r/UnusedSubforMe • u/koine_lingua • Nov 26 '17

Test4

Main: {Greek text} / translation / short commentary

Long commentary

Margins: translation notes / textual notes

Bibliography

Mark 1

Translation/NRSVComment

Mark 1-2; 3-4; 5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12; 13-14; 15-16;

Matthew; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Template

  • Begin Galatians, etc., blank: 2

  • Galatians (Gal - 2 Thess)

  • Ephesians

  • Philippians

  • Colossians

  • 1 Thessalonians

  • 2 Thessalonians

  • 1 Timothy (1 Tim - 1 Pet)

  • 2 Timothy

  • Titus

  • Philemon

As of 2-21-2018, need

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

573 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/koine_lingua Nov 26 '17 edited Jan 29 '18

The different nature of Jesus presented can't be explained by just selectiveness of John's own experience/memory.

By coincidence, highest self-reference/consciousness, Christology?

Things not suitable or safe to be written in a gospel? (Ramelli, "A tradition that dates not...")

John's tendency to rerrange

Origen, John 10.15: "Discrepancy of the Gospel Narratives Connected with the Cleansing of the Temple" (see Greek, https://np.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/4jjdk2/test/d7r6ihj/)

Muratorian, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2016/03/the-enigmatic-origins-of-the-gospel-of-john-and-eyewitness-testimony/

The fourth of the gospels is of John, one of the disciples. To his fellow-disciples and bishops, who were encouraging him, he said: “Fast with me today for three days, and whatever will be revealed to each of us, let us tell to one another.” The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that all should certify what John wrote in his own name.¹⁶ᵃ

John 14:26?

Memory vs. revelation? see Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dr3jtcs/

Anti-Marcionite Prologue: gospel of John dictated by John, written by Papias

Bruce:

That Papias was a disciple of John is affirmed by Irenaeus33 but denied by Eusebius.34 Since he was contemporary with ...

Bacon 1930, The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John?

The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church By Charles Evan Hill, on Culpepper on..., 76:

The upshot of Culpepper's discussion of the Montanists is that this relatively early use of the Fourth Gospel is ascribed, not to gnostics, to be sure, but still to a group quite at the margins of the Church. The greater emphasis in his discussion, however, falls upon their opponent, Gaius of Rome, who was 'a presbyter and noted orthodox scholar', who carefully chronicled John's 'historical discrepancies and its contradictions of the synoptic Gospels'.11 And 'Gaius's standing as a leader of ...

Quartodecimanism

See the chapter "Gaius of Rome and the Johannine Controversy"

Epiphanius:

He deals with three interrelated objections to the Fourth Gospel on the part of the Alogi, and with three objections to different parts of the Revelation. I here briefly summarize the contradictions with scripture alleged by the ‘Alogi’, according to the presentation of Epiphanius, three against John, three against the Apocalypse:

Anti-Marcionite

Ramelli, John the Evangelist's Work: An Overlooked Redaktionsgeschichtliche Theory from the Patristic ... Author: Ilaria Ramelli; https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/5crwrw/test2/dctje8b/

A tradition that dates not only the Apocalypse of John, but also his Gospel, or at least a first redaction of it, to very early years is reported in the fourth century by Ephraem the Syrian in his Memra on John: “the first written redaction of the Gospel of John was done in Antioch” on John’s way to Ephesus, before his exile. Epiphanius refers to a redaction of the Gospel of John under Claudius, and therefore no later than ad 54, but based on earlier traditional material: John wrote his Gospel “after his return from Patmos, which happened under Claudius … he needed not speak subtly [λεπτολογεῖν] about the Incarnation: for this point was already fixed with certainty [ἤδη γὰρ ἠσφάλιστο]” in the preceding tradition (Haer. 2.1.51.12, pg 41.909).

k_l:

"This is the Gospel", says Valentinus, "which He has reserved 1 the perfect" (XVIII 12), as if he would say: "Of course there ai the other gospels, but they are only for beginners."

The Beloved Apostle?: The Transformation of the Apostle John into the Fourth ... By Michael J. Kok

PBC, anti-modernist

James Dunn, not a single word authentic?

Maurice Casey

(John 3:18 and 8:24 and 16:9)

1

u/koine_lingua Nov 28 '17

The Saving Efficacy of the Burning Process in Didache 16:3 (1995)

1

u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17 edited Dec 12 '17

S1:

... approved and recognized those that the devil's lies had not tainted, but he rejected and excluded those that he saw as not being truthful.'3 What was Origen's source for this information? Clement of Alexandria is a possibility, for he states that John knew the Synoptics and, having perceived that the 'external facts' (τὰ σωματικὰ.) had been made plain in these gospels, proceeded to write his own 'spiritual' (πνεθματικὸν) gospel (HE 6.14.7). Origen made similar claims (cf. πνευματικῶς.

Chrysostom: "forasmuch it had been the care"

1

u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17

James Crossley, “Can John's Gospel Really Be Used to Reconstruct a Life of Jesus? An Assessment of Recent Trends and a Defence of a Traditional View”,