Thanks to both Neil and Greg, I am going to read Le document 70 by Robert Stahl.
Interesting the list of clues supporting Johannine priority over the Synoptics.
Interesting also the idea that "John the Baptist" was the real author of the original book of Revelation.
According to Stahl, it was just the importance of the Baptizer as author of Revelation to move "John" (author of proto-John) to make Jesus his contemporary, by placing his invented biography under Pilate.
Hence, it seems that Stahl concedes the traditional Josephian date for John the Baptist.
I wonder here if Doudna is on something about a confusion between the Josephian "John the Baptist" (= really, the misplaced Qumranic Teacher) and the real author of Book of Revelation (=John of Gischala and his priests).
Afterall, the "Document 70" (the original anti-Roman Book of Revelation) was composed, according to Stahl, in the 70 CE.
Another suggestive clue: both Acts and proto-John have as accuser (resp. of the disciples and of Jesus) Annas/Ananias/Ananus and not Kaiphas.
I wonder if the Josephian Ananus matters here, since he is said to have executed a James brother of Jesus. Beyond the interpolation question, it seems that a tradition connecting Ananus with a trial of Christ/Christians was very old (even if it moved a late interpolator to introduce "called Christ" in Ant. 20:200). Ananus was famous as anti-Zealot priest just before the first Jewish revolt.
The enigma Pilate is left unresolved by Stahl. Even so, I insist, I feel that he is on something about the connection John the Baptist/dating of Jesus under Pilate.
R. Stahl: Document 70
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: R. Stahl: Document 70
The book is now in the public domain so I can attach it here. It is only 63 pages:
(I am thinking of adding a machine translation into English on my blog.)
(I am thinking of adding a machine translation into English on my blog.)
Re: R. Stahl: Document 70
John 1:26:
The Fourth Gospel preserves, by correcting it, a tradition of John the Baptist prophet of the coming Messiah alone, since the reference to "baptism by fire" is removed. But then, when such reference to coming fire is introduced again in the Synoptics, it appears removed from the original context, by figuring now irrationally as prophecy of the Synoptic Jesus and not more of the coming Messiah (in the glory).
This appears to be part of the evidence of a late Christian interest to distance the original John from the anti-Roman book of Revelation of which he (or one of the his disciples) was the author.
John told them, 'I baptize with water, but right here in the crowd is someone you do not recognize
The Fourth Gospel preserves, by correcting it, a tradition of John the Baptist prophet of the coming Messiah alone, since the reference to "baptism by fire" is removed. But then, when such reference to coming fire is introduced again in the Synoptics, it appears removed from the original context, by figuring now irrationally as prophecy of the Synoptic Jesus and not more of the coming Messiah (in the glory).
This appears to be part of the evidence of a late Christian interest to distance the original John from the anti-Roman book of Revelation of which he (or one of the his disciples) was the author.
Re: R. Stahl: Document 70
Interesting the take of Stahl on Paul: the Saul of Acts is historical but not the author of the epistles.
The historical Paul would be a Pharisee before enemy then converted to Zealot messianism.
The historical Paul would be a Pharisee before enemy then converted to Zealot messianism.
Re: R. Stahl: Document 70
Interesting the anomaly signaled by Stahl and found in the traditional paradigm :
- A pre-70 Jesus (beyond if real or invented), hence a first dissociation of the messiah in two (before and after the death).
- A Jesus from 70 in Book of Revelation, hence a second dissociation of the messiah in two (before and after the death).
- The first Jesus' tradition co-opted the second Jesus' tradition.
Re: R. Stahl: Document 70
Interesting this sequence of events:
The sense of Rev 12 is therefore that the Messiah is just born in 70 CE. How can he be already an adult by that time?
- In Revelation 12, the Dragon is before expelled from heaven and only after, on the earth, masked as Roman army, persecutes the future Messiah and his mother. In the 70 CE.
- In proto-John 12, some Greeks approach Jesus, then Satan is expelled from heaven (verse 31) and only after Satan plots against Jesus via Judah's betrayal.
- In the Synoptics, the sense of the expulsion of Satan from heaven and his relation of cause-effect with the Jesus' death are lost forever.
The sense of Rev 12 is therefore that the Messiah is just born in 70 CE. How can he be already an adult by that time?