It once again seems any interpretation of John leading to a reconstruction of it's source and date needs first to refine the text as best as can be using strictly literary criticism. Then further refinement may be posible utilizing other critisms. For example at Kirby's Early Christian Wrtings site click upon 'Gospel of John' and then the Essay listed at the bottom entitled "From Original to Cannonical". The author seems to nearly exclusively use this method. Even if there is lattitude (as there is) in this "restoration" doesn't this neccessarily inform any debate about the time of Gnostic inclusions.
A New View of the Trinity
by Eugene Shubert 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
RubaDub
But RubaDub that would be a Quadinity. Doesn't role off the tounge quite as well as Trinity so I don't see a future for it.
Loris .. point well taken.
However, I wasn't suggesting that the name be changed. I am referring to only THREE be active or on duty at a time.
Think in terms of a congregation. There may be four or five elders but only three are selected for a committee, and they typically rotate.
The same could be reasoned here. A fourth could be added to the "Trinity" so that if one of the three is off on assignment or something, the fourth could step in to retain the "trinity." In fact, they could even rotate in thousand year intervals or something, but I really don't want to go there since that would merely be human speculation and we are counciled to avoid that.
***** Rub a Dub
-
Loris
RubaDub you are so wise to avoid speculation, others would do well to follow your fine example. Me included. What was I thinking! To speculate on the true nature of God is rife with human reasoning and presumption.
I must call an elder to ask for guidance. maybe not.Loris
-
Narkissos
LOL @ RubaDub ? sorry I missed your first post.
Greatteacher : I?m not sure I got your point. Do you mean biological knowledge makes History of Ideas pointless? I?m not a theist anymore but I?m still interested in the development of religious ideas.
Peacefulpete: there are many conflicting theories (such as Schnakenburg?s, Brown?s and Boismard?s in the 70?s) on the development of the fourth Gospel. The problem is we are always in circular reasoning, just because (theological or ideological) content analysis is involved in literary criticism. I think most scholars agree on the most obvious additions (such as the Prologue, the discourse on flesh and blood in chapter 6, the expansions in chapters 15?17 or the second conclusion of chapter 21). Anyway, the basic material for discussion always remains the final text itself.
Leolaia:
- The Gospel of Thomas as a reference for the ?Gnostic substrate? of John would also need literary criticism. It?s not very difficult to distinguish in it logia which reflect a kind of ?mild Gnosticism? (such as those paralleled in Q or in Patristic literature) and others which imply a more clear-cut, conscious and elaborated Gnosticism (such as in the Apocryphon of James). Of course it is also circular reasoning, but it may modify our view of the Johannine use of its ?Gnostic source?.
- The central role of the person of Jesus in the Gospel is not to be opposed to Gnosticism as such, but rather to the kind of Jewish-Hellenistic Wisdom that many find in Q (in which the person of Jesus is significantly meaningless, if I dare say). In fact I think the main Johannine view of Jesus as Savior = Revealer (see also the model of the Samaritan ta?eb in chapter 4) is quite different from the Pauline concept of salvation (in which revelation is secondary if not altogether absent), and as such is not incompatible with early Gnosticism.
- I would resist the idea of labeling Johannism as ?Catholic?. Even a Catholic and rather conservative scholar such as R.E. Brown insists on the difference. In the epistles, the Johannine believer HAS the knowledge by his anointing (khrisma) and doesn?t need anybody to teach him, which is exactly the opposite of the Pastoral magisterium. Many would agree that the Diotrephes rejecting the Elder in 3 John is just a good bishop fighting pseudognôsis according to the Pastorals. At most the latest additions to the Gospel (chapters 6 and 21) can be explained as ?lip service? to Protocatholicism.
- I fully agree on the literary analogies between (Colossians-)Ephesians and John. However, the very fact that Revelation which is so clearly different from both in content and spirit (despite many linguistic parallels) arises in the same geographical area shows that there was no such thing as Christian Unity by the end of the 1 st century, even on a local basis.
-
willyloman
When you guys get through, here are some suggested agenda items for your next meeting:
1. How many angels dance on the head of a pin?
2. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
peacefulpete
Narkissos....I meant to say in the last post that identifing the original form of the text we are then in a better position to date the ANTI-GNOSTIC elements such as those seen by Leolaia. To clarify, Literary Criticism as I was using the term is textural criticism (in it's original sense) only. Theological and ideological consideration are far more relevent to other forms of criticism. But perhaps I'm deluded. It still makes little sense to me to analyse a text theologically until the layers can be at least tentatively identified. It can only result in debate without end. Of course with material like GJohn that's probably going to happen no matter what approach is used.
-
peacefulpete
Revelation was an earlier Jewish Apocalyptic work with numerous additions by a confused Christian.
-
Leolaia
Narkissos....I'm quite impressed by your logic and resourcefulness. Your comment to peacefulpete on the literary integrity of John made me wonder about something. Has anyone every tried to excise the added portions (like the Prologue and ch. 21), reverse the dislocations in the text, and then remove the Semia Source material and the discourse sections? I wonder what is left? I am just wondering how much the gospel would structurally compare to Mark. Without the Prologue the gospel would start with John the Baptist as does Mark and there would be the block of passion narrative would remain near the end, but would that be it or would other narrative parallels exist?
We also don't know that the Gospel originated in the Johannine community in Asia Minor. I've wondered whether it was originally put together elsewhere, say in Syria which was the provenance of the Thomas traditions, and then later redacted by Johannine editors in Asia Minor. Though the Fourth Gospel on the whole lacks the eschatological outlook and apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus sayings that we find in the latest redaction of Q and Mark, there is a strand of apocalyptic expectation in John 5:27b-29, 6:39b, 40b, 44b, and the appendix in ch. 21 gives a telling re-interpretation of a Jesus saying that had previously been given an eschatological interpretation (21:22-23). One possibility is that this eschatological coloring took place in the same Christian communities in Asia Minor that received the Revelation of John. In this connection, I am quite interested in reinterpretation of the Jesus sayings in Revelation and Papias' Expositions on the Sayings of Our Lord. Papias is familiar with Revelation and its presumed author John the Presbyter, interprets some passages in it, and shares in its chillism. But he also presents some eschatological prophecies attributed to Jesus that are quite striking, especially the prophecy of vines in the kingdom having tens of thousands of clusters with tens of thousands of grapes (as reported by Irenaeus). I think what has happened here is that the original Jesus saying was an otherwise unattested parable about the kingdom (of the form, "The kingdom of God is like ...) that contains the kind of hyperbole typical to Synoptic parables (such as the Parable of the Sower who reaps a hundredfold of what he sowed). Then, in the Asia Minor communites the oral tradition passed through before being received by Papias (and through the medium of John the Presbyter), the parable was given an apocalyptic interpretation and application and was recast into a prophecy. This is similar to how the Parable of the Sower was recast in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas into a miracle performed by the juvenile Jesus. There are many other similar examples in the Revelation of John, such as the Parable of the Thief being cited (as does Paul) as an apocalyptic saying about the future coming of the Son of Man. I don't know if John the Presbyter had a hand in redacting the Fourth Gospel, since all this is mostly speculation, but it is interesting that Aristion the Presbyter was identified in tradition as the redactor of Mark that added the Longer Ending as an appendix, and Papias mentioned both John and Aristion as the two main authorities of the Lord's sayings. Anyway, I know it doesn't mean anything, it is just interesting....
I'm sure you know all about the confusion in the early Church about the two Johns, whether John the Presbyter was a separate person from Apostle John, the later tradition about the two tombs in Ephesus, and so forth. Here's my speculation on it: The only John that really existed (aside from the shadowy figure that may or may not have existed as a companion of Jesus, the son of Zebedee) was John the Presbyter, who was in the early second-century an oral authority on the sayings of Jesus and who was known to Papias in some fashion. Papias' witness seems to convince me that John the Presbyter was a real person. Since 2 and 3 John are signed by "the presbyter" and circulate under the name of John, these may be epistles of his. 1 John and the Gospel of John belong more widely to the Johannine community and may well have been material that preceded John the Presbyter, but was used and circulated by him -- that would seem to explain the similarities as well as differences in thought and style. Papias' familiarity with Revelation and Papias' chilism convince me that John the Presbyter probably had a hand in Revelation, and the book's destination to Asia Minor would also support the connection. Since the Fourth Gospel had passed through the Johannine community of Asia Minor or even John the Presbyter's own redacting hands, it became known under his name -- and simultanously to this development, other gospels were attaching themselves to other figures of authority such as Matthew, Thomas, Peter, and disciples Luke and Mark. As time passed, and as the emphasis on apostolic authority increased, John the Presbyter became confused with Apostle John, companion of Jesus, and further identified with the Beloved Disciple in the book itself. Hence the erroneous tradition arose that Apostle John lived well into the 90s, was the author of all the Johannine literature, and lived at Ephesus late in life. But those with access to the books of Papias, who personally knew John the Presbyter, knew that this was wrong, as Eusebius tried to set the record straight. And since John the Presbyter was not Apostle John, and since the Gospel was so different from the Revelation, Eusebius thought there had to have been two Johns, John the Presbyter and John the Theologian, the latter being the son of Zebedee. While that is just my speculation and I make no claims to its accuracy, it seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Anyway, that's my five cents.
Leolaia
-
Loris
Can you say obfuscation? Was this mess supposed to enlighten anyone?
Some people analyze a subject to death and in so doing lose sight of the subject. And furthermore they lose any audience they may have had at the beginning.
Then there are others who do not want to believe in the Bible/God/Jesus and go to great lenghths to discredit them all, leaving themselves with nothing to believe in. Like the tree trimmer who saws off the branch on which he sits.
I would much rather believe in a Creator who cares for mankind and has a plan to set matters straight in the universe for the good of all. The alternative is to believe in nothing.
I know that my views are simplistic. But I have peace in my simple mind. And I do not have to spend hundreds of hours to defend my views. They are what they are.
Loris
-
Leolaia
Loris.....I was responding to what Narkissos and peacefulpete wrote on the development of the Fourth Gospel and on Revelation. You're right, this discussion belongs to another thread. No obfuscation intended. --Leolaia