The Library - 2015-08-27

« first day (1422 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3176 days later) »

12:36 AM

@ThaddeusB Assuming that the person(s) who compiled John believed that every part of it had come from a witness (presumably John), it is possible that they were reluctant to "correct" such an inspired text. Other gospels show signs that the author didn't want to correct Jesus himself (e.g., when Jesus misquotes scripture in Matthew). Why wouldn't the same rule apply to "correcting" the work attributed to the disciples?

Oops. Mark, not Matthew

The famous blunder Jesus makes in Mark 2:26, in which he refers to 1 Samuel 21 1-6. He says "when Abiathar was the high priest", but Samuel makes it clear that Abiathar's father Ahimelek was actually the high priest at that time.

Mark could easily have checked Samuel to verify Jesus' remarks (as could anyone else in the following centuries), and if he had, he would have seen the mistake. Either he never bothered (nor did anyone after him), or he (and everyone after him) did see the error, but refused to correct it on devotional grounds.

@WadCheber That wouldn't make it any more likely to have come from two sources. That is an argument that the "error" was in the source, not that two sources were used.

I think the only reasonable explanation is that the insistence on not correcting infallible sources outweighed the embarrassment of infallible sources being quite obviously wrong.

@ThaddeusB I think it would.

The same argument applies.

You're not supposed to correct infallible sources.

If you believe that an eyewitness provided the account, you might be willing to overlook the problem with two people saying "Where are you going" before Jesus says "None of you ask me where I'm going".

He's god, so any apparent inaccuracies must be in your understanding, not in the original event.

12:53 AM

@WadCheber I understand that, but I'm not understanding how you think two sources better explain the original source of the oddity than one source.

In other words, Jesus is right, even when he's obviously wrong.

@ThaddeusB Maybe it wasn't intended to be read as a single chronological narrative.

If one "infallible source" already says it, sure i can see how it was copied. But I don't see why anyone would combine source A that asks "are you going" with source B saying "why is no one asking", infallible or not.

Maybe they didn't know how to reconcile the problems.

If it wasn't originally intended to be read as a single, consistent chronological narrative, there is no problem.

@WadCheber Nonsense, there is still the problem of why someone would combine it that way. It seems awfully speculative to say someone combined two unrelated accounts (infallible or otherwise) in such a way to make them not make sense.

You can't tack on the two "Where are you going" questions after the point where Jesus says "Let's get out of here", so you are faced with a choice between throwing out some of the source material, editing it in contradiction to the source, or adding the source material at an earlier point, despite the problems it will cause.

12:58 AM

You can make it two different instances.

@ThaddeusB There is no better way to keep all the source material while also addressing chronological inconsistencies.

@WadCheber Most would say John rearranges the chronology often. So why is the redactor afraid to here.

@ThaddeusB In other words, you can say that the witnesses were wrong?

@ThaddeusB Exactly, but the question is why no one fixed the problems.

I submit that no one fixed them because it was ideologically unacceptable.

You'd be tacitly admitting that your belief system is built on shaky foundations.

The men who started your church were unreliable.

@WadCheber Well, the intended question was why does two sources better explain it than one. And I'm not seeing any reason why it does. Assuming it was some kind of error, an error in the original writing of the eyewitness is just as plausible as an error in combining two accounts.

There are very compelling reasons to avoid that at all costs, despite any problems that it might produce.

@ThaddeusB If the original author made the mistake, and if that author was an eyewitness, he would be perfectly willing to correct his own work.

Later editors would be more reluctant to edit it, for ideological reasons.

1:03 AM

@WadCheber Yes, but if he didn't catch it then, as you say, the redactor would be unwilling to fix it whether from one source or two.

They wouldn't want to acknowledge that the people who built their religion were unreliable narrators.

@ThaddeusB If he didn't catch it himself, he's probably stupid.

It is glaringly obvious.

Who doesn't proof read the most important thing they will ever write?

This is a bit ironic of a conversation considering you don't consider the accounts reliable, yet you are arguing that the redactor was unwilling to change the earlier accounts. Either John is pure theology and "historically worthless" (your words) or the redactors made every effort to preserve the earlier witness and it is (at least partially) based on historical eyewitness

@ThaddeusB So? It goes without saying that the would-be editors believed that the account was reliable.

@WadCheber It's hard to catch your own errors because you tend to read things as you intended, not as you wrote. I know I've been embarrassed by "glaring" errors of my own found by others after I proofed the text once.

I know better.

1:06 AM

@WadCheber No, you think you know better :P

@ThaddeusB Have you ever written a question twice in a couple of paragraphs, then suggested that the question was never asked?

Have you ever recorded the words of your god for posterity, and failed to properly proof read it before passing it on?

@ThaddeusB No, I know better.

@WadCheber I don't know if I've ever had the occasion to write a dialog of any type.

The guy gets so many things wrong that it is impossible to argue otherwise and retain any credibility.

@WadCheber If you say so.

The other sources say that Jesus refused to perform signs; in John, he performs signs so often that he has does time for little else.

In the other sources, he almost always speaks in the form of parables. In John, he never uses a parable.

1:11 AM

@WadCheber Come on now, Jesus works miracles in all accounts

In the other sources, he avoids talking about himself. In John, he talks about himself constantly.

@ThaddeusB Signs are miracles, but not all miracles are signs.

Signs are demonstrations of proof via miracles. Jesus refuses to do this everywhere except John.

John was obviously writing for a different purpose - no belief needed to conclude that. So yes, he tells the story in a different way. That doesn't mean it is a-historical. It means he sees the history differently.

Quite a lot of critical commentators see at least some history behind John's gospel.

In the Synoptics, when Jesus is asked to prove that he is either the messiah or the son of God by performing a sign, he refuses and chastises the person who asked. In John, the majority of the miracles he performs are signs. This isn't a minor difference; it is a totally different person.

@ThaddeusB History of the development of Christology, not biographical information about Jesus.

John tells us nothing about Jesus' life that can be treated as accurate.

The fact that John is the only source for Jesus being coeternal with God is problematic in the extreme.

John is so different from the Synoptics, which are universally regarded as the best sources for information about the life of Jesus, that it almost seems like he's describing a different person entirely.

"Since the second century CE, it has been common to think of John as the "spiritual gospel", more theological than historical" - HarperCollins Study Bible

[107] 'John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways (e.g., Jesus lived in Palestine, taught, healed, was crucified and raised). . . The greatest differences, though, appear in the methods and content of Jesus’ teaching. . . Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching.' "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 15 November 2010 [8].

"It is now widely recognized that this state of affairs [the depiction of Jewish-Christian relations in John] reflects the circumstances not of Jesus himself, but of a Christian group some years after his death" - HCSB

1:28 AM

@ThaddeusB I say close (really just putting it on hold) as fast as possible to prevent answers from coming in, then give time to correct at which point it can be reopened

if it is off topic, it should be closed asap

John seems to have been written some time after 80 CE, possibly as late as after 100 CE. Considering the fact that it is likely to be the case that the majority of the disciples were dead quite a while before then, most of them having died during the Jewish Revolt which ended in 70 CE, as much as a generation and a half had passed between the death of the disciples and the writing of John. James had died c. 62 CE.

@Dan OK, I added my VtC. Still need two more.

John is traditionally said to have been written in Ephesus, so it is likely that the author never met anyone who knew Jesus or the disciples, except perhaps Paul, who was largely hostile to the disciples, and who knew nothing about the biography of Jesus, and even bragged about his ignorance of Jesus' life.

@ThaddeusB I lended a helping hand

after 3 vtc's I don't mind jumping in, I just try not to unilaterally close stuff with no community involvement, since my vote is binding

@WadCheber None of this is news to me... Taking the tradition about location seriously while ignoring what the same exact sources say about authorship is rather questionable.

1:35 AM

@Dan Can you teach that trick to Richard on SF&F?

@ThaddeusB Historical criticism can support the location, but it contradicts the authorship.

John may not have been written in Ephesus, but it certainly wasn't written in Palestine.

@WadCheber You know as well as I do that such arguments, especially about location, are highly subjective

Different people will reach different conclusions - ranging all the way up to that John the disciple was the main author of the text and that it was written pre-70

@ThaddeusB But a general assessment of the location is more reliable than a specific one. John was written in a style similar to Greek philosophical tractates. The author was very well educated.

@ThaddeusB The Christology strongly suggests a much later date.

@WadCheber And also intimately familiar with Jerusalem

As does the hostility toward Jews.

@ThaddeusB One of his sources was probably familiar with Jerusalem, yes. But such a rabid anti-Semite probably never went anywhere near the city, or even the province of Judæa.

The descriptions of the Temple imply authorship after the destruction of the Second Temple.

As does the politics regarding the Jewish factions.

@WadCheber Dating based on "development of theology" is the most subjective of all - who is to say how long a theology took to develop? People who date that way decide the framework and then make the NT books fit their framework. A different framework (Set of assumptions) comes up witha completely different date.

@WadCheber "rabid anti-Semite" charges against John are nonsense.

1:43 AM

And despite the fairly accurate depiction of the Sanhedrin's statements, the idea of releasing a prisoner, and of the Jewish people as a whole having a say in Jesus' execution, implies a total lack of understanding of the actual workings of Roman authority in Judæa.

I'm going to politely bow out of the conversation now. This is not a productive use of either of our time.

@ThaddeusB Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.

Paul Jones: "The Gospel of John has the dubious distinction of being both the most popular Gospel (considered the most "spiritual" of the canonical Gospels) and the most anti-Jewish. The term "the Jews" (Ioudaios) in the Gospel functions as a "hostile collective stereotype" and is identified with "evil" and the "devil.""

@WadCheber why not supply the full quote "...Yet the Gospel of John is intimately connected with Judaism. Jesus is thoroughly Jewish in this Gospel. His life revolves around the Jewish festivals, and his identity as the Messiah is confirmed by the Jewish scriptures.

According to John 20:31, the book was written so "that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God." Christology, therefore, is the key to understanding both the theology of the Gospel and its strained relationship with the larger Pharisaic Jewish tradition

Or the J.G. Dunn quote right next to it in the same Wikipedia article:

The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism.

Clearly the issue is not as clear cut as your "rabid anti-semitic" comment implies. And with that I'm out for real this time. :)

2:19 AM

@ThaddeusB And yet Jesus himself says that Jews are the sons of the devil, and John writes about "the Jews" in general, not the Pharisees in particular.

"Highly questionable" is a drastic overstatement, but it still leaves plenty of room for the argument that he was, in fact, a rabid anti-Semite, which I firmly believe.

@ThaddeusB All the better to portray the Jews as traitors against their own traditions, their own messiah, and even their own God.

@ThaddeusB I don't see how one can argue that John was enmeshed in a heated confrontation with the Jewish community, wrote horrible things about Jews, and yet, was somehow not anti-Semitic.

12 hours later…

2:38 PM

@WadCheber Well for starters, there is the fact that Ιουδαιος does not necessarily imply the Jewish religion and almost certainly does not refer to ethnicity. See Wikipedia - "Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews... Mason and others argue that “Judean” is a more precise and a more ethical translation of ioudaios than is “Jew ”."

Then there are passages like John 4:22 "for salvation is from the Jews" which would be very unlikely to be written by a "rabid anti-Semite". Almost all scholars take a far more nuanced view than your view that the writer of John hated the Jews.

6 hours later…

9:14 PM

i dont like what's going on here (deleted answer)

4

Q: What is the meaning of the phrase "men and brethren" in Acts?

In several places in Acts, Peter, James, and Paul (and perhaps others) address groups of people by saying "men and brethren" – perhaps in the same way that we would use "ladies and gentlemen" or "brothers and sisters" (in a church context) to address people today. 1) Does this imply that their a...

terminology acts greek

2 hours later…

11:16 PM

@ThaddeusB I'm not a scholar. I'm an amateur enthusiast, and a misanthrope. :)

11:31 PM

@swasheck Sorry, didn’t quite get that - what’s bothering you?

@WadCheber :)

« first day (1422 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3176 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '1527

The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile