gospel and developed into at least one strand of second-century Christian Gnostics � perhaps those represented by Heracleon, who wrote the first commentary on John. In addition, Johannine connections with Thomasine and other Gnosticizing traditions may have evolved during this time.
        � Johannine influences appear also to have been foundational for the Montanist movement in Asia Minor, but these trajectories need not have involved spurned docetists. They simply may reflect the fact that the
        Johannine emphasis upon the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the church deserved to be taken seriously by committed Christians, and this represented something of the intentional focus of the later Johannine material.
        � Other aspects of John�s influence upon the mainstream Christian movement in the second century resulted in an immense impact on the early church, and the greatest number of second-century gospel fragments are from the Gospel of John. The Bodmer Papyrus dates a Johannine fragment as early as 125 CE, so John can no longer be regarded late-and-only-late.
        � Both Polycarp and Papias claimed to have been influenced by the Johannine Elder, and it is likely that the Johannine influence continued on for some time through them and others. By the time of Irenaeus, the
        Johannine tradition�s authority becomes yoked to his interests in defeating the Valentinians and the Marcionites, and the Johannine memory was used to bolster the movement it once challenged.

        Page 195


        APPENDIX II
        A Historical Outline of Johannine Christianity

        The Johannine situation spanned three major periods with at least two crises in each, a total of six crises. A seventh may be added � as dialectical engagements with Synoptic perspectives on Jesus� ministry may be inferred � but these overlapped all three major periods. While these were largely sequential, they were also somewhat overlapping. Social movements rarely enjoy the luxury of engaging only on one front at a time, nor does one crisis wait until another is passed before presenting itself. The Johannine situation involved several sorts of dialogical relationships, in different settings, and it deserves to be considered in longitudinal perspective over a 70-year time-span.

        A. Early Period � A Northern Palestinian Setting of the Johannine
        Tradition�s Development (30�70 CE)

        Crisis I: North-South Tensions over Authentic Worship and what God Requires (Jn 2-5)

        � The Ioudaioi are described in some parts of John as Judeans (chs 11�12) or from Jerusalem (chs 1�2).
        � Jesus is rendered as a northern prophet like Moses (Samaritan, Galilean or both?).
        � The Jerusalem-centred leaders overlook Jesus� Messiahship because he comes from the north (Nazareth) rather than the city of David (Bethlehem).
        � Samaritans and Galileans are privileged in John, and yet authentic worship is independent of place and form.
        � The Jerusalem-centred religious authorities reject the revealer and become typologies of the unbelieving world.

        Crisis II: The Ministry of Jesus versus the Ministry of John the Baptist? (Jn
        1, 3 and 10)

        � The Fourth Evangelist (and some of the other disciples of Jesus) may have left John to follow Jesus; John�s ministry remains important.
        � John�s baptism in the free-flowing Jordan posed a striking contrast to

        Page 196


        constrictive means of ritual purification � liberal accessibility of the Spirit � likewise, Jesus� ministry!
        � Baptist adherents were pointed to Jesus by the eulogizing of Jesus by the departed hero.
        � The baptism of Jesus is emphasized over John�s as a factor of setting the record straight among those who knew the latter but not the Holy Spirit (Acts 18.24-19.7).
        � Hence, water does not suffice (Jn 3.5), and Jesus himself did not baptize, although his disciples did (Jn 4.2).

        Transition A: From the Early Period to the Middle Period, including a Move to Asia Minor or one of the Gentile-Mission Churches

        B. Middle Period � Asia Minor I, The Formation of the Johannine Community (70�85 CE)

        � The evangelist moves from a Palestinian setting to one of the mission churches (Asia Minor?).
        � Dialogues with local Jewish communities continue; they do not begin.
        � Explanations of Jewish customs and Hebraic phrases are �translated� for a Gentile audience.
        � Gospel material becomes further organized into teaching units, including signs and discourses together.
        � An interfluential engagement with the oral Markan material gives rise to an augmentation and correction of Mark.

        Crisis III: The Local Synagogue and Antichristic threat 1 (Jn 9.22; 12.42; 16.2; 1 Jn 2.18-25)

        � John�s Christianity moved from Palestine to one of the mission churches (Ephesus).
        � The Jamnia Council codifies local practices rather than jump-starting all marginalization of Jesus-adherents.
        � Christians are expelled from Synagogue; the Birkat ha-Minim curses �Nazarenes�.
        � Accusations of �ditheism� lead to at least some expulsion, but more characteristically, socio-religious pressure (Jn 9.22; 12.42; 16.2).
        � Some Johannine community members are recruited back into the Synagogue, and this produced the first Johannine schism.

        Page 197


        Crisis IV: Emperor Worship and its Implications: Pilate, the Confession of Thomas, �the Second Beast� and �666� (Revelation 13; Jn 20.28; even 1 Jn 5.21?)

        � Domitian required Emperor worship as a sign of loyalty to the Empire (to reverence Caesar�s statue, offer incense, say �Caesar is Lord�, deny Christ, etc.).
        � �Lord and God� was required of officials (notice the striking confession of Thomas, Jn 20.28).
        � Jews had been given a dispensation.
        � Gentiles saw little wrong with emperor laud.
        � Synagogue separation meant vulnerability before Rome.
        � Christians were to confess Caesar or die (stay away from idols � 1 Jn 5.21).

        Transition B: From the Middle Period to the Later Period � Emerging Communities in Johannine Christianity

        C. Later Period � Asia Minor II, The Expansion of Johannine Christianity (85�100 CE)

        � The first edition of John is finalized, but the evangelist continues to preach, addressing the needs of the community.
        � Other communities begin to form, though, and the Elder addresses them, as well.
        � Concerns with Jewish and Roman issues continue, but docetizing preachers and hierarchical tendencies raise new concerns.
        � The Elder finalizes the witness of the Beloved Disciple after his death and circulates it among the churches.

        Crisis V: Docetizing Gentile Christians and Antichristic threat 2 (1 Jn 4.1-3; 2 Jn 7; the gospel�s second-edition material � Jn 1.1-18, chs 6, 15-17, 21, Beloved Disciple and �eyewitness� passages)

        � Some Gentile Christians believed it was not a problem to worship Caesar.
        � Jewish Christian leadership emphasized �one Lord� who suffered and died for us.
        � The docetists argued Jesus did not suffer, he merely appeared to.
        � John�s leadership emphasized Jesus� suffering and our willingness to do the same.
        � False teachers (teaching assimilation with Rome) are opposed by John�s leadership.

        Page 198


        Crisis VI: Institutionalization within the Late First-century Church (3 Jn 9- 10; second-edition material � Parakl�tos passages; juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple)

        � The Johannine leadership felt the apostolate had been hi-jacked by the structuralists, and they sought to provide a Spirit-based (historical) corrective.
        � This is why Diotrephes was threatened.
        � The juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple and the Parakletos passages set the record straight (Jesus� original intention).
        � �His witness is true!� bears with it ideological (ecclesiological) implications.
        � The Elder thus circulates the gospel ca. 100 CE as a witness to Jesus� will for the church.

        Crisis VII: Dialectical Engagements with Synoptic and Prevalent Christian Renderings of Jesus� ministry (30�100 CE, spanning all three periods)

        � Correcting the valuation of Jesus� works (revelatory signs not �ate and were satisfied�, Jn 6.26).
        � The Kingdom goes forward as a function of truth (Jn 18.36-7, not power, even thaumaturgic power).
        � Jesus is the light of the world (versus his followers, Jn 8.12).
        � Moses and Elijah are present in Jesus, not in the ministry of John the Baptist or at the transfiguration (Jn 1.19-23).
        � The second coming of Christ was not necessarily what he predicted (in Mark 9.1); rather, what he actually said (to Peter, by the way) is �What is it to you if he lives until I come again�you follow me!� (Jn 21.18-24).

        D. Post-Johannine Christianity � The Johannine Gospel Impacts the Mainstream Christian Movement and Alternative Ones (100 CE-->)

        The Johannine gospel was taken by expelled Gentile (docetizing) Christians into their movement, leading to the formation of Gnostic Johannine Christianity (Heracleon et al.). Some Johannine influence goes toward influencing Christian enthusiasm reflected in the Montanist movement (with Montanus calling himself the �Parakl�tos�, the inclusion of women in ministry, and the desire to restore the spiritual vitality of the Church).

        Most of John�s influence impacted the mainstream Christian movement, so that by the turn of the second century CE, more copies/fragments of John have been found than any other gospel narrative. The Gospel of John became the most popular Christian document in second-century Christianity, among orthodox and heterodox communities alike.

        Page 199



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Fabbri Marco
        Tom, I will start answering your detailed e-mail. I share your interest for the text as it is. That is the text that was received by the Church as a sacred
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom,

          I will start answering your detailed e-mail.

          I share your interest for the text as it is. That is the text that was
          received by the Church as a sacred text, and all of it has the same valure
          for the faith of the Church. In this sense, I am not suggesting that the
          original text is more important than later additions.

          This doesn't prevent me to investigate into the story of the text. If
          evidence is provided that the text underwent a development, I am ready to
          accept that. It will become part of my understanding of the history of the
          text: the history of its redaction, and the history of its trasmission. I
          will value the original layers and the later layers, too.

          I share with Jack the idea that a redactor adds some passages to John.

          I don't agree that the same redactor added Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 and chapter 21.
          Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 is a passage that we single out for text critical reasons.
          It is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. It first appears in Codex
          Bezae. It also has a lot of hapax legomena (if you are interested, I can
          submit a list). The conclusion that text criticism draws is that, for both
          external and internal reasons, the text doesn't belong to the original.

          Interestingly, some manuscripts have the same text in other locations: at
          the end of the Gospel of John, or at the end of Luke. It has been suggested
          that this can be explained if Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 was a piece of tradition that
          was written down on its own, and added later to the Gospel. If so, Jn. 7: 53
          - 8:11 has its own value, but is not part of the structure of John. It
          becomes part of John only in the fifth century. Either John had no structure
          until the fifth century, or Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 doesn't belong to that
          structure.

          As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am skeptic.
          I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We have no news that
          this happened at the beginning of C.E. We know of texts that developed
          orally with the contribution of many authors, but don't know of text that
          were written by several hands at once. When an author wrote, he was alone or
          he enjoyed the help of a secretary, but no more than that. The author could
          dictate the text, and the secretary could be granted some freedom to add
          something, as Tertius does in Romans. In this case, Tertius says that he is
          adding a line of his own. Or Paul sometimes says that he is personally
          penning a sentence, when he is no longer dictating. The author could also
          ask his secretary to shape his ideas into a written text. In this case, the
          literary author is the secretary, who writes in his own words. Cooperation
          could go no further than that. The bottom line is that no more that one hand
          could hold the calamus at the same time.

          If so, than whenever I suggest that a different hand is writing, the burden
          of proof lies upon me. This is why I took pains to prove that John 21 is
          wrote by a different person than the beloved disciple.

          You can point to the fact that John 21 says that "we know that his witness
          his true". It looks like more than one person is speaking. If you are ready
          to accept that, because you take the author's word, then you should also
          accept that, according to the author of John 21, what comes before is
          written by the beloved disciple. This doesn't mean that we should refuse to
          admit that other hands wrote this part or that. It means that we can't
          assume that as a general rule, but rather that whenever we say that a person
          different from the beloved disciple is writing, the burden of proof is upon
          us. As you see, I am not taking John 21 lightly. I accept it as part of the
          Gospel, and I take it very seriously.

          As for the author, or authors, of John 21. I still think that no more than
          one person at once can hold the pen and write. If the person that writes
          John 21 writes that "we know", then I draw the conclusion that he has the
          authority to speak for a group. The author of John 21 would be in a
          condition similar to that of the author of 2-3 John, that often speaks in
          first person plural, even if he is one man, that is the PRESBUTEROS of 2
          John 1 and 3 John 1. The same PRESBUTEROS says in 3 John 12: hHMEIS
          MARTUROUMEN. It looks like he can speak for a group of brothers. This can be
          explained, if the PRESBUTEROS plays a part in the leadership of a Christian
          community. The letters to Timothy and Titus, along with the Letters of
          Ignace of Antioch, show that this could happen around the end of the first
          century and around the beginning of the second century.

          I believe that also the beloved disciple was such a leader. This is why he
          could also speak for others.

          Marco

          On 11/28/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
          >
          > Fabbri,
          >
          > Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing with
          > "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
          > written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
          >
          > I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
          > bit differently than you do. He has set forth a
          > theory that a redactor's work can be detected
          > throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
          > prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
          > adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the work
          > of that redactor. (It will be interesting to see if
          > he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
          >
          > I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
          > that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
          > scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
          > except for what can be identified as redactions made
          > by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
          > refutable.
          >
          > If approached from the point of view that the Gospel
          > is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
          > leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple), then
          > one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
          > or writing style throughout the text (other than, as I
          > have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance on
          > semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
          > of the Pentateuch).
          >
          > To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
          > consider whether the work of that whole community of
          > scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or more
          > collaborating hands. In that case, the aforementioned
          > evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
          > the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
          > produced the consistency, and therefore should not be
          > removed from the text for the purposes of study. It
          > could also be possible that the materials that don't
          > reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be components
          > that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
          > edit, but which had been selected to be included in
          > the text as a whole.
          >
          > The Prologue is a good case in point for this
          > consideration. What value would there have been for
          > the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
          > Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
          > hymn? It would seem to be more important to include
          > it in the text without editing it than the other way
          > around.
          >
          > I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett and
          > RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes to
          > us, rather than by trying to detect editorial changes
          > before studying it's content and structure.
          >
          > My reasons for taking this position, however, are
          > somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's. As I
          > have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see a
          > consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
          > consistency that is disturbed when either the prologue
          > or chapter 21 is removed.
          >
          > I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on the
          > list will join me in this, for the idea that
          > uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
          > Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
          > mining its wealth of meaning. Only after that step
          > has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
          > determine if any of the material that seems not to
          > fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
          > meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
          >
          > Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
          > scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
          > gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
          > editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
          > believes that such a change would have been made by
          > the hand of a redactor.
          >
          > I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
          > were intentionally writing scripture. If that was
          > known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
          > would expect to be able to discern a reason for adding
          > gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that would
          > make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in the
          > first century Christian community than it would have
          > been without the changes. Why else would such changes
          > be made?
          >
          > I have found significant meaning even in what is
          > often described as "transitional material" in this
          > gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
          > analysis). I fear that loosing such parts of the text
          > may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
          >
          > I may be in a minority on this. Perhaps those
          > favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
          > error in my rationale before we begin dealing with the
          > detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
          > their theory/ theories.
          >
          > I will do my best (still working on Jack's detailed
          > list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
          > point out why removal of the material identified as
          > redactions does more damage to the text and to our
          > ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
          > to clarify its structure or meaning.
          >
          > That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
          > debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up. Is
          > there another, a better way to describe where we are
          > on this thread?
          >
          > Yours in Christ's service,
          > Tom Butler
          >
          > P.S. Since first writing this, I've become aware that
          > all of the messages sent to the list have not been
          > arriving at my computer. I hope to catch up to the
          > conversation soon. It is not my intention to ignore
          > anyone else's contributions.
          >
          > --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> wrote:
          >
          > > Tom,
          > >
          > > 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).
          > >
          > > 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.
          > >
          > > 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:
          > >
          > > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness
          > > is true". The verb is in
          > > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
          > > easily distinguished from
          > > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
          > > person: "he".
          > >
          > > 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".
          > >
          > > 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 wrote these
          > > verses.
          > >
          > > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
          > > 20,30-31 make it plausible
          > > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was
          > > added subesequently. 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 doens'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.
          > >
          > > 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.
          > >
          > > 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 auothr of John 21 is
          > > the same as the author of John 1-20.
          > >
          > > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
          > > give me certainty. I
          > > recognis 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.
          > >
          > > If would be very interested to read a refutation of
          > > any of the given
          > > reasons.
          > >
          > > Marco
          > >
          >
          > <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>TomButler</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]
        • Kym Smith
          Dear Marco, Just one lttle snippet from your letter.
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Marco,

            Just one lttle snippet from your letter.

            <<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
            skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
            have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>

            It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
            happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
            There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
            worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
            manner of books, reports, etc.

            Kym Smith
            Adelaide
            South Australia
            khs@...
          • Fabbri Marco
            Dear Kym: your quotation of Acts is appropriate. We have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dication, to reflect the agreement of the Council, that
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Kym:

              your quotation of Acts is appropriate.

              We have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dication, to reflect
              the agreement of the Council, that is quoted as a document in the book of
              the Acts, that is not written by a council.

              I don't deny that people can work cooperatively. They can do this in various
              ways. But in the antiquity this was done orally. Written texts are written
              by individuals, that can take full advantage of the work of the group.

              Today we have wikis, that allow cooperative writing. In the antiquity
              writing was a very slow process, that lead to a single manuscript. The
              manuscript then had to be copied, and this is slow, too. Modifications could
              be done, but other people woulnd't know about them until the modified text
              was copied and distributed. There was no multiple access to the same text.

              Printed texts were a revolution. Digital text are a revolution. We should be
              careful not to bring our habits back to the time when a book was written and
              copied by hand.

              At least, this is my view. I am open to change my mind, if evidence from
              ancient texts requires that.

              Marco

              On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Marco,
              >
              > Just one lttle snippet from your letter.
              >
              > <<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
              > skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
              > have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>
              >
              > It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
              > happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
              > There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
              > worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
              > manner of books, reports, etc.
              >
              > Kym Smith
              > Adelaide
              > South Australia
              > khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
              >
              >
              >



              --
              _______________________________________
              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]
            • Kym Smith
              Dear Marco, An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the many have undertaken to compile a (single) narrative . The common view of this is that many
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Marco,

                An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
                I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
                publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
                this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.

                ------------------------------------

                `Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
                better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
                act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
                imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
                production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
                Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
                used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
                two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
                is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
                group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
                to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.

                '(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
                and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
                (EPECHEIROUN – had undertaken) to kill him.'

                The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
                relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
                `Jesus whom Paul preaches'.

                Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
                to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...

                `To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
                compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
                repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
                verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
                actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
                only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
                gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
                someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26) or
                if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
                the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
                The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
                EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
                encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.

                ------------------------------

                What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
                single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
                that for a month or two.

                Kym Smith
                Adelaide
                South Australia
                khs@...
              • Fabbri Marco
                Dear Kym, thank you for pointing to this text. I would contend that: 1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative 2) even if he did, this
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Kym,

                  thank you for pointing to this text.

                  I would contend that:
                  1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative
                  2) even if he did, this cannot be the same narrative as the Gospel of John
                  1-20.

                  1) DIHGHSIS is certainly a narrative. And this narrative has been arranged
                  according to a TAXIS, that is, an order that can be recognized.

                  My point is that a narrative can be arranged in a written form, but also in
                  an oral form. On its part, a written narrative can be arranged according to
                  an order that a reader can recognize, or it can be written in such a way
                  that the reader doesn't perceive a TAXIS.

                  I will refer to a famous fragment by Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his
                  Ecclesiastical History:

                  MARKOS MEN hERMENEUTHS PETROU GENOMENOS, hOSA EMNHMONEUSEN, AKRIBWS
                  EGRAPSEN, OU MENTOI TAXEI, TA hUPO TOU CRISTOU H LECQENTA H PRACQENTA. OUTE
                  GAR HKOUSE TOU KURIOU, OUTE PARHKOLOUQHSEN AUTWi, HUSTERON DE, hWS EFHN,
                  PETRWi, hWS PROS TAS CREIAS EPOIEITO TAS DIDASKALIAS, ALL' OUC hWSPER
                  SUNTAXIN TWN KURIAKWN POIOUMENOS LOGIWN.

                  Here we have Peter that arranges his teachings according to need, and Mark
                  that listens to Peter and writes down what he heard from him. Mark writes
                  OU... TAXEI. He does not impress into his narrative an order that is
                  perceived by Papias.

                  I am not asking that you agree that Mark reflects the preaching of Peter,
                  nor that Mark's narrative has no TAXIS at all. Rather, my point is that the
                  Greek ANATAXASQAI, when used to speak of a narrative, does not mean "write
                  down" a narrative, but rather "impress an order" to a narrative. This can be
                  done orally or in a written form.

                  The same frragment by Papias shows that Peter 's teching included accounts
                  of Jesus' words, but also of his actions (PRACQENTA). An account of actions
                  is a narrative. Here we have oral narratives by Peter, that are the source
                  for Mark's written narrative.

                  Again, I am not asking that such accounts by Peter were available to Mark.
                  Rather, I am suggesting that our text allows for narrations to be organized
                  and told even before anything was written.

                  In other words, we should distinguish between "composition" of a narrative,
                  that can be either oral or written, and "redaction", which is written.

                  In my opinion, there is no prove that Luke's ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN refers to
                  written composition. It may as well refer to oral composition. The Greek
                  allows for that.

                  Luke 1:3 says that he is going to write (GRAPSAI) a narrative, not that
                  "many" wrote narratives. If you contend that "many" wrote, you should prove
                  that. ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN is no proof.

                  You seem to agree with that, when you write in the excerpt of your book: "On
                  every other occasion in the gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a
                  derivative of GRAPSW if
                  someone was writing". It appears that Luke uses the verb GRAFW when he
                  refers to a written account.

                  2) Even if Luke 1:1 referred to written accounts (and I disagree with that),
                  those accounts could not be the fourth Gospel as we know it. John 21:23 says
                  that the beloved disciple is the one "who bears witness and wrote these
                  things (hO GRAPSAS TAUTA)". Even if we knew nothing else about the beloved
                  disciple, this text says that he is one person and that he wrote: the third
                  singular is used. He could be one of the "many" that Luke 1:1 speaks about,
                  he can't be all of them.

                  Of course, you can deny that the picture of John 21 is not accurate. But, if
                  so, why should Luke 1:1 be more accurate? Why should the picture of Luke 1:1
                  provide a better understanding of John that the picture provided by John 21?
                  I would rather use John 21 to form a picture of John 1-20, and use Luke
                  1:1-4 to form a picture of Luke 1-24. At least, we are sure that John 21
                  speaks of the Gospel of John, while it is yet to be proved that Luke 1:1
                  speaks of the Fourth Gospel.

                  So much for now. I thank you for providing a chance for discussion on this.
                  It is wonderful to be able to hear from Nevada and from Australia, as if we
                  are were all living in the same city.

                  Marco




                  On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Marco,
                  >
                  > An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                  > undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                  > is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                  > grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                  > single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                  > produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
                  > I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
                  > publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
                  > this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > `Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
                  > better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
                  > act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
                  > imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
                  > production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
                  > Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
                  > used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
                  > two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
                  > is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
                  > group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
                  > to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.
                  >
                  > '(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
                  > and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
                  > (EPECHEIROUN � had undertaken) to kill him.'
                  >
                  > The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
                  > relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
                  > `Jesus whom Paul preaches'.
                  >
                  > Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
                  > to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...
                  >
                  > `To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
                  > compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
                  > repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
                  > verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
                  > actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
                  > only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
                  > gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
                  > someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26) or
                  > if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
                  > the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
                  > The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
                  > EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
                  > encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.
                  >
                  > ------------------------------
                  >
                  > What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
                  > single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
                  > that for a month or two.
                  >
                  > Kym Smith
                  > Adelaide
                  > South Australia
                  > khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
                  >
                  >

                  --
                  _______________________________________
                  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]
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.; Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However, this may be an
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
                    >An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                    >undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                    >is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                    >grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                    >single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                    >produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.

                    Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
                    Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However,
                    this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
                    in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
                    press this grammatical point too hard.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                    Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re:
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 4, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:31 PM
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors


                      > At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
                      >>An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                      >>undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                      >>is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                      >>grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                      >>single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                      >>produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
                      >
                      > Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
                      > Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However,
                      > this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
                      > in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
                      > press this grammatical point too hard.
                      >
                      > Stephen Carlson


                      I am certain you are correct, Stephen. In about three weeks many will
                      undertake to decorate a tree.

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, Texas
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.