martinguerre

zen tom, what i meant with my comments on Gnostic texts...i don't think you can call them unadulterated. When they tell the Jesus story, they're just as likely to put words in his mouth as *anyone* else.

john is a standout, that's for sure. i don't think it "requires" belief that Jesus requires you to beleive in a way the others don't. Mark comes first, and the very opening, the author puts you in to a little secret...Jesus is the Son of God. And you get to read the story knowing that, and are drawn in to the developing drama by that. John has argueably the highest Christology...but its still too early to call it Trinitarian. Son of God/God himself is a tricky line...i think John toes it, but i don't actually think he crosses. "I know not the hour" comes from Jesus in this Gospel, admitting a limitation that High Trinitarians are hard pressed to explain.

all the gospels whitewash the roman influence to varying degrees. Mark probably the least, but the other three all do so in different ways so it's hard to say that John does it more than they do. Luke brings in a trial in front of Herod Antipas, and sets up the friendship between him and Pilate as part of the issue, Matthew places large blame on the assembled crowd, and the temple elite. John does too.

Here's one major issue...when the Gospels say "Jews" they are saying in the Greek "Iudoi" or Judean. That's a southerner, a Jerusalem identification, to distinguish from the rebel north of Galilee. What may be seen as anti-semitism to our eyes, is more likely IMO, to be the product of a generations old feud between north and south for political and religious dominance that dates all the way back to the Restoration under Cyrus.

What does this mean for John? I think it gets seen as much more Roman friendly than it might have been recieved as. Galileans are known rebels and bandits, and to support one over the Judeans...isn't really what Rome wants to hear. The memory of the sack of Jerusalem is still fresh...which cost many lives on both sides. John still points to an authority that doesn't respond to that kind of power, one that can both destroy the Temple and raise it up, that supercedes roman claims to authority. That the tradition was later domesticated by empire doesn't mean it started out empire friendly...