Re: The Climax of DOXA

From: Ben Crick (ben.crick@argonet.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 30 1998 - 15:31:32 EST


On Sun 29 Mar 98 (22:52:09), George <dalmatia@eburg.com> wrote:

> This question is probably way off purpose on this list. The 1:14 'we'
> could be attributed to the contemporaries of Christ who did indeed see
> him in the flesh. The last one could not, and I would be very
> surprised if it were in fact an editorial we. The possibility that
> this passage was added on should not be overlooked.

 Dear George,

 Chapter 21 is just possibly not Johannine; and the "we" of OIDAMEN (24) is
 not necessarily the same as the "I" of 25. Verse 25 is omitted by the MS
 Aleph. At any rate, "we know..." is far more positive than "I suppose...".
 If Streeter is right, then "This is the disciple..." means Peter; and Mark
 is the amanuensis of the semi-literate Peter (Acts 4:13). So OIDAMEN... is
 Peter speaking for the Early Church; OIMAI... is Peter expressing his own
 private opinion. Bengel says of OIMAI "the Singular number shows that John
 wrote this verse" (/Gnomon/, ET, vol 2 p 509). On OIDAMEN, Bengel writes
 "John himself may have prescribed this clause to the Church, which
 accordingly would, with no unwillingness, read it in public, and acknowledge
 it as obligatory with believing assent. But if the Church has added this,
 it does not derogate from the authority of the work, any more than that
 little verse which Tertius interwove with the Epistle to the Romans..."
 (p 508). (Romans 16:22).

>╩The other matter, the authorship of this work, is perhaps more
>╩appropriately discussable. "The disciple whom Jesus loved..." seems
>╩so obviously to me to be Lazarus that when I read a commentary review
>╩of scholarship opinion on it, I was stunned to find that it is just
>╩not generally accepted. I have no problem at all with the idea that
>╩he may have 'become' John in name, but the obviousness to me that
>╩Lazarus wrote 'John" leaves me greatly puzzled that there could even
>╩be another view.

 The suggestion that Lazarus of Bethany wrote John has never been seriously
 entertained. It seems to be based on John 11:3, "he whom thou lovest is sick";
 so Lazarus is "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Hmmm. Jesus loved all of his
 disciples (John 13:1). Of all his beloved disciples, John of Zebedee is the
 only one *not mentioned by name* in the 4th Gospel; Lazarus is mentioned by
 name 11 times. The Raising of Lazarus was a nine-day wonder (John 12:1-2,
 9-11, 17). After that, he is no more heard of again at all. His resuscitation
 from the dead (only to die again) was totally upstaged by the Resurrection of
 Jesus Christ from the dead (to live for evermore) only a week later.

 Whoever wrote John was responsible for the whole Johannine corpus; if "John"
 is late, then Lazarus of Bethany would be far too old a man to do it. The
 author of the Johannine corpus was an eyewitness of all the events, not just
 of the events at Bethany (Acts 1:21-22; 1 John 1:1-3; Revelation 22:8).

 This List is not the place to do a review of the evidence for and against
 the Apostolic authorship of John; so if you wish to take this further
 perhaps perhaps we could do so by private Email. 8-)

 Cheers,
 Ben

-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
 http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:20 EDT