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

The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution

Expand Messages
  • Kym Smith
    Dear Listers, I have posted the following to the Synoptic List but it also concerns this list. I have just completed a book, hinted at a couple of months ago
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Listers,



      I have posted the following to the Synoptic List but it also concerns this list.



      I have just completed a book, hinted at a couple of months ago here, on the Synoptic Problem. The book is titled 'The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution.' This is a new approach to the SP which, as the title indicates, includes John in the mix. Not only does John provide the clues to the solution but is, itself, in the mix. It is closest to the Two or Four Source Hypotheses but is neither of those.



      The solution presupposes that the Revelation of John was given before any of the gospels were written; this I have argued elsewhere, here I will only state it. Below is a brief account of the writing of the gospels; anything more can be discussed in additional posts. In short, the solution as I see it is as follows.



      After the Revelation was given in 62, the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written. It was written (mid-late 64 - with Peter being primarily responsible for it) and distributed widely and speedily (by Mark: Rome to Alexandria via Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch and Jeruslaem) to encourage the believers during what the apostles believed would be the last of the last days. They believed that Nero would be unveiled as the beast whom Jesus would destroy before ushering in the new heavens and the new earth. When Nero died and Jesus had not returned, the Church faced a great crisis. If the apostles had been wrong about the timing of Christ's appearing; what else were they wrong about? The reliability of the Christian gospel itself was threatened.



      When John was released from Patmos soon after Nero's death he called a council at Ephesus (September/October 68). Attending were the remaining apostles (I suspect around six) and other eyewitnesses and leaders of the Church. That council realized that the Church might outlast the apostles and other eyewitnesses who, until this time, had been the keepers and tellers of the stories about Jesus. This meant that those who had been guardians of the oral traditions had to commit them to writing to ensure that they would still be available for the continuing Church. There were two reasons for committing what they had taught to writing. Firstly, those things needed to be recorded for the continuing Church. Secondly, something had to be written quickly to encourage the believers at this critical time. What the council resolved to do was to expand Mark, the gospel with which the whole Church was now familiar.



      Following the council, then, those who had been eyewitnesses began to verify and collate those things which they had been teaching until this time. Once that collection (effectively Q) was complete they began adding it to the Markan structure. This expansion I have called AEEMark (Apostles and Eyewitnesses Expansion of Mark). After proceeding for some time, however, for a number of reasons, what was to have been a comprehensive and chronologically ordered gospel was abandoned. In its place, the gathering produced the shorter and more exhortative Gospel of John. John, then, had first use of the material the apostles' had collated (Q). It was completed in late 68 (October or, at the latest, November).



      Once John was completed and while it was being copied and distributed, what remained of the apostles' recollections was divided up between Matthew and Luke, each of whom would produce lesser but still substantial expansions of Mark. Matthew and Luke agreed on what each should use uniquely, the remainder both would use to ensure that between the three later gospels, nothing was omitted of what the apostles and others had collated. However, both men were free to adapt the material to fit the particular readerships targeted by their gospels.



      Matthew and Luke returned to their respective homes to write. Both had copies of Mark and John as they wrote and neither needed to duplicate what they knew was already contained in the latter. Similarly, while they used the Markan framework, they were not compelled to include all of the shorter gospel because it would also continue to circulate in its own right. The last two gospels may have been completed by the end of 68 but certainly would have been by early 69. (Luke would have gone on to complete Acts by mid 69).



      It was not considered necessary to preserve Q because all of it was contained in one or more of the three later gospels.



      Sincerely,



      Kym Smith

      St Luke's Anglican Church

      Adelaide

      South Australia

      khs@...


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • deanf4545
      This is from a few months back, but raises some interesting questions. ... Kym, do you have any evidence (either that you could share, or that you could refer
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 19, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        This is from a few months back, but raises some interesting questions.


        > After the Revelation was given in 62, the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written. ...
        >
        >
        >
        > When John was released from Patmos soon after Nero's death he called a council at Ephesus (September/October 68). Attending were the remaining apostles (I suspect around six) and other eyewitnesses and leaders of the Church. That council realized that the Church might outlast the apostles and other eyewitnesses who, until this time, had been the keepers and tellers of the stories about Jesus. This meant that those who had been guardians of the oral traditions had to commit them to writing to ensure that they would still be available for the continuing Church.

        Kym, do you have any evidence (either that you could share, or that you could refer to in your books), for a specific date of 62 for Revelation, for this Ephesian synod, for the specific year and season of it, and for evidence that apostles were there? I'm thinking that the Muratorian fragment partially fulfils some of this, but I've not seen anything that would lead me to be as specific. Like you I do hold that some kind of council was held, probably under Nerva, with Andrew and possibly Philip in attendance, but I an intrigued to know how you can be so specific. Like you I also date Revelation early - probably 63/64 - but again, I don't have enough information to be any more specific than that, and would be interested in hearing what you base this on.
        Thanks
        Dean Furlong, BA Classics (expected May 2009), CU Boulder.
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: deanf4545 To: Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:20 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 19, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "deanf4545" <decanus84@...>
          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:20 PM
          Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution


          > This is from a few months back, but raises some interesting questions.
          >
          >
          >> After the Revelation was given in 62, the Gospel of Mark was the first
          >> gospel to be written. ...
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> When John was released from Patmos soon after Nero's death he called a
          >> council at Ephesus (September/October 68). Attending were the remaining
          >> apostles (I suspect around six) and other eyewitnesses and leaders of the
          >> Church. That council realized that the Church might outlast the apostles
          >> and other eyewitnesses who, until this time, had been the keepers and
          >> tellers of the stories about Jesus. This meant that those who had been
          >> guardians of the oral traditions had to commit them to writing to ensure
          >> that they would still be available for the continuing Church.
          >
          > Kym, do you have any evidence (either that you could share, or that you
          > could refer to in your books), for a specific date of 62 for Revelation,
          > for this Ephesian synod, for the specific year and season of it, and for
          > evidence that apostles were there? I'm thinking that the Muratorian
          > fragment partially fulfils some of this, but I've not seen anything that
          > would lead me to be as specific. Like you I do hold that some kind of
          > council was held, probably under Nerva, with Andrew and possibly Philip in
          > attendance, but I an intrigued to know how you can be so specific. Like
          > you I also date Revelation early - probably 63/64 - but again, I don't
          > have enough information to be any more specific than that, and would be
          > interested in hearing what you base this on.
          > Thanks
          > Dean Furlong, BA Classics (expected May 2009), CU Boulder.


          I have a problem with dating the composition of Revelation to the time of
          Nero. I think most of the Johannine literature dates to the last decade of
          the 1st century and the reign of Domitian. I think 1 Peter is agood
          indicator for the date of Revelation.

          This epistle is written to the "exiles of the dispersion" in Pontus,
          Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The historical Shymeon bar
          Yona/Kefa/"Peter" died in the 60's and by tradition (although not certain)
          during the Neronian local Roman persecution of 64-67 CE when there WERE NO
          Christian communities in Pontus-Bithynia. This epistle could ONLY have been
          written during the persecution of Domitian in 95 CE, the same time during
          which John of Patmos wrote Revelation and I Peter was stimulated by the
          completed Revelation already in circulation (96-98 CE). This epistle was
          CLEARLY written when Christians in those provinces were being persecuted and
          the FIRST time that happened was the last few years of the 1st century.
          Even the governor of this province, in a letter to Trajan in 112 CE
          testified that Christians first came there around 90 CE.

          Jack

          Jack Kilmon
          San Antonio, TX
        • deanf4545
          ... Jack, how can we know there were no Christians at that time in that area? The area was represented among the crowds at Pentecost in Acts 1. This epistle
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 20, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > This epistle is written to the "exiles of the dispersion" in Pontus,
            > Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The historical Shymeon bar
            > Yona/Kefa/"Peter" died in the 60's and by tradition (although not certain)
            > during the Neronian local Roman persecution of 64-67 CE when there WERE NO
            > Christian communities in Pontus-Bithynia.

            Jack, how can we know there were no Christians at that time in that area? The area was represented among the crowds at Pentecost in Acts 1.



            This epistle could ONLY have been
            > written during the persecution of Domitian in 95 CE, the same time during
            > which John of Patmos wrote Revelation and I Peter was stimulated by the
            > completed Revelation already in circulation (96-98 CE).

            I can't see any direct evidence of any persecution in the area, so I can't see why one would prefer a Domitian persecution over a Neronian. Eusebius only speaks of a persecution at Rome under Nero, and a persecution by Domitian of certain upper classes Christians in the city.




            This epistle was
            > CLEARLY written when Christians in those provinces were being persecuted and
            > the FIRST time that happened was the last few years of the 1st century.

            Is there any evidence of such a persecution?


            > Even the governor of this province, in a letter to Trajan in 112 CE
            > testified that Christians first came there around 90 CE.

            It states that some Christians had been such for 25 years. I don't think that can be pressed to mean that there weren't any others who had been Christians longer. The fact that the temples had been deserted, and that they were only just beginning to be attended again, suggests to me quite a well-established Christian work.


            Dean Furlong, BA, CU Boulder.
          • Gary Henecke
            Dean s arguments are arguments from silence that are ify at best. He should state that we know of no suffering in the provinces in the earlier period.
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 20, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Dean's arguments are 'arguments from silence' that are "ify" at best.
              He should state that we know of no suffering in the provinces in the
              earlier period. That does not rule them out - nor end the debate over a
              time table during Nero's final years.

              Yours
              Gary Allen Henecke

              -----Original Message-----
              From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deanf4545
              Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:02 PM
              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution



              > This epistle is written to the "exiles of the dispersion" in Pontus,
              > Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The historical Shymeon bar
              > Yona/Kefa/"Peter" died in the 60's and by tradition (although not
              certain)
              > during the Neronian local Roman persecution of 64-67 CE when there
              WERE NO
              > Christian communities in Pontus-Bithynia.

              Jack, how can we know there were no Christians at that time in that
              area? The area was represented among the crowds at Pentecost in Acts 1.

              This epistle could ONLY have been
              > written during the persecution of Domitian in 95 CE, the same time
              during
              > which John of Patmos wrote Revelation and I Peter was stimulated by
              the
              > completed Revelation already in circulation (96-98 CE).

              I can't see any direct evidence of any persecution in the area, so I
              can't see why one would prefer a Domitian persecution over a Neronian.
              Eusebius only speaks of a persecution at Rome under Nero, and a
              persecution by Domitian of certain upper classes Christians in the city.


              This epistle was
              > CLEARLY written when Christians in those provinces were being
              persecuted and
              > the FIRST time that happened was the last few years of the 1st
              century.

              Is there any evidence of such a persecution?

              > Even the governor of this province, in a letter to Trajan in 112 CE
              > testified that Christians first came there around 90 CE.

              It states that some Christians had been such for 25 years. I don't think
              that can be pressed to mean that there weren't any others who had been
              Christians longer. The fact that the temples had been deserted, and that
              they were only just beginning to be attended again, suggests to me quite
              a well-established Christian work.

              Dean Furlong, BA, CU Boulder.
            • deanf4545
              ... My argument was very simple - there is no direct evidence for either persecution, and therefore we cannot claim that Revelation MUST be late on the basis
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 20, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Henecke" <ghenecke@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dean's arguments are 'arguments from silence' that are "ify" at best.

                My argument was very simple - there is no direct evidence for either persecution, and therefore we cannot claim that Revelation MUST be late on the basis that i) the Neronian persecution didn't effect Asia, and ii) the Domitian persecution did.

                Perhaps you read my argument as - 'we have no evidence, and therefore neither happened', but since I've already implied that I do believe in a Neronian persecution (and in a Neronian dating of Revelation), that clearly wasn't the case. Either one could have happened, but we can't use one possibility to dismiss an equal possibility.

                Dean Furlong, BA Classics, CU Boulder.
              • Gary Henecke
                Great response and - Thank you. In this ongoing discussion of the Beloved Disciple I would ask how any of you feel or react to Richard Bauckham s writings
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 22, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Great response and - Thank you. In this ongoing discussion of the
                  Beloved Disciple I would ask how any of you "feel" or react to Richard
                  Bauckham's writings in "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple," where he
                  proposes a priestly John of Jerusalem as the source witness?

                  Your brother
                  Gary Allen Henecke

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deanf4545
                  Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:11 PM
                  To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution



                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Henecke"
                  <ghenecke@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dean's arguments are 'arguments from silence' that are "ify" at best.

                  My argument was very simple - there is no direct evidence for either
                  persecution, and therefore we cannot claim that Revelation MUST be late
                  on the basis that i) the Neronian persecution didn't effect Asia, and
                  ii) the Domitian persecution did.

                  Perhaps you read my argument as - 'we have no evidence, and therefore
                  neither happened', but since I've already implied that I do believe in a
                  Neronian persecution (and in a Neronian dating of Revelation), that
                  clearly wasn't the case. Either one could have happened, but we can't
                  use one possibility to dismiss an equal possibility.

                  Dean Furlong, BA Classics, CU Boulder.
                • deanf4545
                  Thanks Gary, yes, I think the evidence points to a priestly John of Jerusalem. I came across the idea in Westcott first - he believed the traditional
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 22, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Gary, yes, I think the evidence points to a priestly John of Jerusalem. I came across the idea in Westcott first - he believed the traditional identification, but he gave some evidence that John was very familiar with the temple and the temple ministry. Polycrates of course said that he was a priest also. What I find really interesting is the intimate knowledge of the daily talmid temple service in Revelation (noticed long ago by Edersheim, but now being fleshed out by Paulien). I wouldn't be surprised if this forces a re-evaluation of the traditional joint authorship of John and Revelation (though the former via an editor/amanuensis).
                    Dean Furlong, BA Classics, CU Boulder

                    --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Henecke" <ghenecke@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Great response and - Thank you. In this ongoing discussion of the
                    > Beloved Disciple I would ask how any of you "feel" or react to Richard
                    > Bauckham's writings in "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple," where he
                    > proposes a priestly John of Jerusalem as the source witness?
                    >
                    > Your brother
                    > Gary Allen Henecke
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    I have just ordered Bauckham from Amazon but I just wrote my position regarding the BD in my previous post. My primary area of study is the lexical and
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 22, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have just ordered Bauckham from Amazon but I just wrote my position
                      regarding the BD in my previous post. My primary area of study is the
                      lexical and syntactic Aramaic interference in 4G Greek which is a tool I use
                      to attempt to extract the embedded original Aramaic document by Johnny Zeb
                      which was the source witness, IMO, for John of Ephesus and proposed by John
                      (originally Mark) 21:24.

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Gary Henecke" <ghenecke@...>
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:07 AM
                      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution


                      > Great response and - Thank you. In this ongoing discussion of the
                      > Beloved Disciple I would ask how any of you "feel" or react to Richard
                      > Bauckham's writings in "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple," where he
                      > proposes a priestly John of Jerusalem as the source witness?
                      >
                      > Your brother
                      > Gary Allen Henecke
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deanf4545
                      > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:11 PM
                      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Henecke"
                      > <ghenecke@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> Dean's arguments are 'arguments from silence' that are "ify" at best.
                      >
                      > My argument was very simple - there is no direct evidence for either
                      > persecution, and therefore we cannot claim that Revelation MUST be late
                      > on the basis that i) the Neronian persecution didn't effect Asia, and
                      > ii) the Domitian persecution did.
                      >
                      > Perhaps you read my argument as - 'we have no evidence, and therefore
                      > neither happened', but since I've already implied that I do believe in a
                      > Neronian persecution (and in a Neronian dating of Revelation), that
                      > clearly wasn't the case. Either one could have happened, but we can't
                      > use one possibility to dismiss an equal possibility.
                      >
                      > Dean Furlong, BA Classics, CU Boulder.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                      > Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


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



                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.2/2074 - Release Date: 04/22/09
                      08:49:00
                    • deanf4545
                      ... He wrote another book on the Beloved Disciple which I thought made a good case for the view that Papias and Polycrates did not identify John the Beloved
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 23, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I have just ordered Bauckham from Amazon but I just wrote my position
                        > regarding the BD in my previous post.

                        He wrote another book on the Beloved Disciple which I thought made a good case for the view that Papias and Polycrates did not identify John the Beloved with the son of Zebedee.
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... From: deanf4545 To: Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:36 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 24, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "deanf4545" <decanus84@...>
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:36 PM
                          Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution


                          > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                          > wrote:
                          >>
                          >> I have just ordered Bauckham from Amazon but I just wrote my position
                          >> regarding the BD in my previous post.
                          >
                          > He wrote another book on the Beloved Disciple which I thought made a good
                          > case for the view that Papias and Polycrates did not identify John the
                          > Beloved with the son of Zebedee.


                          Yohanan bar Zebedy was the "John" Jesus knew. He was not only a disciple
                          but also a cousin and apparently the youngest of the disciples...I would
                          guess/speculate around 20 years old. Cousins in that culture were almost
                          the same as brothers and Yohanan would likely have been doted on by the
                          BarYahosef family as the youngest son of Aunt Shalomzion/Salome.

                          The "disciple Jesus loved" would have been one of the 12...not Lazarus, not
                          Mary Magdalene. The BD had to be either Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael
                          (Bartholomew), James, the Greater or John. There are also two others not
                          named. Seven of the disciples (5 named) mentioned in John 21:2, one of whom
                          is the BD mentioned in 21:7. My position is that this information came from
                          Peter and was told to, and recorded by, Mark and John 21 was originally the
                          ending of Mark.

                          John 13:23 records "There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of his
                          disciples, whom Jesus loved." Keep in mind, the table was a treclinium and
                          everyone was reclining so this would have been very awkward if it meant the
                          BD was literaly lying against Jesus breast. This Aramaic idiom meant that
                          the BD was reclining on Jesus right, a place of importance in that culture.
                          Remembering that Mark 10:35-37 reports the Zebedee boys askingJesus for the
                          right and left hand positions by him, in the Ancient Middle East that meant
                          the two highest "deputies" with the right hand reserved by kings for viziers
                          and co-regents and the next in power on the left. Jesus does not refuse
                          them but asks them, as acondition, if they would be prepared to "drink the
                          cup that I drink" (to be killed) and then (10:39) confirms that they both
                          would be martyred. Big Jake was killed in 43 CE and John appears under the
                          evidence of Josephus to have died with Jesus' brother James (Jake the Just)
                          in 62 CE.

                          That narrows the BD down to either Ya'qub bar Zebedy or Yohanan bar Zebedy
                          and my shekels are on it being Jesus' "baby cousin" Johnny.

                          Since John the Elder overwrote John Zebedee's small Aramaic gospel with his
                          large Greek gospel, the Ephesus community was more than glad to associate
                          John the Elder with the BD thereby giving themselves a special status in
                          their claimed apostolic authortity. This would include Papias and Polycarp
                          as first generation disciples of John the Elder and second generation
                          Irenaeus and Polycrates, who inherited Papias claim.

                          This is a summary of my position and like all theories should be accepted as
                          speculative but I think good circumstantial evidence supports it.

                          Jack


                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Antonio, TX
                        • Kevin Snapp
                          Sorry, Jack, I responded to your previous post without seeing this one. Thank you for the clarification re on Jesus bosom. Do you have citations where the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 24, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sorry, Jack, I responded to your previous post without seeing this one. Thank you for the clarification re "on Jesus' bosom." Do you have citations where the Aramaic equivalent of "kolpon" (I assume chaik or chaina) is used to signify sitting at the place of honor, and not literally lap or bosom?

                            You'll have a hard time persuading a lot of people that Jn. 21 was originally the ending of Mark. In that context, the unnamed BD would come out of nowhere. Granted that John bar Z could have been "beloved," in Mark he and James are always a pair, while Jn.21 mentions that the sons of Zebedee were there, then gives prominence to the BD. While Nathanael could also have had the patronymic Bartholemew (Bar-Tolmai), it's mentioned that he comes from Cana, which has no significance in Mark. And the language and pace are completely different. But what do I know?

                            Kevin Snapp
                            Chicago


                            --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "deanf4545" <decanus84@...>
                            > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:36 PM
                            > Subject: [John_Lit] Re: The Synoptic Problem: A Johannine Solution
                            >
                            >
                            > > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@>
                            > > wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >> I have just ordered Bauckham from Amazon but I just wrote my position
                            > >> regarding the BD in my previous post.
                            > >
                            > > He wrote another book on the Beloved Disciple which I thought made a good
                            > > case for the view that Papias and Polycrates did not identify John the
                            > > Beloved with the son of Zebedee.
                            >
                            >
                            > Yohanan bar Zebedy was the "John" Jesus knew. He was not only a disciple
                            > but also a cousin and apparently the youngest of the disciples...I would
                            > guess/speculate around 20 years old. Cousins in that culture were almost
                            > the same as brothers and Yohanan would likely have been doted on by the
                            > BarYahosef family as the youngest son of Aunt Shalomzion/Salome.
                            >
                            > The "disciple Jesus loved" would have been one of the 12...not Lazarus, not
                            > Mary Magdalene. The BD had to be either Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael
                            > (Bartholomew), James, the Greater or John. There are also two others not
                            > named. Seven of the disciples (5 named) mentioned in John 21:2, one of whom
                            > is the BD mentioned in 21:7. My position is that this information came from
                            > Peter and was told to, and recorded by, Mark and John 21 was originally the
                            > ending of Mark.
                            >
                            > John 13:23 records "There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of his
                            > disciples, whom Jesus loved." Keep in mind, the table was a treclinium and
                            > everyone was reclining so this would have been very awkward if it meant the
                            > BD was literaly lying against Jesus breast. This Aramaic idiom meant that
                            > the BD was reclining on Jesus right, a place of importance in that culture.
                            > Remembering that Mark 10:35-37 reports the Zebedee boys askingJesus for the
                            > right and left hand positions by him, in the Ancient Middle East that meant
                            > the two highest "deputies" with the right hand reserved by kings for viziers
                            > and co-regents and the next in power on the left. Jesus does not refuse
                            > them but asks them, as acondition, if they would be prepared to "drink the
                            > cup that I drink" (to be killed) and then (10:39) confirms that they both
                            > would be martyred. Big Jake was killed in 43 CE and John appears under the
                            > evidence of Josephus to have died with Jesus' brother James (Jake the Just)
                            > in 62 CE.
                            >
                            > That narrows the BD down to either Ya'qub bar Zebedy or Yohanan bar Zebedy
                            > and my shekels are on it being Jesus' "baby cousin" Johnny.
                            >
                            > Since John the Elder overwrote John Zebedee's small Aramaic gospel with his
                            > large Greek gospel, the Ephesus community was more than glad to associate
                            > John the Elder with the BD thereby giving themselves a special status in
                            > their claimed apostolic authortity. This would include Papias and Polycarp
                            > as first generation disciples of John the Elder and second generation
                            > Irenaeus and Polycrates, who inherited Papias claim.
                            >
                            > This is a summary of my position and like all theories should be accepted as
                            > speculative but I think good circumstantial evidence supports it.
                            >
                            > Jack
                            >
                            >
                            > Jack Kilmon
                            > San Antonio, TX
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.