ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 24, 2009 10:54:05 GMT -8
I have been reading the Book of John. In Jn 1:29 did Jesus come back to where John the Baptist was after His forty days and the temptation or was this the first time Jesus met with John? It appears that in the other gospels, Jesus was tempted immediately after being baptized by John.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 24, 2009 20:19:22 GMT -8
i dont know if you have heard my theory on the other threads i have responded to about the contradictions of John vs the synoptic gospels, but i think it should be repeated:
John was not written for historical accuracy. he was writing what was called a midrash, a fiction story made to teach morals, specualate about meanings of the actual story, or just have laughs through a story. it is based off of a true narrative always.
Yochanon used the pasison narrative for his midrash. He altered some true things like when Yeshua was crucified to convey a theological message: Yeshua was our paschal lamb. but the synoptic gospels record his crucifixion a day [earlier/later?]. things like this occur repettively throughout the gospel of Yochanon.
so yochanon the writer may have been recording a second meetig with Yochanon the immerser but it is most likely that it was just another theological statement of Yochanon the writer.
some other things that tend to lean towards the midrashic interpretaiton of Yochanons gospel is that Yochanon constantly records Yeshua as having a totally different style than the synoptics. instead, Yeshua seems to have used the same style as Yochanon- for Yochanon himself uses contrasting elements like light-dark evil-good son of God- son of HaSatan. etc. Yeshua probably did NOT use this preaching style, but instead, yochanon put the words into Yeshua's mouth for a midrash. note that i dont think that Yochanon was wrong in doing this, but that i think he was introducing a new style of introducing theologial teachings by using Yeshuas story as a storyline for a midrash.
it is repeated throughout the mouths of scholars that yochanon himself was probably a darshan (man who writes midrashim) and/or an early messianic kabbalaist, which explains the repettative kabbalaistic elements in 1 Yochanon and the gospel of Yochanon.
shalom- john
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 24, 2009 21:26:57 GMT -8
Thanks yeshua, I will ponder your view on this.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 25, 2009 9:11:01 GMT -8
no problem. i love sharing the knoweledge i have attained about this. shalom - john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 25, 2009 10:00:26 GMT -8
i dont know if you have heard my theory on the other threads i have responded to about the contradictions of John vs the synoptic gospels, but i think it should be repeated: John was not written for historical accuracy. he was writing what was called a midrash, a fiction story made to teach morals, specualate about meanings of the actual story, or just have laughs through a story. it is based off of a true narrative always. I have some partial disagreement with you, yeshuafreak. Or perhaps it's just a matter of semantics. While I agree that John (Yochanon) didn't stick to a strictly sequential narrative (as you or I might not do either if we were trying to convey the point of a story as opposed to the brute details), I would add that John, nevertheless, is replete with historically accurate detail, in fact, in many cases, even more so that the synoptics. It does, imo, bear the mark of an eyewitness. I also don't think I would characterize anything in John as "fiction". Taking certain liberties with a historical event like shortening dialogue, or putting dialogue into your own words to further explain it, or mentioning events out of sequence doesn't equal "fiction". Perhaps the best book on this subject I have ever read is "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel" by Craig Blomberg. It is super thorough and comments verse by verse throughout the gospel of John, pointing out how it comports with historical accuracy and the synoptics.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 25, 2009 10:13:25 GMT -8
My answer to Ben's question would be along these lines:
Note how John loves the phrase "the next day"? This is his shorthand way of saying some time has passed, imo.
Often when I'm telling a story I simply preface it by saying "the other day" or "the other week". Sometimes Rosemary jumps on me and says, "actually, it was 5 weeks ago" ,etc.. in an attempt to bring more technical historical accuracy to my account. But no one would doubt a personal account just because it actually happened 5 weeks ago rather than 2 weeks ago. What's important is to determine the style in which the speaker/writer is communicating.
None of the gospels is communicated in a modern, absolutely sequential, verbatim quote way of communicating history. Historical accounts of that type weren't even invented yet.
However, some of the gospels are more concerned with accurate chronology (in general, the synoptics) whereas John is more concerned with telling parts of the story that fit his metanarrative/ theses.
So, I don't see any reason why the temptation couldn't have happened between two of John's "next days".
That said, I think the most natural, elegant solution to this apparent discrepancy is to point out that the gospel of John doesn't actually give us a "real time" account of Jesus' baptism. It merely has John the Baptist reflecting on what happened when he did baptism Jesus earlier. So, when you get to this passage:
I don't think John is saying to himself "look, it's the lamb of god" as if he'd never seen Jesus before. In context, it's pretty clear that John is speaking to an audience (probably his disciples or people he was baptising). Jesus walks by (after his temptation) and John says, in effect, to his audience, "see, here's the one I was telling you about!"
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 25, 2009 17:41:22 GMT -8
maybe fiction was the wrong word to use. everything you said i agree with. John has a lot of true things in his gospel. and he definitely added true things as an eyewitness.
however, he did tweak somethings in the story. he made the story a theological expression. why would you need ANOTHER story of Yeshua? the audience it was written for already knew the story and had the other goepls. i think that Yochanon was using the story to teach his theology, not that the story was wrong, but that it had many things tweaked, as in the movement of the date of the crucifixion.
(i do wnat to mention that some scholars beleive that the early church did acutauly believe that the crucifixion took place on passover, and that the current date of that time was wrong. it is believed that that tradition was the source of much controversy in the early church. thsese scholars said that the earlier gospels recorded the crucifixion with the traditional date because converts were not well acquanted with this tradition, while by the time of john- they were, so he wrote it according to the church's tradition).
anyway, but you didnt disagree with what i am saying- just misunderstood it.
sepeakiing of Yochanon though, it is believed that it was the wrok of one author and many editers, and went thoruhg at least five stages of editing before it was completed. this is the most mainstream belief. its called the johanine school, which also attribute the epistles of John to the elder or John of ephesis (who may be the same people), etc. it is a complete disssecting of the works attributed to Yochanon.
shalom- john
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 25, 2009 22:29:58 GMT -8
Thanks you guys, I'm learning just reading your posts.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 27, 2009 13:22:50 GMT -8
no problemo. i love sharing the knoweldge that i have recieved through my gift of studying. God definitely HAD to have a hdnd in that attribute of me, lol. i can sit for hours possible days studying. wich i could study for days. when i am really into a study i am annoyd becaus i have to go to sleep and eat. but then i have to balance the study out with some application in every day life.
shalom- john
|
|