Hi Shermana. Sorry for the delayed reply, but what with the recent flooding in my corner of Australia I still haven't got my home internet sorted out, and haven't even had access to public computers
I'll get back to your most recent posts later, but for now I think it's time I got 'round to addressing the more detailed arguments you suggested regarding the possibility of multiple redactions to the fourth gospel. So, to take a look at the source you provided to support your views on the fourth gospel, by
Bernard D. Muller....
His basic premise (points 2.1 to 2.4) is the reconstruction of an 'original' gospel, followed by three later redactions of which two can be directly linked to the influence of Luke and Acts. The original gospel, he argues, was based largely on the gospel of Mark:
- The following sequence of events is the same for GMark and the original GJohn:
John_the_Baptist => In Galilee => Feeding_of_the_5000 => Walking_on_water => In Galilee => In Judea => Across_the_Jordan => Royal_welcome_into_Jerusalem => Disturbance_in_the_temple => Last_supper => Judas'_betrayal & Jesus'_arrest => Interrogation_by_the_high_priest and Peter's_three_denials => Trial_by_Pilate_&_crowd and Barabbas => Crucifixion_as_"King_of_the_Jews" => Burial => Post_Sabbath_empty_tomb
His analysis, I believe, fails on three major points. One of them he mentions; where Mark has Jesus 'in Galilee,' John has him in Jerusalem healing a blind man. Muller suggests that this story was moved back from its original, later location in the gospel by a redactor. In fact, there are a whole series of stories in that section which Muller argues were not there in the original gospel. In order to hold to his above analysis, he argues that there was originally continuity between John 2:12 and John 6:1.
- 2:11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days. . . . 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. 2 Then a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were diseased.
Far from a flowing, continuous narrative, to my mind this seems like a rather awkward transition; "...they did not stay there many days. After these things..." After what things? What did they do after going to Capernaum? Muller argues that all of the passages in between are either later additions, or moved from their original location. At best, that would suggest that his reconstructed John would have had Jesus turning water to wine, going to Capernaum then a few days later crossing the lake and feeding 5000. But that is contrary to his claim that "most of Jesus' summer activities in Galilee are not narrated, but time is allocated for them." His theory would leave 'original' John with only a few days in Capernaum before feeding 5000 - cutting out all of Mark 1:37 to Mark 6:32.
And that's disregarding the awkward wording "After these things..." That introduction to the feeding of 5000 makes sense after the preceding chapters; but without them, 2:12 would be the bridging verse, and there's no "these things" for 6:1 to make any sense. One might respond that "After these things" was a bridging comment added by the redactor. But absent any evidence, every appeal to a redactor's hand is essentially an admission that the theory has difficulties on that point. The awkwardness of the transition, if all the intervening stories were removed, is on face value at least as strong a reason for supposing the two verses were never joined, as the strangeness of starting from Jerusalem and going over the Sea of Galilee is for supposing they were. So that's point one.
Point two is the relocation of those intervening passages themselves. Note that Muller above says that 'original' John had the disturbance in the temple in the same sequence as Mark's gospel. But unless I've missed something, he gives not a shred of evidence to support that claim (besides the above general theory about continuity from 2:12 to 6:1). The other supposed relocated passage is in chapter 5, the healing of the blind man. In the case of that story, Muller does point out an oddity, that unlike other times in this case the author doesn't name the feast in question (passover, tabernacles etc.). However that just makes all the stranger his bald assertion that the disturbance at the temple story was relocated, since it does name the festival in question; he doesn't even offer a guess as to why it may have been done!
In most other cases, he suggests that there were alterations made to bring the gospel more up-to-date and in line with the synoptics, Mark, Luke and Acts. In this case, with neither evidence nor explanation (and indeed conspicuously absent the oddity he mentions in the other case), he asserts that a redactor made a hugely obvious change
against the timing of the disturbance scene in both Mark and Luke. Likewise in the case of the other passage from ch.5, he offers no explanation of why the story may have been moved back from ch.7. While one might come up with theories for Muller as to the literary/theological reasons for relocating the disturbance scene, it's harder to imagine the same of the other passage. Why on earth would a redactor move it back like that? And moreover, as with the supposed continuity between 2:12 and 6:1, both of those passages would create awkward repetition and redundancy if moved verbatim back to their 'original' locations.
This, incidentally, highlights a persistent theme in Muller's argument. He does point out several incongruencies in the gospel of John; some of which even a casual reader will notice, some of them less significant than others, and some of which I believe he's incorrect about. However his solutions often raise more questions than they answer. More importantly, there's a persistent theme that in addition to changing/adding passages, the redactors must have smoothed over the wording further to make things fit - and yet somehow still left hints apparently strong enough on which to base this sweeping theory on! Perhaps the most notable example is at the end of John 14, but these other passages follow the same pattern. Either we're left with somewhat strange, sloppy or incongruous writing - or we're left with redactions which, being supposed improvements, are often
very strange in their sloppiness one moment and skilled smoothing over the next. Sloppy author, or sloppy, inconsistent redactors? As we'll see, most of the difficulties Muller suggests aren't quite the problems he supposes, and his solutions aren't quite as neat as he suggests.
The third major problem with his reconstructed original John lies in the time Jesus spent in Judea and across the Jordan. This is perhaps the most noteworthy, because it's hard to see how it could be anything besides either dishonesty or rather uncritical thinking. He suggests that John followed the pattern set by Mark 10:1:
- Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.
The immediate question of course is whether this means that Jesus went to Judea and then went across the Jordan, or that he went to Judea traveling along the other side of the Jordan (as implied in this translation, NKJV), on his way ultimately to Jerusalem. Muller believes it means that Jesus went to Judea and then back across the Jordan, which then matches up in his theory with John 10:40-41. The problem, however, is that whereas in Mark Jesus merely went to Judea (and then perhaps back across the Jordan), in John Jesus was teaching in Jerusalem. And yet Muller says that John follows Mark's pattern and has Jesus going to Judea and then back across the Jordan!
* Even if Muller made a strong case that there was originally continuity between 2:12 and 6:1 -
* Even if he made a strong case that the disturbance at the temple and the healing of the blind man were in the original John later on in the work -
* It would still remain indisputable that 'original' John goes directly against Mark's gospel, by having Jesus visit Jerusalem multiple times
Of course, I do not believe that Muller has made a strong case even for the first two points. John 6:1, starting from Jerusalem and going over the Sea of Galilee, is a little odd; but hardly convincing evidence that nearly four complete chapters previous shouldn't be there. There's nothing strange about John's temple disturbance scene to suggest its relocation. And while the absence of a feast name in the blind man's story of chapter 5 is indeed odd, if anything we might be led to conclude from these observations that perhaps Jesus was in Galilee (4:46ff) before he crossed the Sea of Galilee (6:1). I don't know whether that's a particularly convincing theory; but what does seem convincing is that, in going back three chapters further and proposing yet another story relocation, without evidence and indeed directly
against the supposed synoptic model, Muller is in essence trying to force the data into his theory.
The fact that in 'original' John, Jesus' multiple visits to Jerusalem also go against Mark's pattern - and Muller's disturbingly uncritical claim that this is "In Judea and across the Jordan" - serve as stark confirmation to this.
This is getting rather long, and my time is limited, but hopefully there's a few points of substance in there to be going on with for now
I've made a hard copy of all of Muller's arguments, so at least I'll be able to give it a bit of thought even while I'm at home. For now, I'd leave you with this thought:
If the basic premise behind a multiple redactions theory - that 'original' John knew and largely followed the gospel of Mark - seems to be based at best on dubious evidence and, at worst, is directly contradicted by the evidence without wholesale speculation and obfuscation (Jerusalem becomes Judea!), on how solid a foundation does that leave the rest of the theory?
