1 / 19

II. Composition of Fourth Gospel

II. Composition of Fourth Gospel. Authorship Date Place of Composition Question of Sources Question of Unity Theories of Composition by Stages. Authorship External evidence

ann
Download Presentation

II. Composition of Fourth Gospel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. II. Composition of Fourth Gospel Authorship Date Place of Composition Question of Sources Question of Unity Theories of Composition by Stages

  2. Authorship • External evidence • Early 2nd cent. – little evidence of use; no clear reference or quotes; maybe some allusions; no authorship tradition mentioned by Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, or Justin. • Papias (c. 130) • No reference to FG. • Puzzling statement seeming to distinguish John the apostle (by-gone era) and John the Elder (more recent). • Mid-2nd cent. – FG popular among Gnostics. • Earliest commentary by Heracleon (Valentinian Gnostic). • Gnostic use of FG made orthodox leery of it. • Late 2nd cent. – used by church fathers alongside Synoptics; but has to be defended (Gnostic use; differences from Synoptics). • Irenaeus (c. 180) – leading advocate of 4-Gospel tradition • Earliest clear reference to tradition of authorship by John. • Equates “Beloved Disciple” = apostle John = author of FG. • Attributes to Polycarp (d 155); claims to have heard Polycarp as a boy and that Polycarp knew John personally.(Did Irenaeus misunderstand which John Polycarp meant?)

  3. Authorship (cont.) • External evidence (cont.) • Muratorian Canon (c. 200) • Attributes FG to John as “joint production” – each disciple recalled what was revealed to them; John wrote it all down. • Differences between Gospels make no difference to faith. • Clement of Alexandria (died c. 215) • Synoptics recorded “bodily facts;” John wrote “spiritual gospel.” • John wrote in Ephesus after death of Domitian (96). • Others remained skeptical – Gaius (c. 200) • Attributed FG to Cerinthus (early Christian heretic). • Argued against FG on grounds of differences from Synoptics. • Evaluation • Tradition of apostolic authorship appears late; contains confusion and embellishment; was not unchallenged. • Motivated by desire to gain acceptance for FG.

  4. 2. Internal evidence of authorship • Technically anonymous (title is secondary). • Closing implies some role of “Beloved Disciple” (21:24-25). • 13:23-26 – Last Supper: BD reclines on Jesus’ breast. • 18:15-16? – Peter’s Denial: “another disciple” helps Peter gain access to high priest’s house. • 19:25-27 – Crucifixion: BD assumes care of Jesus’ mother. • 19:34-35? – Spear-thrust: witnesses Jesus’ death; “he who saw it bore testimony;” his testimony is true.” • 20:2-8 – Empty tomb: BD races Peter to tomb; witnesses empty tomb and believes. • 21:20-22 – Restoration of Peter: prediction of Peter’s martyrdom & BD’s longevity – implies long life/ministry of BD. • 21:23 – Correction of rumor that BD would not die before Parousia – implies that BD is dead at time of writing (so how could he be the author?). • 21:24-25 – Closing: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things...” • Seems to say BD wrote FG. • Closer reading raises questions.

  5. 2. Internal evidence of authorship • Does closing (21:24-25) really mean that BD wrote FG?(“This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things...”) • If closing attributes FG to BD, then who wrote closing? • If BD is presumed dead (21:23), we must distinguish writer and BD. • Ch. 21 may be secondary; closing may attribute ch. 1-20 to BD; final editor wrote ch. 21 (or at least v. 24-25). • Would author of 1-20 describe himself as BD is described (cf. 13:23; 19:35)? • Closing could mean BD is witness on which book is based (Beasley-Murray: BD “caused them to be written”). • Distinction between “he,” “we,” and “I” implies stages in origin of FG (Hull): • “He” = Beloved Disciple – faithful witness. • “We” = believing community – received/passed on his testimony. • “I” = actual author/final redactor – put words on paper. • Solution could be to take BD as source of tradition on which FG rests, even if another hand put book in final written form.

  6. Internal evidence of authorship • Identity of Beloved Disciple • Tradition: John ben Zebedee (disciple/apostle). • Very unlikely: • John plays almost no role in FG. • FG omits all Syn. events in which John played special part. • James / John not mentioned until 21:2; then not by name. • Relationship to high priest unlikely for Galilean fisherman (18:16). • Present at Cross – Syn. say the 12 had abandoned him. • Other guesses: Lazarus (cf. Culpepper, 32); John Mark; Matthias; Paul; John the Elder. • Bultmann: non-historical “ideal figure.” d. Conclusion • Author remains anonymous. • Rooted in tradition associated with disciple who lived long, earned title “beloved disciple,” bore trustworthy testimony. • Community product: he, we, I.

  7. Date – Most scholars: c. 90-100. • Not much earlier than c. 90: • Ancient tradition dates FG after death of Domitian (96). • Apostolic generation is dying out (21:18-19, 22-23). • Controversy with Judaism (e.g., 9:22) reflects time near Council of Jamnia (c. 90). • Highly developed theology. • Not much later than c. 100: • P52(Rylands papyrus) – c. 125 in Egypt. • Oldest extant NT manuscript is fragment of FG. • If being copied in Egypt in early 2nd cent., FG must have been published by c. 100. • Dispelled notions that FG was mid-2nd cent. Gnostic writing. (F. C. Baur dated FG c. 160 because of Gnostic affinities.) • Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110) may have known FG.

  8. Place of composition • Tradition – Ephesus • Other theories • Egypt (Lake; Sanders) • Syria (Haenchen; Kümmel) • Palestine (Martyn) • Synthesis (Manson; Beasley-Murray; Culpepper) • Originated in Palestine. • Developed in Syria. • Reached final written form in Ephesus.

  9. Question of Sources Bultmann’s source theory: • Signs (Semeia) source • Written collection of 7 miracle stories for missionary purpose. • Evidence: • Numbering of signs (2:11; 4:54). • Tensions between source and Evangelist (2:23-24; 4:48; 20:29). • Evaluation: widely accepted and developed. • Revelation-discourse source • Collection of pre-Christian speeches of Gnostic Revealer. • Evidence: poetic style and themes have Gnostic parallels. • Evaluation: almost universally rejected. • Passion narrative • Used written passion narrative independent of Synoptics. • Evidence: differences from Syn. not motivated by Evangelist’s theology; seams between source and Evangelist’s additions. • Evaluation: widely accepted as likely. • Additional sources and traditions

  10. Question of Unity • Evidence of secondary additions • Ch. 21 – widely regarded as secondary appendix. • 20:30-31 seems to be ending. • Much in ch. 21 does not fit well with ch. 1-20. • Likely added by a final Redactor after ch. 1-20 was written. • No evidence FG circulated without ch. 21. • Other possible additions: • 5:26-30 repeats 5:19-25 w/ emphasis on future eschatology. • 6:51-58 repeats 6:35-50 w/ emphasis on sacraments. • Evidence of textual displacement • Order of ch. 5-6 is puzzling; reversing them would be more logical. • 5:1 – Jesus goes from Galilee to Jerusalem. • 6:1 – Jesus crosses Sea of Galilee. • Order of ch. 14-17 is problematic – 14:31 is continued by 18:1. • Other such discrepancies here and there. • Bultmann’s commentary: • Assumes textual displacement by accident or inept redaction. • Radically rearranges text to restore presumed original order.

  11. Theories of Composition by Stages • Bultmann • Sources: Signs; Revelation discourses; Passion narrative; other. • Evangelist – basic writer of ch. 1-20; wove sources together to achieve profound theology. • Disarray – work somehow fell into disorder. • “Ecclesiatical” Redactor – rearranged, added material (ch. 21, etc.); produced final form more acceptable to mainstream church. • Brown • Tradition (associated with John ben Zebedee) • Oral development – one main preacher (disciple of John) • First edition – Evangelist (disciple of John); didn’t use all material. • Second edition – Evangelist (disciple of John); added material. • Final redaction – Redactor(disciple of Evangelist; maybe John the Elder); added more material, esp. ch. 21. • Conclusion – most scholars distinguish: • Sources or traditions • “Evangelist” – basic gospel-writer (ch. 1-20) • “Redactor” – final editor (added ch. 21; etc.)

  12. Papias (c. 130) “If ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters (elders), I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, had said, and what Aristion and the presbyter (Elder) John, the Lord’s disciple, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice.”

  13. Irenaeus (c. 180) “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published his gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia.” (Attributes this tradition to Polycarp (d. 155) and claims that Polycarp knew John personally.)

  14. Muratorian Canon (c. 200) “The fourth gospel is by John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him he said, ‘Today fast with me for three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.’ That same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down all things under his own name, as they all called them to mind. So although various points are taught in the several books of the gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since all things in all of them are declared by one supreme Spirit….”

  15. Clement of Alexandria (died c. 215) “Last of all John, perceiving that the bodily facts had been made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel.” (Also reports that John the apostle went to Ephesus after death of Domitian.)

  16. John 21:20-22 18 Very truly, I tell you (Peter), when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.“ 19 (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, "Follow me." 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"

  17. John 21:23 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

  18. John 21:24-25 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

More Related