Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:50 amIIUC Raymond Brown believed proto-John was earlier than the epistles and was common ground between the author of the epistles and his opponents. He accepted that canonical John was later than the epistles.
Good point, and I was going from long term memory, but as I glance through his work again, it does not appear that his Johannine redactor is responsible for very much; the bulk of the gospel seems to precede the epistles:

Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, pages 374-376:

374-376 I shall now present a reconstruction of the community history, warning that while it explains many factors in the Gospel, it remains a hypothesis and "perhaps" needs to be added to every sentence. The reconstruction covers not only the Gospel and its redaction but also the Johannine Epistles.... Four phases are involved. (1) A phase preceding the written Gospel but shaping its thought (up to the 70s or 80s). In or near Palestine, Jews of relatively standard expectations, including followers of JBap, accepted Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, the fulfiller of the prophecies, and one confirmed by miracles (see the titles in John 1). Among them, insignificantly at first, was a man who had known Jesus and become his disciple during the public ministry and who would become the Beloved Disciple. To these first followers were added Jews of an antiTemple bias who made converts in Samaria (John 4). They understood Jesus primarily against a Mosaic background (as distinct from a Davidic one): Jesus had been with God, whom he had seen and whose word he brought down to this world. The acceptance of this second group catalyzed the development of a high, preexistence christology (seen against the background of divine Wisdom) that led to debates with Jews who thought that Johannine Christians were abandoning Jewish monotheism by making a second God out of Jesus (5:18). Ultimately the leaders of these Jews had Johannine Christians expelled from synagogues (9:22; 16:2). The latter, alienated from their own, turned very hostile to “the Jews,” whom they regarded as children of the devil (8:44). They stressed a realization of the eschatological promises in Jesus to compensate for what they had lost in Judaism (whence the strong theme of replacement in the Gospel). At the same time the Johannine Christians despised believers in Jesus who did not make the same public break from the synagogue (exemplified by the parents of the blind man in 9:21-23; also 12:42-43). The disciple mentioned above made this transition and helped others to make it, thus becoming the Beloved Disciple.

(2) The phase during which the basic Gospel was written by the evangelist. Since “the Jews” were considered blind and unbelieving (12:37-40), the coming of the Greeks was seen as God’s plan of fulfillment (12:20-23). The community or part of it may have moved from Palestine to the diaspora to teach the Greeks (7:35), perhaps to the Ephesus area — a move that would cast light on the Hellenistic atmosphere of the Gospel and on the need to explain Semitic names and titles (e.g., rabbi, Messiah). This context brought out universalist possibilities in Johannine thought, in an attempt to speak to a wider audience. Rejection and persecution, however, convinced Johannine Christians that the world (like “the Jews”) was opposed to Jesus. They looked on themselves as not of this world which was under the power of Satan, the Prince of this world (17:15-16; 14:30; 16:33). In their relation to other Christians, they rejected some as having so inadequate a christology that they were really unbelievers (6:60-66). Others symbolized by Simon Peter truly believed in Jesus (6:67-69) but were not deemed so perceptive as the Johannine Christians symbolized by the Beloved Disciple (20:6-9). The hope was that the divisions between them and the Johannine community might be healed and they might be one (10:16; 17:11). However, the Gospel’s one-sided emphasis on the divinity of Jesus (shaped by struggles with the synagogue leaders) and on the need for love of one another as the sole commandment (13:34; 15:12, 17) opened the way for some in the next generation whose whole knowledge of Jesus came from that Gospel to develop exaggerated views.

(3) The phase during which the Johannine Epistles, I and II John, were written (ca. AD 100). The community split in two: (a) Some adhered to the view represented by the author of I and II John (another Johannine writer distinct from the evangelist). He complemented the Gospel by stressing the humanity of Jesus (come in the flesh) and ethical behavior (keeping the commandments); (b) Many seceded (at least, in the view of the author of l John 2:18-19) and were antichrists and children of the devil because they had so exaggerated Jesus’ divinity that they did not see any importance in his human career or in their own behavior (beyond simply believing in Jesus...). Yet in the Johannine community there was no structure sufficiently authoritative to enable the author to discipline the secessionists who were actively seeking more adherents; he could only urge those who were puzzled about truth to test the Spirits (I John 4: 1-6).

(4) The phase during which III John was written and the redactor added chap. 21 (AD 100-110?). The disintegration of the Johannine community led to a development of pastoral structure and brought those sympathetic to the christology described under 3a closer to the larger “church catholic.” In III John, even though the writer did not like him because he had become authoritative, Diotrephes probably represented this new trend which was alien to the preceding Johannine reliance on the Spirit alone as teacher. Similarly in John 21:15-17 Jesus gives Simon Peter the task of feeding the sheep and thus recognizes human pastors alongside Jesus, the model shepherd. This development would ultimately bring some Johannine Christians into the larger church and preserve the Johannine heritage for that church. On the other hand those sympathetic to the christology described under 3b above (perhaps the larger group) fed their interpretation into docetism (where Jesus was deemed not truly human) and gnosticism (where this world was considered so distorted that it was not God’s creation) and ultimately Montanism (where Montanus became the embodiment of the Paraclete to guide the church).

His limiting of the redactor's work to merely adding chapter 21 here may be shorthand, since I think he does give the redactor a few other passages, especially doublets, in the main body of the gospel, but still, it appears to me, unless I am missing something, that most of the gospel he dates to before the penning of any of the epistles.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by mlinssen »

James David Audlin does likewise. He's wrapping up on 5 decades of research on John
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Irish1975 »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:10 am James David Audlin does likewise. He's wrapping up on 5 decades of research on John
How fitting since the beloved disciple himself took 10-12 decades to write his gospel.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by mlinssen »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:32 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:10 am James David Audlin does likewise. He's wrapping up on 5 decades of research on John
How fitting since the beloved disciple himself took 10-12 decades to write his gospel.
He thinks the beloved disciple is Mary
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Bernard Muller »

I made an extensive study on gJohn with some comments on 1John, starting here:
John's gospel, from original to canonical
Introductory page and evidence for a progressive composition (http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html)
=> The gospels according to "John" (http://historical-jesus.info/jnblks.html)
The successive versions, by blocks
=> The complete text of the original gospel (http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html)
COHERENT and well-ordered. Also about the authorship
<=> The latter additions (http://historical-jesus.info/jnadd.html)

For the original version without in-situ comments and suspected interpolated clauses ({...}), read this webpage (http://historical-jesus.info/jnorigx.html)

Here is the start of my intro page:
"1. Introduction:
Many critical scholars have noticed the fourth gospel has signs of insertions, additions and reshuffling, suggesting its writing followed a long process:
"It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." Introduction to the Gospel of John, The New Jerusalem Bible
Furthermore, it is more and more accepted its author knew about the synoptic gospels (and NOT a gospel of signs & a passion narrative, not evidenced to have existed).
In agreement with these later observations, I will proceed to flag out the "smoking guns" and propose the solutions.
Everything will fit and be easily explained. And if it fits, don't dismiss!
This work is thoroughly documented, accounting for any insertion, addition and relocation. For details, my readers can go to the subsequent pages, designed for easy navigation throughout.
Next is a preview of some of the conclusions.

2. Preview:

2.1 The first (original) gospel:
It was written around 75-80C.E. when Mark's gospel (GMark) was known in the community. This gospel was very COHERENT, with the material drawn from GMark considerably embellished. There are many clues pointing to the fact the author knew GMark then (and certainly not only GLuke or only GMatthew or only both of them).

I explained that later in my comments within the text of the original version. As a preview, here are some pieces of evidence:
- Jn6:7 "two hundred denarii worth of bread" => in GMark (6:37) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:3 "spikenard" => in GMark (14:3) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:5 "three hundred denarii and given to the poor" => in GMark (14:5) but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn12:40 "hardened their hearts" => in GMark (6:52,8:17) but not in GLuke or GMatthew (and not in LXX Isaiah6:9-10!)
- Jn13:26 "dipping of bread during Last Supper" => in GMark 14:18-21, but not in GLuke or GMatthew
- Jn19:2,5 "purple robe" => in GMark (15:17) (the robe is "scarlet" in Mt27:28 and "gorgeous" in Lk23:11)
- Jn4:1-42 "Jesus and disciples entering (& staying in) a Samaritan city" => against GMatthew "do not enter ... any town of the Samaritans" (Mt10:5)
- Jn6:19 "Walking on water" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (6:48-49) & GMatthew)
- Jn12:13 "Hosanna" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (11:9-10) & GMatthew)
- Jn2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." => not in GLuke (but in GMark (14:58;15:29) & GMatthew)
- Jn18:28,33;19:9 "Praetorium" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:6) & GMatthew)
- Jn19:2,5 "crown of thorns" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:17) & GMatthew)
- Jn19:17 "place of the Skull" and "Golgotha" => not in GLuke (but in GMark (15:22) & GMatthew)
Here, most of Jesus' summer activities in Galilee are not narrated, but time is allocated for them:
Jn2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He ... and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days." (relating to Mk1:21-38)
Then from
Jn6:1 "After these things Jesus went away ... Then a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were diseased.
[echoing Mk1:34a & 37b: "Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases" & "... "everyone is looking for you""]"
to
Jn7:1 "After these things [feeding of 5000 & walking on water, relocated earlier than in GMark] Jesus walked in Galilee [from March/April (Passover) to October] ..." (relating to Mk1:39-9:50)
Afterwards, according to the original GJohn, Jesus goes to Judea & Jerusalem, (7:2-10, 5:2-45, 7:11-10:39, October to December, from the feast of Tabernacles to the one of Dedication) and then across the Jordan (10:40-42, December to March/April), paralleling what "Mark" claimed (in a few words):
Mk10:1 "Jesus then left that place [Capernaum, Galilee] and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan."
From there, as in GMark, Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Passover and his crucifixion.
Note: essentially, regarding Jesus' public life, the original John's gospel relates major miracles in Galilee, but most of its content is dedicated to the alleged sojourn in Jerusalem during the fall. All main discourses (except the one in Capernaum (Jn6:26-59)) occur in Jerusalem.
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/Jerusalem => 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

What is remarkable about the original version, made up of eight "blocks" of the final gospel (about 65% of it altogether), is that all the parts fit well with each other, requiring no additional wording to link them (but some, of the awkward kind, will be inserted for the later versions).
The gospel ended then at Jn20:10, after the 'empty tomb' segment (as in Mk16:8, the original ending of GMark), when "... the disciples went away again to their own homes", as "prophesied" in Mk14:27-28 (disciples dispersing in Galilee) & Jn16:32 "... you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave Me alone"
Let's call the original text of John's gospel Version M ("M" for Mark).
One main addition (15:1-17:26) was made thereafter within the body of the text. I do not consider it as part of the original version. Let's call this expanded gospel Version Mx.

2.2 Alterations after GLuke was known:
Considerable additions and some relocations were done after Luke's gospel got known in the community.
All inclusions then can be related to passages in GLuke. The overall result was a rather disjointed gospel, with Jesus' ministry extended to at least two years (from one year and a few weeks), including more visits to Jerusalem (from two to four).
The end of the gospel was then pushed back to Jn20:23, in order to include a brief post-mortem appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem (in contradiction with Jn20:10 & 16:32!), as the one in Lk24:36-49 right before the ascension (24:50-51). Let's call the overall result Version L ("L" for Luke).

2.3 Alterations after 'Acts' was known:
A few additions were made after 'Acts' appeared. Here, all inserted items have parallel notions occurring in 'Acts' (but NOT in GLuke or GMark).
The ending was again extended, this time up to Jn20:31, with a second post-mortem appearance to the disciples, one week later, as "allowed" by the "forty days" of 'Acts' (1:3) before the ascension (1:9). Let's call the overall result Version A ("A" for 'Acts of the apostles').

2.4 Additions after the "beloved disciple" died:
Finally, the "epilogue" (Jn21:1-25ff), widely considered to be an appendix, was added on at the end. Let's call the overall result Version D ("D" for Death).
Furthermore, some notes, likely first written in the margin, were inserted in the body of the text, either at that time or earlier.
The gospel was finished then (97-105?).

Later I explained that considerable addition and some reshuffling were done after gLuke got known."
For 1John, I am certain the epistle was written before the original gJohn (75-80), possibly before gMark was published (70-71).
See here for explanations: http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html#author

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by neilgodfrey »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:48 am I accept and get those points. What I'm saying is that the fact there's mention of and perhaps even a notion of Jesus in Paul's letters is because the name Jesus' may well have been inserted in them.

He's what Frans J Vermeiren says about this -

.
Christ, Jesus, and Jesus Christ

The Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament exhibits a different sort of interpolation that offers strong support for our thesis. After having compared the numerous old copies of Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland arrives at the conclusion that some words are of doubtful authenticity. In Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland marks the word ‘Jesus’ – each time used in combination with the word ‘Christ’ – seven times as probably interpolated. ‘Christ without ‘Jesus’ of course results in an entirely different reading because then these fragments only discuss an anonymous Christ. In combination with Paul’s general disposition towards the future, this anonymous Christ furthermore becomes a future Christ. Even though this ‘Jesus’ addition is only demonstrable in seven instances, it is reasonable to believe that these instances are tell-tale for a general ‘Jesus’ interpolation problem in the Pauline letters.

Furthermore, in addition to these seven unmistakable additions, there are various other instances that indicate a problem with naming. For instance, some manuscripts have added ‘Jesus’ to ‘Christ’ in Romans chapter 9 verse 1, ‘I am speaking the truth in Christ’. Also, Romans chapter 13 verse 14 usually says ‘But put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ but there are several variations on Jesus and his title(s): ‘Christ Jesus’ in some manuscripts, ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ in other[s]. Galatians chapter 6 verse 17 offers a similar picture. Usually, it says ‘Jesus’, but sometimes it is ‘Christ’, ‘Lord Jesus’ or ‘our Lord’. The best example of this combination of naming problems appears in 2 Corinthians: For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine in the darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of [Jesus] Christ.[154]

The Jesus at the end of the fragment is one of the seven instances where the word ‘Jesus’ was added. The Jesus in the second line (for Jesus’ sake) is not always mentioned in the same wording. In some manuscripts it reads ‘Christ’, in other ones ‘Jesus Christ’. The Jesus Christ in the first line appears to be a constant, although some manuscripts have it in reverse order which is also indicative of revision. If we were to remove the word ‘Jesus’ entirely from this fragment, it makes much more sense: For what we preach is not ourselves, but Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Christ’s sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine in the darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Vermeiren, Frans J. A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity (pp. 102-103). Kindle Edn

Thanks for this quote. (I can now assure you I have got off my backside and read Vermieren's book so feel I can comment.)

Against the 7 certain instances of interpolation and the references to other questionable passages, we still have the fact that "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" appear in Romans 33 times, in 1 Corinthians 22 times, in 2 Corinthians 11 times, in Galatians 16 times. I have not counted appearances in the other epistles. Now it is of course entirely possible that all of those Jesuses were added at some point to Paul's original text, but I think figures like these warn us the question is not going to be easily or quickly resolved.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:47 pm A thought about the relative chronology of 1 John and GJohn—

The Gospel of John can be read as one big YES to the interconnected questions in 1 John 2: 22 and 4:3,

Was Jesus the Christ?
Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

For that reason alone it seems much more natural that the epistle would have been written first, and the Gospel second. The latter answers the former. By contrast, it would be very weird if the Johannine circle had developed and implemented GJohn as scripture, and then in response to it people started wondering “Is Jesus really the Christ?” “Did he really come in the flesh?”

This sequence conforms to the pattern found elsewhere in the OT and NT:

The prophets are earlier than the writers of the Pentateuch.
Paul’s epistles are earlier than the synoptics.

Long narratives with many allegorical features (eg, Genesis) are late-in-the-day reflections upon a historical context that has long past, whereas an epistle or an OT prophecy like Jeremiah is a fairly recent reaction to an immediate crisis. The crisis in Galatians, involving Paul’s break with the Torah-observant branches of the Church of God, shows up later in how the pillars are depicted in GMark allegorically.

In the same way, it seems to me most plausible that 1 John—which is fiercely passionate, but not particularly coherent or well-ordered—was a close-to-the-origingal-crisis scripture, whereas GJohn was composed over many years, many revisions, and possibly many hands, but coming out of that original crisis.
I agree that Paul's epistles are earlier than the synoptics.

But there is another option re the prophets and pentateuch that arises from more recent studies (though minority view still), and that is that the different works were products of different schools, sometimes competing, sometimes in cooperative dialogue.

I'm also becoming wary of being satisfied too quickly with explanations that rely upon a naive reading of the text. So if a letter of Paul ostensibly addresses an immediate situation and involves heated passion on the part of the author, we cannot assume that that is "how it was" in reality. The more we learn about ancient rhetorical techniques, especially the art of letter writing, the more we find how capable authors were of creating a false narrative, an artifice that appeared to be personal etc but was in fact anything but. Thomas Brodie, for example, shows that Paul's heated response to wayward Galatians is very likely artfully adapted from a passage in Jeremiah.

So there is another possible way to interpret the "fierce passion" that comes through some of the letters.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:54 pm He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?
At the risk of testing your patience and asking you to repeat yourself, can I ask why you see "no basis for that"?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Bernard Muller »

According to the RSV, I counted the verses where "Jesus" is not associated with "Christ".
Romans: 2 (10.9, 14.14)
1 Corinthians: 7 (4.15, 5.4, 5.5, 9.1, 11.23, 12.3, 16.3)
2 Corinthians: 7 (1:14, 4.5, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 11.4,11.31)
Galatians: 1 (6:17)
Philippians: 3 (2.10, 2.19, 4.23)
1 Thessalonians: 6 (2.19, 3.11, 3.13, 4:1, 4.2, 4.14)
Philemon: 1 (1.5)

I did not count the verses with "Jesus" not associated with "Christ", I think are interpolations.

Cordially, Bernard
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by davidmartin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:24 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:54 pm He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?
At the risk of testing your patience and asking you to repeat yourself, can I ask why you see "no basis for that"?
I completely agree with your former comments on ancient rhetorical technique.
1 John doesn't present himself as an eyewitness in any meaningful way "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched"
I read this as a collective 'we' recalling something historical of the group, but with a hope it might lend a more direct interpretation in the readers mind
This kind of rhetoric essentially confirms the author has not seen Jesus or is an eyewitness. Far more likely this John is the presbyter, is the beloved disciple presented in the same kind of way? not so sure.
Post Reply