Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

chavos · 01-16-2004, 01:31 PM

i don't think we have better access to the texts. i'd never claim that...history has destroyed a great deal of our access to the texts. but that doesn't make John a more reliable witness...its still a late document, that bears the marks of an evolving theology, not something that was original to the Jesus movement.

Mistakes in John:The location for John the Baptists ministry is non-existant. The text disagrees with itself over whether Jesus baptized anyone. The likely explanation is that there are two (at least) sources: one pro-Baptist, and a later High Christology source. The mistakes about John are due to an editor attempting to down play Jesus' direct involvement with baptisms and John in order to elevate Jesus as a deified figure.

He disagrees with Luke about the reception in the Samarian villiage as well...which probably again signals a later date when Gentiles were a bigger and more important part of the Church.

Nicodemus as a character seems to be pure invention-Josephus mentions a person of the same name...but it seems totally fabricated to have a Pharisee as a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the importance to the Christological arguement of many of the Nicodemus dialouges: especially chapter three, the possibility that such dialouges are whole cloth inventions places serious doubt of the authenticity of high Christology with the self-proclaimaitions of Jesus of Nazareth.

There are other vaciliations between higher and lower Christology with in the document: God the Father material alternates with I Am sayings...and the end result i see is that sources and documents are disagreeing as the evolution of Christology proceeds.

modern scholarship...frankly, i think its a lot better to make mistakes with eyes open. at least then, you've got a chance to catch yourself as you fall. I've never been able to approach the texts at face value, and probably never will...and so using the tools of form, source, literary and historical criticism is the only thing that makes sense to me in reading the texts. i have a respect and a reverance for them, but i won't exempt them from a scrunity of critical analysis.

01-16-2004, 01:31 PM	#28 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	i don't think we have better access to the texts. i'd never claim that...history has destroyed a great deal of our access to the texts. but that doesn't make John a more reliable witness...its still a late document, that bears the marks of an evolving theology, not something that was original to the Jesus movement. Mistakes in John:The location for John the Baptists ministry is non-existant. The text disagrees with itself over whether Jesus baptized anyone. The likely explanation is that there are two (at least) sources: one pro-Baptist, and a later High Christology source. The mistakes about John are due to an editor attempting to down play Jesus' direct involvement with baptisms and John in order to elevate Jesus as a deified figure. He disagrees with Luke about the reception in the Samarian villiage as well...which probably again signals a later date when Gentiles were a bigger and more important part of the Church. Nicodemus as a character seems to be pure invention-Josephus mentions a person of the same name...but it seems totally fabricated to have a Pharisee as a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the importance to the Christological arguement of many of the Nicodemus dialouges: especially chapter three, the possibility that such dialouges are whole cloth inventions places serious doubt of the authenticity of high Christology with the self-proclaimaitions of Jesus of Nazareth. There are other vaciliations between higher and lower Christology with in the document: God the Father material alternates with I Am sayings...and the end result i see is that sources and documents are disagreeing as the evolution of Christology proceeds. modern scholarship...frankly, i think its a lot better to make mistakes with eyes open. at least then, you've got a chance to catch yourself as you fall. I've never been able to approach the texts at face value, and probably never will...and so using the tools of form, source, literary and historical criticism is the only thing that makes sense to me in reading the texts. i have a respect and a reverance for them, but i won't exempt them from a scrunity of critical analysis.