JD: The Synoptic Gospels
Claude Goldsmid Montefiore says here, "not one student in 1000 will look up J.J Griesbach's book"
Here's a quote... I'm not sure whether this comes in original English from Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, or if it comes Montefiore quoting J.J Griesbach in Latin.
"It will, therefore be noticed that of the four Gospels, this book only includes three. The fourth, the Gospel of John, is omitted. The reason is that whilst the first three Gospels treat their subject from this common point-of-view and arrangement. The fourth is different in both. It has a different conception of Jesus, and tells in many respects a different history.
The words which it puts into Jesus's mouth are peculiar and special. Moreover, this fourth Gospel is less historic than the first three. It gives an interpretation of the person, and work of Jesus rather than a record of his words and deeds. Notable, great, and important as this Gospel is, it can, and indeed must--be studied by itself, and not together or in conjuction with the first, theallied, three. Therefore it forms no part of the present more limited undertaking. For that undertaking, though limited, is yet sufficiently and more than sufficiently, arduous, intricate, and obscure."
I think that this text HINTS at what I'm saying. But perhaps the author here had too much to lose by saying what he really thinks. But it strongly suggests that the author feels that I do that John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said. He also views the synoptic gospels as being "allied" which strongly implies that John's gospel is against them.
I would say that this is strong evidence that I am not "the first to notice this". But perhaps nobody has yet written a text to highlight the "peculiarness and specialness" of the words John puts into Jesus' mouth.
Claude Goldsmid Montefiore says here, "not one student in 1000 will look up J.J Griesbach's book"
Here's a quote... I'm not sure whether this comes in original English from Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, or if it comes Montefiore quoting J.J Griesbach in Latin.
"It will, therefore be noticed that of the four Gospels, this book only includes three. The fourth, the Gospel of John, is omitted. The reason is that whilst the first three Gospels treat their subject from this common point-of-view and arrangement. The fourth is different in both. It has a different conception of Jesus, and tells in many respects a different history.
The words which it puts into Jesus's mouth are peculiar and special. Moreover, this fourth Gospel is less historic than the first three. It gives an interpretation of the person, and work of Jesus rather than a record of his words and deeds. Notable, great, and important as this Gospel is, it can, and indeed must--be studied by itself, and not together or in conjuction with the first, theallied, three. Therefore it forms no part of the present more limited undertaking. For that undertaking, though limited, is yet sufficiently and more than sufficiently, arduous, intricate, and obscure."
I think that this text HINTS at what I'm saying. But perhaps the author here had too much to lose by saying what he really thinks. But it strongly suggests that the author feels that I do that John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said. He also views the synoptic gospels as being "allied" which strongly implies that John's gospel is against them.
I would say that this is strong evidence that I am not "the first to notice this". But perhaps nobody has yet written a text to highlight the "peculiarness and specialness" of the words John puts into Jesus' mouth.
KL: John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said.
Well sure, nobody was tape recording any actual Jesus. EVERYBODY who tells the story puts words in this character's mouth. That is the job of the story teller.
JD
Indeed. Everyone "puts words into Jesus mouth"
But sometimes, a story-teller can be notable for what they leave out.
Verse 13 is notable here: Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library
John 4:40-42 is also notable, how people believed in Jesus for what he said, but none of what he said is recorded by John.
Finally, before Jesus went to be crucified, he stayed up all night in prayer. Matthew, Mark, and Luke report that everyone fell asleep. John somehow recalls the entire prayer.
Matthew 26:40
Mark 14:37
Luke 22:45
John 17
So it's a central question--who was putting words into Jesus' mouth? Who was reporting accurately what Jesus said? Of course we have nothing to go on, except one thing... In the context of Jewish Law at the time, which all of the disciples and people at the time were acutely aware of, I think. The testimony of two or more witnesses was confirmed. The testimony of a single witness was generally to be discounted.
John loves to play with this idea. For instance, when the Pharisees question him, he says "I testify with my father" so he invokes a second unseen witness. And then when someone with a spear stabs Jesus' body after he dies, he makes a point of saying "There was one witness, so we know his testimony is true." (John 19:35)
In John 6:9 it is not Jesus but Simon Peter who says "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?” In the other gospels, the disciples share their own food, and grumble about it. But they do not take the food from a passing boy.
In either case, the story of the feeding of 5000 probably had more to do with getting people to share than performing an impossible miracle--however, John viewed it as taking food from a boy. Matthew, Mark, and Luke viewed it as sharing their own food.
All we have is eye-witness testimony, and everyone in modern day knows that eye-witness testimony is unreliable. But in Jewish Law, the testimony of two or more witnesses was generally accepted. The testimony of a single witness was largely ignored.
See by searching for the word "testimony" and you will see that this principle of two or more witnesses was acknowledged and embraced by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but it was flagrantly mocked by John.
BibleGateway - : testimony
But sometimes, a story-teller can be notable for what they leave out.
Verse 13 is notable here: Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library
John 4:40-42 is also notable, how people believed in Jesus for what he said, but none of what he said is recorded by John.
Finally, before Jesus went to be crucified, he stayed up all night in prayer. Matthew, Mark, and Luke report that everyone fell asleep. John somehow recalls the entire prayer.
Matthew 26:40
Mark 14:37
Luke 22:45
John 17
So it's a central question--who was putting words into Jesus' mouth? Who was reporting accurately what Jesus said? Of course we have nothing to go on, except one thing... In the context of Jewish Law at the time, which all of the disciples and people at the time were acutely aware of, I think. The testimony of two or more witnesses was confirmed. The testimony of a single witness was generally to be discounted.
John loves to play with this idea. For instance, when the Pharisees question him, he says "I testify with my father" so he invokes a second unseen witness. And then when someone with a spear stabs Jesus' body after he dies, he makes a point of saying "There was one witness, so we know his testimony is true." (John 19:35)
In John 6:9 it is not Jesus but Simon Peter who says "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?” In the other gospels, the disciples share their own food, and grumble about it. But they do not take the food from a passing boy.
In either case, the story of the feeding of 5000 probably had more to do with getting people to share than performing an impossible miracle--however, John viewed it as taking food from a boy. Matthew, Mark, and Luke viewed it as sharing their own food.
All we have is eye-witness testimony, and everyone in modern day knows that eye-witness testimony is unreliable. But in Jewish Law, the testimony of two or more witnesses was generally accepted. The testimony of a single witness was largely ignored.
See by searching for the word "testimony" and you will see that this principle of two or more witnesses was acknowledged and embraced by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but it was flagrantly mocked by John.
BibleGateway - : testimony
No comments:
Post a Comment