RE: [John_Lit] On the dating of John
- Dear fellows,
Mark, yes it was Claremont! My obscurantism was not vague enough for you. The school's scholarship was so radical that it really shook my confidence in our ability to really know the documents we study. But it's also good to see that minds haven't closed as the case hasn't.
Stephen, I am looking into your book, and I thank you for your contribution.. If the dating has moved from c. 125 to 150, what constitutes "plus or minus a lot"? 25 years?
Jack, thank you for contributing your traditions-geschichte of John. I also think that many traditions in it go way back before the synoptics, or even have Pauline (influenced Paul?) aspects.
I am curious about the earliest mentions of the Johannine works. Justin quotes "You must be born again" (I apology 61.4) as coming from Jesus, but it's not clear if it comes from John.
The Montanists seemd quite prevy to it.
Apparently there's been some recent work done suggesting that Papias was familiar with John (C.E. Hill, What Papias Said about John (and Luke) 1998. But I don't have a copy of these 'newly discovered manuscripts.'
I suppose things aren't as tight as some would like them to be. But that's ok.
Thank you everybody!
Martin C. Arno, UCSB 2008.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
> Jack Kilmon
> San Antonio, TX