Re: Gospel of John

Tina writes:
<< The writer of John certainly was not [a Jew], as evidenced by the
repeated misstatements about how things happened, ie Jewish law. Also, very
doubtful that any of the 4 traditional gospels were written by Jews, and
certainly not by the followers of Jesus who almost certainly wqould not know
Greek. >>

I remain very curious about where you're getting most of this information.
Some of things you were saying rang in my ear like they came right out of
one particular book, and perhaps a second, but now you've gone and said some
things that even THOSE scholars wouldn't say.

I must come right out and say I don't have so much time to give to this
conversation. Right now there are too many messages and they're too
scattered. If I continue in the conversation it will necessarily be
restricted to shorter emails than my last and this one and in far fewer
numbers and separated by much more time than yours and Jim's have been. And
I only think it'll be worth our time if we keep it to a few much more
specific claims, and only those that are coupled with specific citations of
the pertinent Greek/Hebrew/Latin sources or detailed archaeological
information. The rattled-off lists of facts that are controversial at best
won't get us anywhere interesting.

All that said, I am quite familiar with Jewish law and with the archaeology
and non-Christian literature suggestive of the culture of first century
Palestine, and I am in strong disagreement with your assertion that the
author of John (or the other gospels) could not have been a Jew, or was
somehow grossly neglecting the facts of the Judaism of the day.

The most common claims of such Johanine ignorance refer to the trial and
crucifixion (and, sure enough, the details could be made up, and it's
possible he was crucified for perceived insurrection -- neither, I think, is
in conflict with what I've said) or Jesus' rebuttal of an accusation by
Pharisees that he did wrong for "working" on the Sabbath.

This former I dismiss only with the response in the above parentheses. The
latter, as the claim goes, refutes the Jewishness of John because Jesus says
that, since it is lawful to circumcise on the Sabbath -- an act concerning
itself with only one part -- why not to heal a whole man? and this is said
in the Mishna, in fact almost exactly, with the very same example. The
Mishna, of course, was first written only a century or two after Jesus and
records the oral law of the Pharisees.

I don't think this is a good refutation, because it could just as well be a
deliberate use of the oral law to lampoon the Pharisees, as happens all
throughout the book ("Your own law says. . . ! and You yourself must know. .
.!"). Also, I expect that the book targets an audience outside of
Jerusalem, probably a much more Hellenized audience (the Greek has striking
echoes of the Septuagint, which would be irrelevant to a gentile or
Jerusalem Jew, but would be provocative to, say, a Hellenized Jew in Egypt),
much less familiar with the Pharisees.

Aside from these, I'd like to hear whatever specific passages suggest the
author's ignorance of Judaica.

Also, I think your assertion that the followers of Jesus "almost certainly
would not know Greek" is improbable. It was most certainly the case, then
as now, that a huge proportion of the population in that region was
multi-lingual. Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, at least, would have been very
widely spoken and very widely understood, even by those who could read and
write none of them. Greek in particular would have been commonly known by
the working classes of the North (like Galilee) where Greek was especially
common and where there were several Greek cities in which to work as a
carpenter or merchant.

And:
<< [. . .] and this was when the conspiracy took place to change the man's
name to the Greek "Jesus" thereby seperating him from the Jews. >>

Conspiracy? Where are you getting this idea? Yeshuah, or Yehoshuah, is
quite naturally corrupted into the Greek Iésous. There are other cases --
one famous case in particular in the New Testament -- of a Greek text using
Iésous to refer to a Yeshuah, particularly the "Joshua" of the Hebrew Bible.
That's a perfectly ordinary corruption.

And, in response to my quotation of a Muslim writer, she writes:
<< Sorry, a passage written centuries later based on already accepted
interpretations? Come on! >>

You misunderstood. I didn't mean that as evidence to prove any point, but
as an interesting side note, which is why I introduced it by saying
something like, "and this point was not unrecognized by [. . . .]"

And:
<< I'm afraid that the lack of knowledge of Jewish and Roman occupation
politics as well as his belief in the face of the facts thast Jesus was God,
[. . . .] >>

You'll still need to explain your knowledge of his ignorance of Jewish (or
even Roman, though that was not what I was talking about originally) matters
aside from those I mentioned above (trial/crucifixion, circumcision on
sabbath). And remember that your assertion is not just that the author
merely said something incorrect -- some incorrect things are understandable
as fiction -- but that he demonstrates ignorance.

And regarding Jesus' being God, I should add that the Gospel of John, though
it is widely considered the most concerned with Jesus' divinity, doesn't
seem to me to make many clear and bold statements about it. It is this
book, in fact, that is often pointed to as containing the only passage where
Jesus himself claims to be the messiah, and it is a passage that I believe
has ambiguous Greek.

And:
<< What book are you reading? The most Jewish? It's the most ignorant of
Jewish ways and by far the most blasphemous in light of Jewish law.>>

I didn't say that it was the most Jewish. I said that it is "probably the
most critical of the Jerusalem Jews, but it remains a fundamentally Jewish
book."

And it certainly says things that some people call blasphemous, but the
claim that it is ignorant of Jewish ways remains to be explained.

And:
<< Why else would he surround himself with self-proclaimed anti-Roman
zealots? His disciples are refered to as zealots
in no less than 9 different ways [. . . .] Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot,
he was even crucified with 2 other zealots, which, incidentally was the ONLY
reason that you could be crucified, to be an enemy of the Roman state. >>

First, it was probable that most everybody was deeply resentful of the
Romans and little rebels were everywhere. Rebels were likely to be
attracted to Jesus by the hype and rhetoric, which would mean they were
around a lot, but when they learned that he did not seek political
revolution (or an earthly kingdom), most ought either to stop being rebels
or leave the following.

I already said my bit about Iscariot, and I'll get to your response below.
He was crucified with two zealots? Okay. You can likewise say that
Barabbas is described as an insurrectionist, but is not crucified. There
were other rebels before and after Jesus who were not crucified. And he can
be crucified as a rebel without actually being one.

(Incidentally, Barabbas means "Son of Father" and when seen next to a man
who calls God his father, and refers to sons of God, and in the context of a
conflict between direct, divine rule and priestly/cultural rule, presenting
the Jews with a choice between Son of Father of Son of God presents a
possibility for thoughtful literature. There in fact exist variants of
certain passages where Barabbas is given the same first name as Jesus, so
the choice is between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth, while the Hebrew
behind the first name suggests a savior. The whole sequence could certainly
be fictional, as you suggest, but this only reminds us that we are reading
literature, especially in the case of John.)

And:
<< Your resaerch isn't up to date. Because of the spelling, and compared to
other documents that have been found that refer to the Sicarius, it is
almost certain that Judas was an at least would-be assassin. >>

Okay. Please go on. I told you the spelling
(iota-sigma-kappa-alpha-rho-iota-omega-tau-eta-sigma, or, even more clearly
from a Semitic source, eliminating the last three letters for a theta). I
told you the most likely Hebrew sources for that spelling. I'd have gone
into specifics of Hebrew and Greek phonology but that it would have taken
hundreds of words and I expect nobody to be interested but Scottie.

If I'm fouling up, please explain. (And if you know of some
recently-discovered Greek document referring to the Sicarii that I don't
already know about, I am certainly very interested in knowing about it, so
don't just leave it at "documents that have been found." And what journal
you read about it in, too -- How could I have missed it?!)

And:
<< He claimed royalty, which was an automatic threat to Rome, therefore,
ipso facto, he himself was a rebel, and by definition, a zealot. >>

The claim to Davidic lineage is funny. It is certainly a part of the
tradition, though in an odd way (it's also part of the tradition that Joseph
wasn't his biological father, which makes him not of David's blood). The
business about a 9-months-with-child donkey ride into Bethlehem is
suspicious, and the whole thing looks like a retroactive fulfillment of
prophecies about the messiah. John, in particular, might contain a subtle
suggestion that people suspected him of being a bastard. All said, I am not
sure that JESUS claimed Davidic lineage, much less that "he claimed
royalty." He very certainly does not in the book *I* was talking about.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Jul 25 02:31:51 2003