The Gospel of John

[Adam]

I hope I've misread this because my excitement over our conversation just came to a grinding halt. The above is absolutely absurd.
The 11th Chapter of Luke and corresponding Matthew is considered by all reputable proponents of Q to be Q. See here for starters. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html. The same can be said for the majority of Chapter 12 and significant portions of Chapters 13 and 14.
I have, perhaps erroneously assumed you were arguing from credible work with respect to Q and ur-Marcus. If you want to argue early dates from hypothetical texts and theories, that’s fine with me as long as you stick to accepted, established works or at a minimum clearly state your reasons for departure prior to citing. This make it up as we go along ‘Q’-theory reduces what should be a serious, interesting discussion to intellectual flatulence.
What exactly does Prodigal Son not appearing in Matthew prove? Other than it is probably spurious and a huge ‘red herring’ within our discussion.

How's that?
I hope you're not of the conning clergyman school of argument, the "Case for this weak, pound pulpit to strengthen acceptance by congregation" type. I should have omitted the word "usually" or qualified it by limiting it to "best scholars", however.
I have marked in my NJB as Lukan most of 9:51-10:24; 10:29-42; 11:5-8; 11:24-28; 11:49-51; 12:35-46; 13:31-14:14; 14:28-33; 15:8-16:31; 17:7-21; 17:22-37; 18:1-14; 19:1-10. I have italicized the sections that I say originated in Luke and were copied into Matthew, so you and most others would (in error) call them Q. By your count, I don't quite reach the "most" criteria, but by my method I do lay honest claim that "most" of 9:51 to 19:10 is Lucan (outweighing not just the true Q, but also Marcan material).
I hope I will receive an apology. Not that you cannot continue to hold your opinion that "most" is an exaggeration, but I do expect you will grant that by my brand of scholarship (@Boismard and Benoit), I am entitled to make my claim legitimately. I thought I had made clear and that you understood that Isome of the best scholarship finds non-Q material in Matthew that came in by way of Luke. (In addition there are some passages in Luke 9:51-19:10 that do not appear in Matthew that I nevertheless refrained from listing because I acknowledge they are truly Q because they are found in the Gospel of Thomas 11:52-54; 12:16-21, and a few other verses.)
Adam

[Christian2]

Adam and Modalist,

Zechariah who?

I believe that the Zechariah mentioned in Matthew 23 and Luke 11 is the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles and not a prophecy of a future event. Here is how I came to that conclusion step by step.

1. This is not a prophecy of the Zechariah who was killed right before the fall of Jerusalem because the tense in wrong is the Scripture:

35 so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Murdered is past tense.

2. Modalist's thought: "If this were the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles too much of Judah’s history of rejecting prophets is omitted. The logical choice is obviously Zechariah son of Barachiah."

I remembered that the Jews have a different order for the books of the Old Testament. Looking at my Tanakh I found the last book in the Old Testament to be 2 Chronicles.

3. I googled "Last prophet in the Old Testament" and this is what I got:

Since the Jews traditionally placed the book of Chronicles in the Hagiographa, another statement of Jesus alludes to the three sections of the completed canon. He said in Luke 11:50-51 (also in Matthew 23:35), “. . .in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house {of God;} yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” The Zechariah referred to is certainly the one in 2 Chronicles 24:21, and this is significant because His statement is, in a sense, referring to the first part of the three sections (Genesis) and to the last (Chronicles), implying the inclusion of the second section as well. Christ’s point also is in His mentioning the prophets, for “. . . prophecy, as the Jews knew well, had virtually ended with the composition of the latest book of Holy Scripture. . .,” which was the book of 2 Chronicles, written about 400 BC. Source: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=690

From another source: http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC40023.HTM

Clip:

Observe, 1. The extent of this imputation; it takes in all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, that is, the blood shed for righteousness' sake, which has all been laid up in God's treasury, and not a drop of it lost, for it is precious. Ps. lxxii. 14. He dates the account from the blood of righteous Abel, thence this æra martyrum--age of martyrs--commences; he is called righteous Abel, for he obtained witness from heaven, that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. How early did martyrdom come into the world! The first that died, died for his religion, and, being dead, he yet speaketh. His blood not only cried against Cain, but continues to cry against all that walk in the way of Cain, and hate and persecute their brother, because their works are righteous. He extends it to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias (v. 36), not Zecharias the prophet (as some would have it), though he was the son of Barachias (Zech. i. 1.) nor Zecharias the father of John Baptist, as others say; but, as is most probable, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who was slain in the court of the Lord's house, 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21. His father is called Barachias, which signifies much the same with Jehoiada; and it was usual among the Jews for the same person to have two names; whom ye slew, ye of this nation, though not of this generation. This is specified, because the requiring of that is particularly spoken of (2 Chron. xxiv. 22), as that of Abel's is. The Jews imagined that the captivity had sufficiently atoned for the guilt; but Christ lets them know that it was not yet fully accounted for, but remained upon the score.

In addition to the above, this article says something I do not believe to be correct.

And some think that this is mentioned with a prophetical hint, for there was one Zecharias, the son of Baruch, whom Josephus speaks of (War 4. 335), who was a just and good man, who was killed in the temple a little before it was destroyed by the Romans. Archbishop Tillotson thinks that Christ both alludes to the history of the former Zecharias in Chronicles, and foretels the death of this latter in Josephus. Though the latter was not yet slain, yet, before this destruction comes, it would be true that they had slain him; so that all shall be put together from first to last.

In my opinion a prophecy is pushing it too far. As I pointed out above, the tense is wrong in the Scriptures.

C2

[Christian2]

Modalist,

Let's get back to the ending of the Gospel of John. This is the history of the discussion so far.

From Modalist:

Regarding the Muratorian Canon.

"On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind."

They?

When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us."

It was revealed to Andrew that John should narrate, but the effort was most certainly a group effort.

Christian2's Question:

Does the following scripture now make sense?

Quote:

John 21:24, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

Modalist's reply:

It would indeed if the 24th Chapter (corrected to the 21st Chapter) of John were not a obvious forgery. Don’t get me wrong, John is still infinitely more reliable than Matthew and Luke and somewhat more reliable than Mark but consider it carefully.

A forgery? Are you sure you wanted to use this word? A forgery implies a fraud or deceit. How can you say that the 21st Chapter of John was forged when you said that the Gospel of John was a group effort?

Let me explain my train of thought. Let's say that Andrew and a couple of other disciples got together with John and agreed upon the content of this gospel. Let's say that John died or was so ill that he was unable to completely get it down on paper and suppose that Andrew and the other disciples finished it for him. Would you still consider it a forgery? Would you lose faith in the ending of the Gospel for that reason?

From Adam:

Modalist, you meant the "21st Chapter of John", I must assume.
Yes, questions have been raised about verses like that, but the old idea has been dismissed that John 21 was a later appendix by a different author. The style is so like the rest of the fourth gospel that scholars use that fact to argue for the literary unity of the whole book by one author. All this proves in reality is that the author(s) of John 21 were also involved in the writing of the other 20 chapters. In my explanation, the Apostle John was the Editor of most of John and dispersed his style there, and he was also one of the two authors of John 21. Your preference for John over the Synoptics reverses the old consensus, but should not be pushed too far. The archaeological and chronological details of John do seem to be excellent. What do you object to in Luke, the loose geography? Adam

Again from Modalist:

For starters Tertullian said "And wherefore does this conclusion of the gospel affirm that these things were written unless it is that you might believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?", that hardly describes the XXl ending but describes perfectly the closing of XX. Clearly XXl was not around in Tertullian’s day 150-200.

How can you jump to this conclusion? According to historian, NT Wright, "no manuscript gives any hint that there was ever a copy of the gospel circulating without it. (verified by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) Up until the final two verses of the chapter, it looks as though the author is the same as for the rest of the gospel. Indeed, verse 23 looks like a kind of personal signature, perhaps written (if the author of the gospel and the beloved disciple are really the same person) when the author was close to death, or, if the beloved disciple was not the author, by the author around the time of the beloved disciple's death. Certainly this verse warns against supposing that Jesus intended to return before the beloved disciple had died, an idea which had somehow taken root in the church."

Let's look at this quote from Tertullian again: "And wherefore does this conclusion of the gospel affirm that these things were written unless it is that you might believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?"

The conclusion of John's whole gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Why jump to the conclusion that Tertullian was referring to the ending of chapter 20 and not to the conclusion of the whole Gospel? If Tertullian was referring or quoting the conclusion of chapter 20, then why did he not include the whole thought? "and that believing you may have life in His name" which is a very profound and vital message?

From Modalist:

Take note of the last two verses; the point of view changes and refers to the author in the third person. That in itself is sufficient to cast doubt on the authenticity-"we know what he says is true" clearly indicates the author of the previous chapter(s) last chapter was not was not present at the penning of XXl. Probably because he had been dead for nealy 100 years.

See above.

Too bad that P52 was not from John, chapter 21. You use P52 to date John's gospel. We cannot say with any certainty—not the kind of certainty that you proclaim—that if John's whole Gospel had been found instead of a fragment, that chapter 21 would not have been there.

C2

[Christian2]

Modalist,

Where do we go from here?

C2

[Modalist]

Whereever you wish C2.

But, I'm not quite finished here. I owe Adam a response or an apology, I haven't decided just yet. Presently I'm attempting to familiarize myself with work he (Adam) cited so I can respond and appear at least moderately intelligent/informed. Shouldn't be too much longer.

[Christian2]

Modalist,

But, I'm not quite finished here. I owe Adam a response or an apology, I haven't decided just yet. Presently I'm attempting to familiarize myself with work he (Adam) cited so I can respond and appear at least moderately intelligent/informed. Shouldn't be too much longer.

OK, good.

C2

[Modalist]

Adam,

I hope you're not of the conning clergyman school of argument, the "Case for this weak, pound pulpit to strengthen acceptance by congregation" type. I should have omitted the word "usually" or qualified it by limiting it to "best scholars", however.

Fear not. I’m not clergy of any stripe in spite of my education.

Forgive the tardiness of this response but it has taken some time to familiarize myself with your school of thought, namely Boismard and Benoit,. before returning to the conversation. As I stated earlier, I have reviewed certain of your writings. Perhaps ego or more likely laziness led me to assume certain things about your scholarship, positions and sources for this I apologize without caveat.

I should have omitted the word "usually" or qualified it by limiting it to "best scholars", however.

I wouldn’t challenge the scholarship of B&B but to name it “best” to the exclusion of Throckmorton, Tabor, and Schnelle or even Mascall and Farrer for that matter is premature. It is scholarship, it is interesting and worthwhile but ‘best’ is presumptuous.

I have marked in my NJB as Lukan most of 9:51-10:24; 10:29-42; 11:5-8; 11:24-28; 11:49-51; 12:35-46; 13:31-14:14; 14:28-33; 15:8-16:31; 17:7-21; 17:22-37; 18:1-14; 19:1-10. I have italicized the sections that I say originated in Luke and were copied into Matthew, so you and most others would (in error) call them Q.

I see that. But you undermine your own position. First, The very evidence of existence of Q is supported by the traditional definition of Q- material shared by Matthew and Luke that doesn’t appear in Mark, yet you seem to be quite certain that large portions of this common material originated with Luke’s Gospel. 164 (if my count is correct) verses of some 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke are Lucan, by your reasoning. Essentially you eliminate 70% of the support for Q, yet your case for Luke being early 60”s relies heavily on some source available to Luke at the time of penning, Q being one you suggested. You did manage to saw two legs off the stool supporting Q as an early document.

I think you may have taken two positions with respect to Matthew. “I say originated in Luke and were copied into Matthew” and “In addition, editions of Mark and Matthew much like our current books might have already been written, though Luke himself had no access to them”.emphasis mine

I thought I had made clear and that you understood that Isome of the best scholarship finds non-Q material in Matthew that came in by way of Luke. (In addition there are some passages in Luke 9:51-19:10 that do not appear in Matthew that I nevertheless refrained from listing because I acknowledge they are truly Q because they are found in the Gospel of Thomas 11:52-54; 12:16-21, and a few other verses.)

I think you made this position quite clear but the only evidence for the existence of Q is parallel material found in Luke and Matthew. You cannot have it both ways and declair Non-Q the only evidence that Q ever existed.

Returning to the original discussion

The author of Luke testifies to “many” narratives in existence at the time he put pen to paper or papyrus as it were. The Logia and Q cannot be viewed as narrative even using a very liberal definitions.

You assume Q was devoid of narrative. Wrong. Comparison with the Gospel of Thomas shows Q material is in Mark, most notably the Parable of the Sower. Once see that, and then what many scholars recognize in Mark as the Twelve-Source turns out to be the narrative portions of Q.

On the contrary, had there been a narrative to Q the narrative sequences would certainly be closer between Matthew and Luke. Even more so if Matthew copied Luke as you prefer. Beyond that, how do you reconcile your above statement with 66 verses? Of the 230 odd verses common to Luke and Matthew according to your reckoning 164 are Lucan plagerized by Matthew’s author. Mark contains about 100 verses common with Luke, and 178 common to Matthew. The numbers don’t support your position. Removing what you call Lucan material, the remaining 66 verses in the scriptures and a relative handfull of quotations from Thomas does not prove or even suggest a narrative.

[Adam]

Adam,
Fear not. I’m not clergy of any stripe in spite of my education.
Forgive the tardiness of this response but it has taken some time to familiarize myself with your school of thought, namely Boismard and Benoit,. before returning to the conversation. As I stated earlier, I have reviewed certain of your writings. Perhaps ego or more likely laziness led me to assume certain things about your scholarship, positions and sources for this I apologize without caveat.
Adam had posted:
I have marked in my NJB as Lukan most of 9:51-10:24; 10:29-42; 11:5- 8; 11:24-28; 11:49-51; 12:35-46; 13:31-14:14; 14:28-33; 15:8-16:31; 17:7-21; 17:22-37; 18:1-14; 19:1-10. I have italicized the sections that I say originated in Luke and were copied into Matthew, so you and most others would (in error) call them Q.
Modalist replied:
I see that. But you undermine your own position. First, The very evidence of existence of Q is supported by the traditional definition of Q- material shared by Matthew and Luke that doesn’t appear in Mark, yet you seem to be quite certain that large portions of this common material originated with Luke’s Gospel. 164 (if my count is correct) verses of some 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke are Lucan, by your reasoning. Essentially you eliminate 70% of the support for Q, yet your case for Luke being early 60”s relies heavily on some source available to Luke at the time of penning, Q being one you suggested. You did manage to saw two legs off the stool supporting Q as an early document.

ADAM:
I took a rough count of Burton Mack's Q from Who Wrote the New Testament and counted 260 to 270.
A similar count of Lucan verses copied into Matthew (from my italicized verses in my list) comes to only 24. Somehow you got 164, perhaps from counting the non-italicized verses from my list. These non-italicized verses represent verses found only in Luke--perhaps because I failed to insert Luke at the beginning of my list, you got confused?

I think you may have taken two positions with respect to Matthew. “I say originated in Luke and were copied into Matthew” and “In addition, editions of Mark and Matthew much like our current books might have already been written, though Luke himself had no access to them”.emphasis mine.

ADAM:
Not such a problem as you seem to think. Huge sections of our current Mark are absent in Luke, likely because they were not available to him. That larger Mark (but not yet the final edition we have) became the basis for Matthew, but in the interim it likely became a Matthew that did not include the 24 verses copied directly from Luke.

Adam had posted:
I thought I had made clear and that you understood that some of the best scholarship finds non-Q material in Matthew that came in by way of Luke. (In addition there are some passages in Luke 9:51-19:10 that do not appear in Matthew that I nevertheless refrained from listing because I acknowledge they are truly Q because they are found in the Gospel of Thomas 11:52-54; 12:16-21, and a few other verses.)
Modalist replied:
I think you made this position quite clear, but the only evidence for the existence of Q is parallel material found in Luke and Matthew. You cannot have it both ways and declare Non-Q the only evidence that Q ever existed.

ADAM:
No doubt a good point, but by recognizing complexities I can account for the fact that so many were led on one side to hypothesize Q and that on the other side many still stand pat with borrowings from completed gospels.

Returning to the original discussion
Adam had posted:
The author of Luke testifies to “many” narratives in existence at the time he put pen to paper or papyrus as it were. The Logia and Q cannot be viewed as narrative even using a very liberal definitions.
You assume Q was devoid of narrative. Wrong. Comparison with the Gospel of Thomas shows Q material is in Mark, most notably the Parable of the Sower. Once see that, and then what many scholars recognize in Mark as the Twelve-Source turns out to be the narrative portions of Q.
Modalist replied:
On the contrary, had there been a narrative to Q the narrative sequences would certainly be closer between Matthew and Luke. Even more so if Matthew copied Luke as you prefer. Beyond that, how do you reconcile your above statement with 66 verses? Of the 230 odd verses common to Luke and Matthew according to your reckoning 164 are Lucan plagiarized by Matthew’s author. Mark contains about 100 verses common with Luke, and 178 common to Matthew. The numbers don’t support your position. Removing what you call Lucan material, the remaining 66 verses in the scriptures and a relative handfull of quotations from Thomas does not prove or even suggest a narrative.

ADAM:
Again, good points (except for the repeated wrong count of my numbers), but on my analysis Q narrative filtered through Mark before reaching Matthew. Yes, the latter could have harked back to the original Q, but the original Q was present before him only in Aramaic, whereas the same narrative in Mark was by now in Greek. Which to choose? Which to choose? About the numbers, instead to taking 230 and subtracting 164 to get 66, you need to start with at least 260 and subtract just 24. That gives 236 verses of Q shared by Matthew and Luke. Add to these the Q material in Mark (the Parable of the Sower plus extensive narrative long ago analyzed out by some scholars as the Twelve Source (Sherman Johnson comes to mind, if I recall correctly). Also add certain verses in Luke that are found in The Gospel of Thomas--as stated before, 11:52-54, 12:16-21, etc. So my Twelve-Q is larger than the usual Q, even after subtracting where Matthew "plagiarizes" Luke. (We cannot apply our current concepts of literary dependence, "plagiarism" is not something they would have regarded as wrong.)
My concepts can be tricky to grasp--I'm my own man, and from the "The Emperor has no clothes" school of criticism.
Adam

[shunyadragon]

ADAM:
I took a rough count of Burton Mack's Q from Who Wrote the New Testament and counted 260 to 270.
A similar count of Lucan verses copied into Matthew (from my italicized verses in my list) comes to only 24. Somehow you got 164, perhaps from counting the non-italicized verses from my list. These non-italicized verses represent verses found only in Luke--perhaps because I failed to insert Luke at the beginning of my list, you got confused?

I have mostly been a lurker and learner on this thread for a while after the topic shifted. I am interested in the concept of the existence of Q, which I first learned about reading Miller's 'Complete' Gospels'. I have learned a lot from Adam's posts in a number of threads and you get some pearls. I do have a few comments about this topic that has drifted away from main theme.

(1) I do believe that Q existed as probably an early compilation of earlier written and oral gospel materials, and possibly the first gospel.

(2) I feel the number of verses involved is a very misleading measure to justify the existence of Q. The most important guide would be the continuity and context of the verses that are common to the gospels.

(3) It is best to try and divorce yourself from all presuppositions of what should or should not be true about the history of the gospels and deal with the facts.

[Adam]

[QUOTE=Modalist]Adam,
Forgive the tardiness of this response but it has taken some time to familiarize myself with your school of thought, namely Boismard and Benoit,. before returning to the conversation. As I stated earlier, I have reviewed certain of your writings. Perhaps ego or more likely laziness led me to assume certain things about your scholarship, positions and sources for this I apologize without caveat.
/QUOTE]
(Above from Modalist's Oct. 18 TWeb posting.)
On October 24th Modalist responded as follows to my personal message. He did not follow it up with a public reply. Seven days ago I PMed him that I would use this message if he did not respond within a reasonable time. The TWeb tracking log shows he received my PM, but he did not write me nor respond on this thread. So here's what Modalist said:
"Very generous and I appreciate the offer, but wholly unnecessary. We are friends and shall remain so until compelling reasons dictate otherwise. I enjoy debating you, even while being bested.

Adam, friend, you have won the day. I think you’re wrong, but I have been unable to pierce the reasoning and/or provide a superior interpretation of the data. I plan to say as much in the thread soon. With respect to the current topic, I think we’ve reached an impasse. The burden of proof rested with me as my position is the larger departure from the traditional. Congratulations!

Please feel free to open the discussion as you wish. I assure you we will cross pens again and to quote a (in)famous statesman “I won’t mis-underestimate your strategery again”."
[Modalist, plus a concluding more personal paragraph.]