The gospel of John an independent witness?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:27 pm

That's OK.
You believe then that the High Priest's house and the fire and all are accurate representations of the story that is stated and implied?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:15 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:27 pm
That's OK.
You believe then that the High Priest's house and the fire and all are accurate representations of the story that is stated and implied?
The story may not be accurate but I don't regard it as allegorical in the way that IIUC you do.

Andrew Criddle

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:37 pm

Thank you.

CW

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:41 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:14 pm

2. I am not implying that "The Interrogation of Jesus" takes place in the Temple. I am looking at possible Constructions of the Peter Denial Story that finds a "Peter" at the Gate to the Chamber of the Flames. I am looking at a Source Fragment that was woven into the Interrogation Motif

3. As above, Peter sits while he warms himself as found in the Synoptics. He is standing in John. This is reflective of a Real Place. Outside of the door that leads to the Chamber of the Flames, known as the Chamber of the Hearth, people may sit, sleep and do other things as they need. Inside the door, at the Chamber of the Flames, the people must stand. It is sacred.


John 18:

[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Mark and John do have a dependence but the dependence is from the Compositions coming from a common Source. It would be contradictory to have Peter maneuvering between the two Chambers and have "Jesus" looking at Peter from the "High Priest's House" when he is denied. The contradiction is resolved if the Scene is written from a Peter Story that has been transformed into a story of a savior/god who goes to his human sacrificial death while his most trusted disciples betray him.

"Jesus" was NOT interrogated in the Temple. There are, however, too many details in the new story to cover without leaving contradictions. The Original had Peter moving between the Chamber of Flames and the Chamber of the Hearth. It has been spliced together with the "Jesus Interrogation" and the result has contradictions. Again, from the fact that the "Jesus" stories were written from Source, it does not follow that the Source Stories were about "Jesus".

If this is still opaque, tell me where you're questions are and I'll try again.

Best,

CW
I think you need to compare John and Mark if as it appears you think there is a common source used by both. I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful. Also you should compare the whole of the story.

John 18
[25]Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.
John has Peter standing by the door to the courtyard. He then enters and is questioned by the maid. After this he goes to stand by the fire with the servants and officers. Peter is then questioned by a group and then by a servant. All this happens while he is standing by the fire.


Mk 14:
[53]And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.

[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.



[66]And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
[71] But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."
[72] And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.
The order in Mark is Peter enters the courtyard and sits with the guards round the fire. He is questioned by a maid. He then moves to the gateway. It is implied to stand with “bystanders”. The maid points him out to the bystanders. Then the bystanders question him.

There does not seem to be much agreement (three sets of questions and the denials). Peter at the door or standing in the gateway takes place at different times. He is by the fire at different times. Therefore what criteria do you use to select which bits form Mark and which bits from John to include in your source?

Ken Olson
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ken Olson » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:18 am

lsayre wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:49 am
Why do the same scholars who date the Gospel of John as late based primarily upon its high Christology, also date Paul as early? When compared to the almost lacking Christology of the synoptics, Paul's Christology appears to be on a plane far more level with that of John.
Let me give this a serious answer: I don't think New Testament scholars do date John as late based primarily on its high Christology, or at least they don't generally say that's what they're doing. You might find an author who says New Testament scholars do this, and it's possible one or two say this about themselves, but I don't think this is something NT scholars do in general.

The things that commentaries on John usually discuss in dating the gospel:

It has to be earlier than the surviving fragment P52 (c. 125 CE give or take 25 years).

The literary history of John: first, if it's based on the synoptics; second, if not, has it passed through one or more editions or compositional stages; third, are the traditions embedded in John earlier or later than their synoptic counterparts (these judgments may indeed take John's high Christology into consideration).

The relationship of the Johannine community to Judaism, and particularly whether the references to expulsion from the synagogue (John 9.21, 12.39, 15.27) require a date after the Birkat ha-Minim (and whether there was such a thing, what it was and when).

John's realized eschatology (i.e., lack of an immanent eschaton, no eschatological discourse).

That last especially might place John later in comparison to Paul, who definitely thinks in terms of an immanent second coming (e.g., 1 Cor. 7.25, 1 Thess. 4.17).

Best,

Ken

lsayre
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by lsayre » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:24 am

I believe I originally came across the high Christology implying a late date issue when reading Evan Powell's book titled "The Unfinished Gospel". He also mentions the expulsion from the synagogues issue as additional fuel for those who prefer a later date (of 90 AD or so). He personally believes that the core Ur-John layer dates to about 50 AD.

Ken Olson
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Ken Olson » Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:13 pm

lsayre wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:24 am
I believe I originally came across the high Christology implying a late date issue when reading Evan Powell's book titled "The Unfinished Gospel". He also mentions the expulsion from the synagogues issue as additional fuel for those who prefer a later date (of 90 AD or so). He personally believes that the core Ur-John layer dates to about 50 AD.
I know the book (and Powell's other book The Myth of the Lost Gospel 2006, arguing for Matthew's use of Luke). He doesn't cite or quote anyone who holds the position he's attacking. Two cautions:

First, any time someone claims "(Person or group) argues for X on the basis of Y," and they don't actually cite or quote scholars who make the argument, and the imputed argument is obviously wrong, it should send up a red flag for you. You're probably being presented with a straw man.

Second, any time someone makes such an argument where they haven't taken care to get the opposing argument right, that's also a red flag. If they haven't gotten the opposing case right, it's a good bet they haven't gotten taken much care with the data and the reasoning in their own argument either. (Well, okay, on the other hand, there are people who insist you've misunderstood or misrepresented their case no matter how much care you take or how may times you ask them for clarification).

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:58 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:41 am
I think you need to compare John and Mark if as it appears you think there is a common source used by both. I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful. Also you should compare the whole of the story.
Thank you, MBG. As is obvious, I am a "Source Person". In Mark, "Jesus" walks on water - "They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost...". SO MUCH IN THIS ONE SENTENCE! This doesn't appear (...to me...) to be a "simple miracle story". Then, Matthew picks up the Story:

[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."

"...IF IT IS YOU..."!?!! This is one teeny-tiny fragment in an ocean of fragments imply (...to me...) that there is something else going on. This Story comes from a Source and it is easier to follow if you accept that: "From the fact that there the "Jesus stories" are written from Sources, it does not follow that the Source Stories were written about "Jesus". We could disagree about everything here from full-scale Apologetix to simply a different POV. Each and every one (almost) of these views may be made complete and consistent. We can ask for no more except to ask for a Reality that allows these Systems to exist. Space Aliens won't work. A "Jesus" who "suddenly" appears and "Therefore always existed and by whom all was created" has so many Logic problems it'll make your head hurt. The world's greatest Time Warp Tale. Nonetheless, this World View is seen by many as OK.

Onto Mark and John. There is at least one Thread on this Site that asks if John was written as a refutation of Mark. I do not know if I can go that far. I could even see John as written simultaneously or within a few weeks/months of Mark. John uses the same Source/Sources as Mark (See Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities). John has a different World View than Mark. The Synoptics have a different "Day of Preparation" than John and that one difference is HUGE to the understanding of the NT. Here, I have the Apologetix, seeing no contradiction AT ALL since they describe Two different Stories.

Which leads to Peter's Denial. Like the Empty Tomb, the descriptions given may lead to Contradiction if taken at face value. If taken as descriptions from another Story that has been rewritten, it is possible to re-construct a PLAUSIBLE Story that leaves no Contradictions. NOTE: If you believe that the story given is already without contradiction then go for it, be my guest. It all happened at the High Priest's house, in his front yard. No problem.

If you can accept that "Peter" is from a Story written long before any "Jesus" appearance, then you must look for the supporting Story. Peter is from a Priestly Group ("Immer", as it turns out) and in the Original, he is around the Temple area, for some reason. There is a place where people sit and stand that is Priestly in nature and where people there warm themselves at a common fire:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... literature Edit: See 3rd diagram and Chamber of the Hearth portion.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of (See: "Priestly Guard")

In order for Peter to get into the area where people must stand, he must first get to the area where people may sit. Thus, Mark is telling of the "People may sit" part. This would be first (Not in Authorship but in the telling the Story). John is not repudiating Mark, he is adding to the understanding of the Story, which is a Jewish Priestly Story. Together, the two fragments complete the Tableau surrounding the PRIESTLY conditions. With either/or, you get only part of the Story. Even with BOTH, you lose the entirety of the Priestly Motif.

BTW, Peter gets into the Sacred Area, establishing his credentials. He is probably a child in this Scene, the son of a Priest.

Two things that gum this thing up: You-Know-Who and "Simon Peter". BTW, if we place Mark first in the two passages, does it make sense?

Mk 14:

[53]And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

[66]And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
[71] But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."
[72] And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.

John 18

[25]Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.
John has Peter standing by the door to the courtyard. He then enters and is questioned by the maid. After this he goes to stand by the fire with the servants and officers. Peter is then questioned by a group and then by a servant. All this happens while he is standing by the fire.

The order in Mark is Peter enters the courtyard and sits with the guards round the fire. He is questioned by a maid. He then moves to the gateway. It is implied to stand with “bystanders”. The maid points him out to the bystanders. Then the bystanders question him.
No contradiction. You are certainly allowed to stand in the "Chamber of the Hearth". You must, however, stand while you are in the Chamber of the Flames and the door is, by implication, frequently opened and closed. You may also warm yourself by the same fire if you are inside the Chamber of the Flames. Taken together, these ideas point to another explanation of Peter's Denial. It is not the denial that is important. It is the fact that, in spite of all the "Hiding", Mark and John together tell of Real Place, a place separate from the savior/god piece.
I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful
I disagree with this.

Matthew 26: 73 (RSV):

[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

This is absolutely exquisite. Peter is identified by his accent. "I'll have a Co'Cola". "I'll have a soda". "I'll have a pop". By their signs you shall know them. Peter Sellers could pull off a role as "President Muffley Merkin" in Dr. Strangelove but in real life, it's difficult. As J L Austin once said, "Deception rides on the back of non-deception". One more:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Is this "as it appears"? I don't think so. I believe that it points of the Original Story.
There does not seem to be much agreement (three sets of questions and the denials). Peter at the door or standing in the gateway takes place at different times. He is by the fire at different times. Therefore what criteria do you use to select which bits form Mark and which bits from John to include in your source?
There is not much agreement if, as in the Empty Tomb, you read the variations as telling the same story. What is needed is to look at the Story as a unified whole. The Empty Tomb may be ordered into a story without contradiction *IF* you use the sun an as "Objective Measure" to order the comings and goings of the people and the events. This works even if you think that Joe Atwill is a horrible person.

So you believe that everything is OK with Peter's Denial as is? S'OK by me.

If you are hit over the head with constant reminders that "Little things keep appearing" that do not make sense concerning a savior/god who appears suddenly on the scene then perhaps a different look may generate an understanding that covers all of the facts with a consistent System. Andrew Criddle does not want to go this far. You, Michael, have voiced objections in the past. That's all OK.

Sometimes, however, as when Peter sits at a door in the Synoptics yet stands in John, you find a situation that points to something in the Judaic Culture - RILLY points to something other than a savior/god story - and you follow it and leads you once again to the idea that something was taken and rewritten for another purpose..

Thanx, and much more if necessary,

CW

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Michael BG » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:15 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:58 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:41 am
I think you need to compare John and Mark if as it appears you think there is a common source used by both. I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful. Also you should compare the whole of the story.
Thank you, MBG. As is obvious, I am a "Source Person". In Mark, "Jesus" walks on water - "They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost...". SO MUCH IN THIS ONE SENTENCE! This doesn't appear (...to me...) to be a "simple miracle story". Then, Matthew picks up the Story:

[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."

"...IF IT IS YOU..."!?!! This is one teeny-tiny fragment in an ocean of fragments imply (...to me...) that there is something else going on. This Story comes from a Source and it is easier to follow if you accept that:
I asked a simple question, but I didn’t get an answer.

Are you saying that hidden in the gospel is a source which all of them had access to, but none of then used in a methodologically manner but picked different sentences from the source and it is only if we pick different sentences from the four gospels can we see this hidden source?
Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:58 pm
Onto Mark and John. … I could even see John as written simultaneously or within a few weeks/months of Mark. John uses the same Source/Sources as Mark (See Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities). John has a different World View than Mark. The Synoptics have a different "Day of Preparation" than John and that one difference is HUGE to the understanding of the NT. Here, I have the Apologetix, seeing no contradiction AT ALL since they describe Two different Stories.

Which leads to Peter's Denial. Like the Empty Tomb, the descriptions given may lead to Contradiction if taken at face value. If taken as descriptions from another Story that has been rewritten, it is possible to re-construct a PLAUSIBLE Story that leaves no Contradictions. NOTE: If you believe that the story given is already without contradiction then go for it, be my guest. It all happened at the High Priest's house, in his front yard. No problem.

If you can accept that "Peter" is from a Story written long before any "Jesus" appearance, then you must look for the supporting Story. Peter is from a Priestly Group ("Immer", as it turns out) and in the Original, he is around the Temple area, for some reason. There is a place where people sit and stand that is Priestly in nature and where people there warm themselves at a common fire:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... literature Edit: See 3rd diagram and Chamber of the Hearth portion.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of (See: "Priestly Guard")

In order for Peter to get into the area where people must stand, he must first get to the area where people may sit. Thus, Mark is telling of the "People may sit" part. This would be first (Not in Authorship but in the telling the Story). John is not repudiating Mark, he is adding to the understanding of the Story, which is a Jewish Priestly Story. Together, the two fragments complete the Tableau surrounding the PRIESTLY conditions. With either/or, you get only part of the Story. Even with BOTH, you lose the entirety of the Priestly Motif.

BTW, Peter gets into the Sacred Area, establishing his credentials. He is probably a child in this Scene, the son of a Priest.

Two things that gum this thing up: You-Know-Who and "Simon Peter". BTW, if we place Mark first in the two passages, does it make sense?

Mk 14:

[53]And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

[66]And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
[71] But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."
[72] And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.


John 18

[25]Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
[27] Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.
I have done what I asked you to do and crossed out those bits which I think you think are not part of the source. How did I do?

I think the story would be better with Mark’s ending than John’s

And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.

This story jumps from Mark to John. Why have you deleted this part of John? -

[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."

[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Restoring this above what you have as John would provide the missing link between Mark and John. I think the maid shouldn't be included here.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The gospel of John an independent witness?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:46 am

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:15 am
Are you saying that hidden in the gospel is a source which all of them had access to, but none of then used in a methodologically manner but picked different sentences from the source and it is only if we pick different sentences from the four gospels can we see this hidden source?
I'm probably going to break this up into multiple responses.
Very nice cancellations here, MBG. But first...:

On the subject of Sources, the question is "How much is hidden?" Josephus hides things. The Jannaeus material (esp. with Demetrius Eucerus) is very hidden. Other support material includes Tacitus, Suetonius and the rest.

As to the NT, what do we have? The Stories in the NT - and the savior/god "Jesus". "Jesus" really messes things up. Remember, however, "Existence is not a Predicate". So many of my problems with this Site start with whether "Jesus existed". I simply do not believe that "Jesus" existed as a person, whether portrayed as an itinerant preacher or as a full blown savior/god. The Pauline material - "If you believe it as I gave it to you..." - further places a Logical Barrier between seeing what is there and believing what the savior/god "tells" you.

What then remains? The Stories of the NT. If we strip away the Metaphysics of the savior/god, is there anything left? I believe that answer is "Yes". It is not hidden. You have to make decisions as to what "Works" and what doesn't. I started with early Mark:

1. "We know who you are, you are God's Holy one..." Reading with a different Intentionality allows you to see a different possibility: The "demon" knows "Jesus" because he was seen before, not as a savior/god but as a real person.

2. Mark 4: 38 (RSV):

[38] But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?"

How RUDE!!! Don't they know that the Son of God needs his nap? He's asleep in the STERN of a boat! "Do you not CARE if we perish?"

Matthew 8: 24 - 25 (RSV):

[24] And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep.
[25] And they went and woke him, saying, "Save, Lord; we are perishing."

What is lost by Matthew excluding what Fr. Fitzmeyer called "Unessential detail..."? Almost everything, I contend. Matthew hides what is in plain sight in Mark. Again, a different Intentionality implies that this is from something else.

So, yes, in a way things are "hidden". There was no "Boat" that every one piled into to get around the Sea of Galilee like a taxi service. Perhaps this is the "Level of Allegory" that Andrew will not accept. Not many others here will try to look at it as I try to do.

What we have are the Stories with a few support documents from Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and a very few more. I contend that there WAS a Set of Source Documents but what we have left are the Stories of the NT.
Are you saying that hidden in the gospel is a source which all of them had access to...but picked different sentences from the source...?
Yes.
but none of then used in a methodologically manner...
That is the problem, the great tension between Mark and John. The Mark we have today shows several layers (to me...) of "Methodology" as does John! "Was Mark a play?" "Can we find the S-ource, the R-edactor, etc., in John as Teeple suggests?" I certainly think Mark "methodologically" wrote the book. John certainly answers and adds to Mark in a highly "methodological manner". Was the intention for this in the "Originals". That's for Skollers far more versed in this than I am.
but picked different sentences from the source and it is only if we pick different sentences from the four gospels can we see this hidden source?
Yes. Used wisely. You can't have, as I used to hear (as a joke) decades ago: "And Nebuchadnezzar went out and ate grass". "Go thou and do likewise..." You have to look back and see if there is something that related to the Culture of the times. The Hasmoneans. The Priesthood. Not just "Messianic Judaism" that promised a Messiah...", important as that was.

It's there and it's not hidden. Someone knew something and they left the clues there, if only someone would look.

Next up: Creating the Plausible Story, MBG, as you have started.

CW

Post Reply