Hi Bernard, thanks for coming back
Having delved a little deeper into what you've written, I have to say that I'm impressed at the organisation of it all, and it's certainly given plenty of food for thought. My apologies if I've overlooked an answer to my comments below, or accidentally misrepresented your views.
mullerb wrote:Mithrae wrote:* This would leave only a few days in Capernaum (2:12) to account for all the content of Mark 1:37 to 6:32. The original 'John' needn't describe all that content of course, but if he were following Mark as Muller suggests, he'd surely use a phrase other than "they did not stay there many days" to account for that gap
BM: On the first point, I made very clear, more so on this webpage
http://historical-jesus.info/jnblks.html (look at the consecutive blocks M1 to M3), that any bits happening outside Galilee between 2:1 and 7:10 (ref: canonical gJohn) were the result of later insertion or relocation in the original gospel. Considering that, then Jesus would have spent the whole summer in Galilee ("after these things Jesus walked in Galilee" --7:1--), as in gMark. I explained the later insertions and relocations in my webpages on gJohn (mostly 1st and last ones).
I know what you mean about the consecutive blocks M1-3 and so on, but my point is that even your reconstructed original really doesn't have much in common with Mark. John's intro, John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism and calling of the disciples are wildly different from Mark's, and so is most of the content in Jerusalem besides the 24 hours before Jesus' death (which itself varies considerably). We don't need to postulate dependency on Mark to explain John's reference to John the Baptist, since he was a well-enough known figure in his own right. So in short, the comparison between your original John and Mark consists only of feeding 5000 and Jesus' last 24 hours. You express it as
- 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
but, even granting your changes, it should be more like:
John the Baptist => Feeding 5000 => Jerusalem => Jordan => Jerusalem => Supper/passion sequence
You argue that John used Mark as a source and not some hypothetical 'passion narrative' - but when there's only one similarity of note outside the passion narrative, that argument isn't particularly compelling.
mullerb wrote:Mithrae wrote:* Even granting that sweeping change, it doesn't line up 'original' John with Mark as well as Muller implies, since John would still have Jesus going twice to Jerusalem whereas in Mark he only goes once.
On your last point, I explained before that "Mark" wrote "And he left there and went to the region of Judea ..." 10:1 RSV, and since Jerusalem is in Judea, "John" took that opportunity, in his original gospel, to include one more trip to Jerusalem for Jesus.
I see what you're saying, but my point is that Judea vs. Jerusalem means it's not a strong comparison with Mark's gospel (even granting your changes). Especially since it's dubious whether Mark 10:1 means that he went to Judea and then back across the Jordan, or went to Judea along the Jordan.
mullerb wrote:Mithrae wrote:* It's a rather sweeping theory to base on a smattering of incongruous phrases, and indeed doesn't provide as smooth a solution as we might hope. This bears further discussion - I did indeed miss his points from 3.6
I cannot answer your middle point at that time because of lack of specifics, but I feel your comments are unjustified. If you read my reconstruction of the original gospel, everything is as smooth (and coherent) as it can be:
http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html
Using the NKJV, your original John would have the following sequence of passages (starting from before Jesus had yet visited Jerusalem):
- 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.� 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him. 6 Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.� 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee. 10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. . . . etc etc... 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?�
7:11 Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, “Where is He?� 12 And there was much complaining among the people concerning Him. Some said, “He is good�; others said, “No, on the contrary, He deceives the people.� 13 However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews. 14 Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. 15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?�
Questions arise:
- Why did the Jews in Judea want to kill him, if he hadn't preached there yet?
- How did he have disciples in Jerusalem/Judea, if he hadn't preached there yet?
- Why were the Jews wondering where he was, if he'd just healed and taught there?
Your solution (to the first two, at least) is simply to remove those words from the text. This is called
doctoring the evidence. You're basing your theory almost entirely on incongruencies in the text - yet when there's incongruencies which discomfort your theory, you simply remove them!
If you base a theory on oddities in the text, removing the oddities which are a problem is a severe methodological flaw. Several other specific examples are, to my mind, little more than doctoring the evidence to fit your theory:
- 4:45 So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also had gone to the feast.
[This was inserted after Jn2:14-3:21 was relocated in front (Version 2). In this passage, Jesus is said to have performed miraculous (but not described) signs in Jerusalem (2:23,3:2)]
4:54 This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee.
[The last part of the verse was added when the block 'Jesus cleanses the Temple and talks with Nicodemus' (2:14-3:21), with mentions of Jesus having performed many signs in Jerusalem (2:23,3:2), was relocated in front of the gospel.
The move of 2:14-3:21 was done after the insertion of 'Jesus and John the Baptist, the Samaritan woman and the nobleman's son' (3:22-4:54). At that time, 'the healing of the nobleman's son' was "the second sign" Jesus performed overall; the first one being 'changing water into wine' (2:1-11).
6:2 Then a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were diseased.
[Inserted after Jn2:14-3:21 & Jn5:1-47 were relocated in front. In these passages, Jesus is said to have performed miraculous signs in Jerusalem (this verse is also associated with 4:45)]
5:16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, {and sought to kill Him}, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.
[This looks to be a late insertion, because "persecuted" is already expressed. Furthermore we have later:
Jn7:19-20 "Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" The people answered and said, "You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?"
Jesus initiates that notion but the Jews did not. However, that will change at verse 8:59, after further "provocation" by Jesus, and more so at verses 11:49-50]
Mithrae's comment: That does seem to be a later insertion (it's not in the NU text), presumably from a marginal note or scribal error; I've included it to mention that the Jews' claim that Jesus had a demon and no-one was after him fits well enough in the story, and hardly proves that all these others are later insertions.
5:18 {Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them,} "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
[Theological digression. Related to 5:16]
7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; {for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.}
[Inserted after Jn5:1-47 (with its aforementioned additions Jn5:16p,18) was relocated in front, explaining why Jesus would have mortal enemies in Jerusalem]
7:25 Now some of them from Jerusalem said, {"Is this not He whom they seek to kill?}
[According to 7:20, quoted earlier, the Jews are not looking (yet) to kill Jesus. See further explanations on verse 5:16]
Furthermore, and this is a point I touched on earlier, it's worth noting that your theory relies upon the presumption of gross inconsistency even by an individual redactor. You point out (and I agree that it's worth noting) that the feast of the Jews isn't named in chapter 5. And yet the other passage supposedly moved in the
same phase of redaction does have the festival named:
- 2:13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
[Insertion required because of the reshuffling of existing material in Version L]
5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
[Insertion required because of the reshuffling of existing material for Version L]
I can't imagine any reason why the redactor who named one festival would fail to name the other, can you? But again, an alternative theory already exists which could account for this; chapter 5, along with other parts of John, may have been derived from a 'signs gospel.' I'm really not sure how much merit the idea of an earlier passion narrative has, but the signs are a distinctive feature of John even to the casual reader - that it could help explain ch5's oddity makes the theory all the more intriguing to me.
- - - - -
John and Luke
Going back through the notes I made on my paper copies back in January or whenever, I think there's one other point worth making. You argue that the second of five redaction phases in the gospel's development came after Luke was written. You also argue (correctly I believe) that the last changes were the final chapter, shortly after the death of the (alleged) 'beloved disciple.' But I've long been convinced that the author of Luke was
familiar with the work of Josephus, from around 93CE. While it's not impossible that your L(2) redaction phase could occur after that time, and then two others, and still plausibly be within the lifetime of an alleged disciple, I'd say that it's also worth considering the other alternative - that Luke may have been familiar with John's gospel.
There's two obvious points of contact between John and Luke - they both have two angels at the tomb, and John contains a story similar to the centurion's son in Luke (John 4:46ff - also found in Matthew/Q). Obviously the two angels don't mean a whole lot; it could be John borrowing off Luke, or Luke borrowing off John or simply the two of them having come across the same story. Nor do I believe the story of the official's son is similar enough in the two to prove a literary dependence, rather than simply a story which circulated in the Christian community showing that Jesus was kind to Romans also.
But a less obvious point of comparison which you pointed out seems, to my mind, to suggest that Luke may well have been the one to read from John. In
3.3 of your introductory points you suggest that the shuffling around between Annas and Caiaphas in John 18 is based on the two of them being high priests at the same time in Luke 3:2. However, I think it's rather unlikely that we can draw any firm conclusions back to this single sentence from the convoluted passage we find in John. On the other hand, that verse in Luke springs out as particularly unusual if we accept that the author was familiar with Josephus' work. Luke should have known that there was only one high priest at a time, or at the very least should have had no reason to imagine there were two. Similarly, it's strange that he didn't follow Josephus' spelling of Ananus.
It seems likely that Luke was merely preferring the spelling found in John's gospel, and picking up the implication of two high priests at once also.
