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

On the dating of John

Expand Messages
  • Marty
    Philoi, I am visiting graduate schools in Early Christian Studies, and I met with one particular Professor here in Southern California. I suppose I must not be
    Message 1 of 39 , Jan 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Philoi,

      I am visiting graduate schools in Early Christian Studies, and I
      met with one particular Professor here in Southern California. I
      suppose I must not be hip on the latest Johannine scholarship, because
      this professor asserted a very late date for John, so far as to push
      back the dating of the Rylands fragment into c.150.

      I am extremely confused, because I had beforehand read mostly
      literature that dated John to about 90 at the expulsion of Christians
      from synagogues. Yet much material in John appears to be more
      primitive than the synoptics, I.E. the day of Jesus' arrest, the sea
      crossing story (so says Meyer in a Marginal Jew).

      Can somebody shed some light on the very latest in Johannine studies,
      including reasons for late or early dates?

      Martin C. Arno, UCSB 2008.
    • Kevin Snapp
      Hi, Jack, thanks for responding. I have too many problems -- that others have already spelled out -- with John the Apostle/John son of Zebedee being the
      Message 39 of 39 , Apr 24, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Jack, thanks for responding.

        I have too many problems -- that others have already spelled out -- with John the Apostle/John son of Zebedee being the author, or even the source, for 4G. John's Gospel has no mention of the sons of Zebedee except in ch.21, where there are also two unnamed disciples, presumably the BD is one.

        John's Gospel has no mention of the "calling" of J bar Z, but Bauckham makes a case (with which I concur for additional reasons) for identifying the unnamed man who, with Andrew, stayed with Jesus in Jn. 1 as the BD. Then there is the paucity of Galilean material in 4G, the opposite of what one would expect if Galilean J bar Z were the source.

        A minor point, 4G has no interest in the Twelve, as representing or ruling the Twelve Tribes, while in the Synoptics, the Zebedee boys are members of the Twelve and supposedly quite interested in who gets the best seats at Jesus' table. I can imagine J bar Z, if he were the source of 4G, omitting mention of his youthful indiscretion, but completely ignoring the institution of the Twelve? Don't think so. And if Mark is critical of Peter, John doesn't exactly build him up.

        I agree that the author's/source's first language was Aramaic, but that's consistent with a number of options, including the one I favor, that he was from a priestly family living in Judea, and not a Galilean.

        Best,
        Kevin Snapp
        Chicago

        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Kevin:
        >
        > I haven't read Bauckham yet butthe book is in the mail from Amazon. Your
        > position is close to mine in that I believe Johnny Zebedee, a "baby cousin"
        > of Jesus, was the BD and was the author of a primitive Aramaic
        > narrative/gospel that predated Mark (50's CE) and was inimical to Peter. I
        > think the first edition of Mark was a response and that John the Elder took
        > Johnny Zeb's Aramaic narrative or a Greek translation of it, and wrote 4G
        > around 95 CE. I think the Aramaic background of 4G and the lexical and
        > syntactic Aramaic interference in the Greek is a support for this. The BD
        > of the Johnny Zeb source document appears to be BD status in translation for
        > Johnny Elder.
        >
        > If this is true, the 4th Gospel is the only Gospel written in part by a
        > disciple.
        >
        > Jack
        >
        > Jack Kilmon
        > San Antonio, TX
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.