John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

The Jubilee is an act of favor, but it is also a matter of *duty* per Torah as a covenant.

True but do you see where they're coming from in seeing allusions to words/phrasing from Isaiah 61:1-2 throughout the text, culminating near the end with a direct quotation of Isaiah 61:2?

 

[dybmh]

@Vouthon, the relevance perhaps in this is to put the two sources in their appropriate context,

If I recall, ( this is from memory ) The book of enoch and the scroll of MelchiTzedek are not only talking about two separate events, but they occur in two different places. So the specifics of what *type* of "year" it was helps to differentiate the two.

 

[dybmh]

True but do you see where they're coming from in seeing allusions to words/phrasing from Isaiah 61:1-2 throughout the text, culminating near the end with a direct quotation of Isaiah 61:2?

I do.

 

[dybmh]

@Vouthon ,

Here's the punchline

If the scroll is describing a ritual in hell involving the souls of sinners, then whether or not they prostrate to and and/or offer prayers to a mediator is irrelevant. Their behavior is not a role-model. So the behavior cannot be shown as evidence of mediation in the manner needed in this debate.

So that leaves the book of Enoch, but there's no Hebrew version of it, so there's no way to do scriptural text replacement from it. Not to mention other inconsistencies in the text even if we rely completely on the English text as if it's a 100% perfect rendering. Example: If I recall, the text references "The Messiah" as a distinct individual in addition to Son of Man, and all the other titles offered in chapter 48.

Add that to the refutation based on the definition of the four letter name, and the theory that there is a dual/multi/simultaneous G-d in Judaism becomes wafer thin.

My objection to the book is supported.

 

[Vouthon]

@Vouthon ,

Here's the punchline

If the scroll is describing a ritual in hell involving the souls of sinners, then whether or not they prostrate to and and/or offer prayers to a mediator is irrelevant. Their behavior is not a role-model. So the behavior cannot be shown as evidence of mediation in the manner needed in this debate.

Well, the essence of my argument with regards 11q13 is that (according to the majority of scholars, mind and I recognise from the preceding discussion that one may question their interpretation) it describes a 'divine' agent of redemption of 'captives' from sin on the day of judgment, to whom are appropriated certain Tanakh verses normatively understood to refer - in their original context - purely to God himself; on the part of a seemingly human-divine/angelic mediatorial figure (supposing one takes 'Melchizedek' to refer both to the historical person and the heavenly 'mediator' that the Qumranites made him into, seemingly on the basis of his lack of genealogy in Genesis, his blessing of Abraham and the fact he was a high priest before the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood and is associated in Psalm 82 with a priesthood that lasts 'forever' (the Qumranites do not appear to have concurred with the Rabbinic understanding that this refers to Abraham's progeny through Levi)), with this 'agent' referred to as the leader of the "sons of light" (that phrase will be familiar to you from reading John, no doubt: "John 12:36, ESV: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”)

This divine agent in 11q13 is likewise, somehow, associated by the author with an 'annointed one' (messiah figure) in the Book of Daniel (scholars debate - given the lacuna here in the scroll - whether the text is saying that Melchizedek is this messiah or if its suggesting that he is the heavenly counterpart/patron of an earthly 'annointed one').

You will no doubt be familiar with Christian usage of the prophecy of weeks in Daniel? Well, in 11q13 (dated 100 BCE, although thought to predate Qumran and to have first been written circa. 200 BCE) we find reliance upon Daniel which - somehow, again its hard to say for sure given the lacuna - interprets it as messianic-eschatological and ties it to Isaiah 61's proclamation of an eschatological jubilee (freedom of captives, release from prison, the year of YHWH's favour, vengeance of God, comfort to the afflicted). This text suggests that the book of Daniel was drawn into messianic interpretation - and associated with the bearer of 'good tidings' in Isaiah 52:7 - in some strains of Jewish theology that were prevalent in Qumran, before the rise of Christianity.

That these same factors and 'textual appropriations' arise within NT Christianity (including the Gospel of John as one of the volumes of this first century literature) makes it pertinent to ask: did these ideas influence those of the early Christians, who subsequently applied them to Jesus?

John similarly relied upon Isaiah but 'appropriated' scriptural citations that in their original context referred to God (in his case, the anthromorphic theophany in Isaiah's vision of God seated on His throne in chapter 6):

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple."

(Isaiah 6:1)​

"Isaiah said this because he saw his [Jesus's] glory and spoke about him" (John 12:41)​

Of course, Isaiah saw not Jesus in a pre-incarnate form but rather "the Lord" but the Gospel of John appropriates this vision for Jesus (in a not dissimilar manner to how scholars construe the author of 11q13 doing the same in relation to Elohim in Psalm 82 and the tetragrammaton exchanged for El in Psalm 7).

Likewise, just as Isaiah receives the 'coal' from the angel and it is declared: "“Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away, And your sin purged”, the New Testament appropriates for Jesus a role of 'heavenly priestly' mediator of redemption in a heavenly temple which the earthly one was 'patterned after', who descended into hell to ransom the 'captives' in Hades from their sin and is (just like 11q13) directly identified with Melchizedek when acting in this divine agency role.

Thus, we find the Melchizedek scroll from Qumran:

11QMelch II... And concerning that which He said, In [this] year of Jubilee...And it will be proclaimed at the end of days concerning the captives as He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. lxi, 1). Its interpretation is that He will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; for He will cast their [lot] amid the portions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And this thing will [occur] in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them to provide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek...

This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM [reigns] (Isa. lii, 7).​

And similarly in the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament:

"This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”...His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever...

And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears...Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the manner of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron?...

It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, 16 one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life...

Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins...

Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up."

(Hebrews 7-8)
​

Scholars such as Geza Vermes, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Israel Knohl, Mason and many others have argued that this 'divine agent' tradition in Second Temple Judaism is important for understanding how the New Testament portrays Jesus, given that their theology appears to have been influenced by these earlier writings like the Qumran corpus, 1 Enoch etc. (or at least the concepts within them).

 

[dybmh]

Well, the essence of my argument with regards 11q13 is that (according to the majority of scholars, mind) it describes a 'divine' agent of redemption of 'captives' from sin on the day of judgment, to whom are appropriated certain Tanakh verses normatively understood to refer - in their original context - purely to God himself; on the part of a seemingly human-divine/angelic mediatorial figure (supposing one takes 'Melchizedek' to refer both to the historical person and the heavenly 'mediator' that the Qumranites made him into, seemingly on the basis of his lack of genealogy in Genesis, his blessing of Abraham and the fact he was a high priest before the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood and is associated in Psalm 82 with a priesthood that lasts 'forever' (the Qumranites do not appear to have concurred with the Rabbinic understanding that this refers to Abraham's progeny through Levi)), with this 'agent' referred to as the leader of the "sons of light" (that phrase will be familiar to you from reading John, no doubt: "John 12:36, ESV: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”)

I don't dispute any of this.

My objection has been whenever the four letter is name is introduced into the discussion.

In the paragraph above i see it here: "to whom are appropriated certain Tanakh verses normatively understood to refer"

This ^^ is the weak point of the logical chain. If you plot out the chain, you'll see it lies almost perfectly in the middle of the chain.

When the Tanach verses are examined, it has required at least 1 or two to build the argument that leads to the 4 letter name. ( That's what is needed to refute my claim that The Book of John is incompatible with Judaism )

Listen, this is the value that Harel and I can provide. Its in the analysis of the Hebrew and the concepts to see to what extent that they are flawed. If they are deeply flawed the source is suspect.

If the common ground between us is *supposed to be* scripture, then the understanding of the Hebrew in the verses and the Hebrew words in these scrolls/sources/Tanach must also be common ground and mutually agreed between us.

So far we are at that very very beginning stages of that. You and me and Harel. *We* are at the beginning stages of building vernacular.

The problem is that 'scholars' in your sources do not appear to share the vernacular/jargon with Harel and I. So from my perspective, I don't know if your sources really know how to read or understand these old old ideas from a Jewish perspective.

It's just like any trade. An electrician can tell if the person next to them is an apprentice, a temp contractor, an amateur enthusiast ( that's where I'm at ), or a true master crafts person who does it all day every day and makes it look easy. One big piece of that is jargon/vernacular/context. Is what they're saying wise? Or are they about cross some wires and drop 220V to ground straight thru their own beating heart.

So yes, I am in doubt of whether or not the authors of the books you are using are able to discern between Abrahamic Monotheism and Other.

 

[metis]

@Vouthon

Just a few verses that may help put my general approach into perspective:

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”


Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”


14:20: “All foods are clean.”


I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”


Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”


Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”


Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”


Let me just add that at least some archaeologists believe that the "Pharisees" were more of a "movement" than a branch within Judaism, finding evidence that there were at least four different Pharisee groups but generally believing there probably was more according to one of my sources. The difference probably related to how the Law itself should be viewed and/or applied, thus "conservative" v "liberal". The Galilee and northern coastal areas of eretz Israel were generally more the latter they believe, probably more being under the influence of Hellenization.

Thus, the "family argument" that Jesus appears to be involved in was not that uncommon, which is logical since the Pharisees were more Torah-based since the Babylonian Exile had them put more emphasis on scripture since the Temple was destroyed, plus they weren't in eretz Israel anyway. The minute one bases their theology on scripture there's gonna be disputes over interpretation and application, both of which fits into the numerous narratives of Jesus' and the Twelve being questioned by the various Jewish leaders mostly dealing with the Law.

 

[Vouthon]

This ^^ is the weak point of the logical chain. If you plot out the chain, you'll see it lies almost perfectly in the middle of the chain.

The Tanakh verses in question need not always cite the Tetragrammaton, though, and indeed I didn't mention the four-letter name in my above post.

I spoke of how scholars believe the Qumranite author applied Elohim and El to Melchizedek, in Psalms 82 and 7. Again, I welcome your and Harel's insights questioning these scholarly arguements but throughout I have conceded (from the beginning and been open) that my stance in this thread is indebted to the scholarship.

@Harel13 offered a persuasive linguistic case for why he doesn't think that the verse in the Melchizedek scroll referring to the "ratzon" is an allusion to that word in the context of Isaiah 61:2. But I find many of the scholarly arguments in favour of reading ratzon here as an allusion to Isaiah 61 also to be persuasive in the context of the Qumran author's seemingly frequent allusions to terminology from that chapter of the Book of Isaiah and his culminating with a direct quotation of Isaiah 61:1-2.

Concerning the other matters you raise, I fully understand your reservations about the scholarly arguments, although I think - since a number of them speak Hebrew as either a first or second language and they are all qualified to read biblical Hebrew - that they do have the ability to interpret the manuscripts as both you and Harel do.

Whether they have a particular bias in translation is a more distinct matter and I cannot exclude the possibility or allege it either, as I just don't know how they approach translation. You may have a point there.

 

[dybmh]

The Tanakh verses in question need not always cite the Tetragrammaton, though, and indeed I didn't mention the four-letter name in my above post.

I think that's because I am supporting my claim against refutation ( My claim is The Book of John is incompatible with Judaism ).
And you are working on different claim altogether.

At this point, I have stated my case. The more I learn on the subject the more examples I'm collecting to discredit the Book. Most of these come from psalms, which as a whole develop an overarching strong argument that the Book of John as rendered by the NIV does not demonstrate the values of the progeny of King David.

I don't want to continue to describe someone's Scripture as anything other than that, a beloved Scripture to many.

So at this point, I'm happy to answer questions as needed.

 

[metis]

( My claim is The Book of John is incompatible with Judaism ).

Amen to that, imo.

Largely due to it's late writing, to me John's gospel seems to reflect the increasingly hostile division between followers of the Way and Judaism (and Jews) in general. I would suggest by that time Gentiles probably had become the more dominant element within the Church, thus dealing with Jews that didn't covert as being the "other", if you know what I mean.

 

[Vouthon]

Amen to that, imo.

Largely due to it's late writing, to me John's gospel seems to reflect the increasingly hostile division between followers of the Way and Judaism (and Jews) in general. I would suggest by that time Gentiles probably had become the more dominant element within the Church, thus dealing with Jews that didn't covert as being the "other", if you know what I mean.

The Gospel of John - although in its last 'edition' finalised circa. 90 CE after Mark and Matthew (but not Luke, which is now considered to be likely the last written of the gospels) - was a composite of earlier sources that scholars have identified, for example a "Signs gospel" (dated circa. 50 CE) and a Passion narrative that is thought to perhaps be the most primitive of all the Gospel crucifixion narratives (it has none of the elaborate supernatural content described in the synoptics), potentially originating in the 30s or 40s CE of the first century.

These sources are amongst our earliest Christian sources, alongside Mark and the Q sayings source that likely underlies Matthew and Luke, and although they didn't reach final literary form until 90 CE - they are ancient, as reflected in the fact that John's gospel has remarkably precise topographical descriptions of cites in Jerusalem that were destroyed during the Jewish War in 70 CE when the Second Temple was demolished, such as Solomon's Portico and the Pool of Bethsaida, and only recovered again by modern archaeologists.

The sources for this information pre-date 70 CE and were simply incorporated into the final edited "literary" version of the Gospel of John in 90 CE that has come down to us.

Furthermore, the study of the Qumran literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) has demonstrated that the Fourth Gospel exhibits many parallels with the theology of the Jews who collated and preserved these texts in their library (such as the light/dark dualism in the text).

As one Jewish scholar, Adele Reinhartz, who has written a commentary on the text notes:

"...The paradox that this Gospel presents extends to its relationship to Judaism. It makes abundant use of the Hebrew Bible, through direct quotations and allusions, as well as, more subtly, through its appropriation of some of its characters, motifs and stories that are then interpreted through the lens of faith in Jesus as Christ and Son of God. This Gospel also has numerous parallels to other Jewish sources, from the second temple and rabbinic periods, as well as references to Jewish practices...

From a literary-critical point of view, there is no evidence that the Gospel in fact encodes the history and experience of the community in its story of Jesus. With the exception of the expulsion passages, no other parts of the Gospel lend themselves easily to this two-level reading. The well-documented theological diversity within first-century Judaism, as evidenced by the widely differing views of the Pharisees and Sadducees on fundamental matters such as the authority of oral tradition and the belief in bodily resurrection and the distinctive views expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes it unlikely that Jews would have been excluded from the synagogue for believing Jesus to be the Messiah...

For these reasons, John’s Gospel is generally thought to have been completed ca. 85–95 CE. This dating applies to the final version of the Gospel found in the most complete manuscripts of the New Testament, such as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. This final version, however, was the product of a lengthy and complicated history of composition. It is likely that pre-Johannine sources or early versions of the Gospel circulated for some decades before the date of final composition...

The Gospel of John reflects deep and broad knowledge of Jerusalem, Jewish practice, and methods of biblical interpretation. Some references to early first-century Jerusalem topography and landmarks, such as the pool at Beth-zatha near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem (5.2) are supported archaeologically, suggesting direct knowledge of the city and surroundings. The Gospel refers to the Sabbath and Passover as well as to the Feast of Tabernacles (5.1) and Hanukkah (10.22). It explains ritual hand-washing before meals (2.6), a comment that supports the hypothesis, mentioned earlier, that at least some of the Gospel’s intended audience is not of Jewish origin. Most strikingly, the Gospel alludes to a broad range of Jewish ideas. For example, in Jn 6, often called the Bread of Life discourse (6.25–71), it employs argument similar to later rabbinic midrashic traditions.

The Gospel’s prologue applies concepts associated with Lady Wisdom in Prov 8.22–31 and Sir 24 to “the Word” (incarnated in Jesus); the Word is portrayed as preexistent and instrumental in the creation of the world. And like Lady Wisdom, the Word is instructed to take on flesh and dwell in the world (1.14; cf. Sir 24.8).

It must be emphasized that the Gospel is not anti-Semitic in a racial sense, as it is not one’s origins that are decisive but one’s beliefs. Nevertheless, it has been used to promote anti-Semitism...."​

However, I do agree with you that - in its final literary form - the Gospel was consciously striving to articulate an 'identity' for its cosmopolitan audience (comprised - we can deduce from internal evidence - of Jews, Gentiles and Samaritans) that could bind them together in a shared ecclesial community of faith in Jesus as the Messiah and incarnate Word, in spite of their ethno-cultural distinctions, that was no longer reducible to a purely 'Jewish' identity with Gentiles attached (given the shifting demographic make-up) as was the case in earlier generations of the Jesus movement.

I don't agree that the Johannine community was majority Gentile at this time, although I do believe that it contained a considerable number of Gentiles and Samaritans (we need to remember them too, given the attention it gives to the Samaritan reception of the gospel).

But, at the same time, we also do need to be cognisant of what the scholar above recognises: that the text exhibits "abundant use of the Hebrew Bible through direct quotations and allusions", "deep and broad knowledge of Jewish practice and methods of biblical interpretation", "numerous parallels to other Jewish sources from the second temple and rabbinic periods" and "employs argument similar to later rabbinic midrashic traditions".

As such, it is still a text of Second Temple Jewish provenance in origin - in terms of its source material and 'influences' from preceding thought in the Second Temple era (that had not long ended when an editor finally pulled together these disparate sources of the pre-70 CE Johannine community into its final literary form.)

Its a very complicated and at times paradoxical text (reflecting in part its long-drawn out composition history and editorial changes) that cannot, in my opinion, really be reduced to a simple binarism (hence the 'paradoxy' that the above cited scholar mentions).

 

[dybmh]

Amen to that, imo.

Largely due to it's late writing, to me John's gospel seems to reflect the increasingly hostile division between followers of the Way and Judaism (and Jews) in general. I would suggest by that time Gentiles probably had become the more dominant element within the Church, thus dealing with Jews that didn't covert as being the "other", if you know what I mean.

ty. That makes sense.

 

[Clear]

Hi @dybmh

Having dismissed the first two of seven criticisms, we are on your third criticism.

#3 IN DYBMHs CRITICISM OF THE MESSIAH

Desecration of G-d, arguing about halacha in public with Judges .

Can you describe specifically the incident, give us references and explain why you think this criticism of yours against the Messiah, made him "impure" in the eyes of God?

Clear
δρτζφισεω

 

[firedragon]

Amen to that, imo.

Largely due to it's late writing, to me John's gospel seems to reflect the increasingly hostile division between followers of the Way and Judaism (and Jews) in general. I would suggest by that time Gentiles probably had become the more dominant element within the Church, thus dealing with Jews that didn't covert as being the "other", if you know what I mean.

Well. There are many "could-be's" and you may be right that that at the time of the Gospel according to John there were many gentiles since this is definitely 40 to 50 years after Paul's entrance. All that is probable.

But that does not mean it reflects the "increasingly hostile division" which would depend on the way you reflect that point.

The writer or the writers, is or are trying to build bridges between Judaism and Christianity. It could be like you said because of the hostile division that this attempt is called for. However the clever manner in which John is written is eminent in the verses that is trying to appease or pacify Judaism by aligning with Jewish scripture yet preaching the Christian doctrine of the time. Its a fantastic book, an attempt to make Jesus divine in a subtle manner, yet build bridges between Christianity and Judaism. To be precise, this probably is the oldest excellent work of Christian evangelism.

 

[dybmh]

Hi @dybmh

Having dismissed the first two of seven criticisms, we are on your third criticism.

#3 IN DYBMHs CRITICISM OF THE MESSIAH


Can you describe specifically the incident, give us references and explain why you think this criticism of yours against the Messiah, made him "impure" in the eyes of God?

Clear
δρτζφισεω

I have made a pact with myself not to disparage this Book any further, even if that means I look foolish for making a big deal about it previously. Further, since you asked specifically about the Messiah, and we don't agree on who that is, our discussion is destined to crash and burn.

Put simply, it's not my Scripture, I have resolved to refrain from further comments about it.

Sincerely,

 

[metis]

Furthermore, the study of the Qumran literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) has demonstrated that the Fourth Gospel exhibits many parallels with the theology of the Jews who collated and preserved these texts in their library (such as the light/dark dualism in the text).

The light/dark dualism are also common within Greek writings, and Paul especially uses them a lot, probably reflecting his Greek education. Therefore, that approach can be viewed as being both quite Jewish or/and quite a reflection of Hellenization.

I don't agree that the Johannine community was majority Gentile at this time, although I do believe that it contained a considerable number of Gentiles and Samaritans (we need to remember them too, given the attention it gives to the Samaritan reception of the gospel).

Because the Church had mostly moved into the diaspora, and because it attracted so many God-Fearers, and because of the appointees of the Apostles and their appointees as well, the Gentile side was gradually becoming more dominant. Now, whether it was an actual majority in 90+ c.e. is anyone's guess. But my point is that it is this side that's very much growing and increasingly and being reflected in John's Gospel more so than with the Synoptics, as their "tone" is really quite different in various areas.

Its a very complicated and at times paradoxical text (reflecting in part its long-drawn out composition history and editorial changes) that cannot, in my opinion, really be reduced to a simple binarism (hence the 'paradoxy' that the above cited scholar mentions).

It's a mixture, no doubt, but there's changes that are gradually showing up in the Gospels that logically must reflect changes that were taking place within the early Church, especially since the author(s) of John probably had to be familiar with one or more of the Synoptics but yet didn't choose to just parrot them.

I'm going to respond shortly to someone else's post right after this, so maybe check that out.

 

[metis]

Well. There are many "could-be's" and you may be right that that at the time of the Gospel according to John there were many gentiles since this is definitely 40 to 50 years after Paul's entrance. All that is probable.

Yes, and we have to remember that Paul is mainly trying to attract Gentiles and I believe having quite a bit of success in doing so. There was a frustration that not many more Jews in eretz Israel were converting, and one sees this frustration being reflected in the Gospels and some of the epistles.

But that does not mean it reflects the "increasingly hostile division" which would depend on the way you reflect that point.

John 8[39]They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did,
[40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.
[41] You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."
[42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
[43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

To me, this verse says a lot about how the Church increasingly saw Jews who refused to convert, and this unfortunately helped to create a hostile legacy that led to so many atrocities later on.

The writer or the writers, is or are trying to build bridges between Judaism and Christianity.

Probably mainly only in the diaspora though.

However the clever manner in which John is written is eminent in the verses that is trying to appease or pacify Judaism by aligning with Jewish scripture yet preaching the Christian doctrine of the time. Its a fantastic book, an attempt to make Jesus divine in a subtle manner, yet build bridges between Christianity and Judaism.

All the Gospels try to align Jesus with Torah, especially Matthew's, but what I find most interesting with John's is its more mystical tone, thus more reflecting a developing theology found within the Church that we see today. And I do believe Paul had a lot to do with this evolution as he's "connecting dots", thus encouraging changes that would be unheard of within Jewish theological circles, even as compared with the School of Hillel.

To be precise, this probably is the oldest excellent work of Christian evangelism.

I give more of that credit to Matthew's Gospel, but I agree with you that John's had probably even greater impact in the long run.

 

[Vouthon]

especially since the author(s) of John probably had to be familiar with one or more of the Synoptics but yet didn't choose to just parrot them.

This is a much debated point.

Some scholars think John had no awareness of the synoptics and represents a completely synoptic-free, independent tradition. Others assume some knowledge of Mark.

It's difficult to know whether his "assumption" that the reader already knows certain scenes and characters from the synoptics is because he'd actually read their sources (i.e. Mark and Q) or if he was citing stories that had been passed down in the oral tradition.

What scholars agree on, however, is that the sources John utilised - such as this signs source likely from the 50s CE - certainly predate the synoptics and don't appear to be connected with the traditions that spawned them. So, they are independent testimony pretty much.

Luke, it must be said, evidences some awareness of the Johannine traditions in his gospel. For example, he is the only one other than John to refer to the characters of Mary and Martha of Bethany by name. He knew about this Johannine tradition.

Likewise, Luke used this same "light" imagery (which John shares with Qumran) on a sporadic occasion i.e.

"the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes." (Luke 16:8-9)

The "eternal homes / rooms" will be familiar from John's gospel:

"In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?." (John 14:6).

"While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." (John 12:36)

And this also relates to Qumran and the Merkabah mysticism, as Adele Reinhartz has written of this: "There may be an allusion here to the Jewish “Hekhalot” (“palaces”) tradition, involving stories in which a seer visits the heavenly realm and explores its different rooms (based on the chariot vision in Ezek 1, and in such works as 1 En. 17, 18)."

So, Luke seemed to have some awareness of John's sources (he didn't use them much but he did cite them occasionally).

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and we have to remember that Paul is mainly trying to attract Gentiles and I believe having quite a bit of success in doing so. There was a frustration that not many more Jews in eretz Israel were converting, and one sees this frustration being reflected in the Gospels and some of the epistles.



John 8[39]They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did,
[40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.
[41] You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."
[42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
[43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

To me, this verse says a lot about how the Church increasingly saw Jews who refused to convert, and this unfortunately helped to create a hostile legacy that led to so many atrocities later on.

Probably mainly only in the diaspora though.

All the Gospels try to align Jesus with Torah, especially Matthew's, but what I find most interesting with John's is its more mystical tone, thus more reflecting a developing theology found within the Church that we see today. And I do believe Paul had a lot to do with this evolution as he's "connecting dots", thus encouraging changes that would be unheard of within Jewish theological circles, even as compared with the School of Hillel.

I give more of that credit to Matthew's Gospel, but I agree with you that John's had probably even greater impact in the long run.

Sorry brother. Too many "Probably" statements and "Possibilities". I was only speaking from the text of the Gospel of John so the rest I shall leave.

Cheers.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It seems to me that the Gospel of John is the most anti-Semitic of the four. In fact, he seems to go out of his way to praise the Romans and vilify the Jews. Josephus complained about this tendency of other historian in his day.